Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

496

Suggestions / Re: Slipstream opposite: slow fields

« on: September 26, 2021, 09:05:12 AM »

Now we will have ways to get easier and cheaper through the Sector, which is great. But there's also a downside to it, which is this:
Having a fuel efficient, small fleet will be less of an advantage. Likely even fuel guzzling armadas will now be able to travel to the farthest stars, provided the currents are favorable. Which, in my, opinion, is a shame. I love running lean fleets, and even before this change it was rarely worth it for long.

I'll point out if currents are not favorable, they push the fleet in the wrong direction when you cross them or go against them. 

Do these just boost the speed if the fleet is moving in the right direction, or do they actively push the fleet (like pulsar beams do)?

They carry the fleet along, so it's more like pulsar beams, though you have a bit more control, and particularly when near the edges. But, for example, if you try to cross one going perpendicular to it, unless you e-burn, you'll likely get carried along for a light-year or two before you get to the other side. If you do e-burn, you'll still get carried some ways downstream, just not as much. And of course this depends on how fast the stream is at that point, too.

So if we're generous and assume any stream going in the the direction in a 90 degree cone is favorable, then there's only a 25% chance any given stream is going to save you time or fuel.  There's a 50% chance any stream you encounter is perpendicular to your direction of travel which is likely going to increase your trip by 1 to 2 light years trying to cross it, or you e-burn, which is going to cost fuel and CR.  Then there's a 25% chance it's heading in the wrong direction, and you have to run parallel to it but outside it's reach for a  good portion, which may or may not force you through deep hyperspace or prevent you taking the shortest route.

So, if you need to do something out of season, or are literally just going there and back in 30 days, my guess this system is probably more likely to make it worse for fuel guzzling armadas, as then you're moving against the flows.  It's still an RNG system at it's heart so it is definitely not going to be beneficial 100% of the time.  Of course, you can always plan 120 timeout missions with this in mind and do them around the 6 or 12 month mark, or story line missions which never expire, but that's certainly not the majority of the game.  In any case, the current story line reward is much better for getting large fleets around efficiently and quickly, and those travel nodes don't disappear on you.  For now anyways.

I'm going to need to play the final version of slipstreams first, to get a feel for how much the travel dynamics change before suggesting this will make travel easier or harder on average.  I feel like any move to make travel harder at this point is premature as it is unclear, at least to me, that the new slipstream system is easier.  On the other hand, the system clearly spices up hyperspace, which is good.

497

General Discussion / Re: On iron mode and the consequences of loss

« on: September 25, 2021, 11:55:36 AM »

So this thread inspired me to do a pacifist, spacer start, iron man run this past week.  I relied on autopilot while doing long transits in hyperspace.  Just to test out the limits of the already existing mitigation measures, as well as confirm my suspicion you don't need to fight at all to do the story line.

My objective was to get to the end of the story line and enough credits in the bank to start a colony once gates were available.  My fleet throughout the run consisted of the single Hermes shuttle found in the abandoned station in Corvus, fully restored after 1st exploration mission, with no guns, and militarized subsystems, safety overrides, and auxiliary fuel tanks.  First skill point went to Navigation, 2nd to Bulk Transport.  The run ended with the character at level 3 and with 2.5 million credits in the bank, having triumphantly returned to Galatia via Janus device. 

Side note, some of the story line descriptions are kinda hilarious when your fleet is just a shuttle, and you've got a grand total of 4 crew in the fleet - including presumably, yourself.  I had it my head cannon one guy talking as the engineer, then walks around me to the other side of the bridge and talks in a false accent as the navigator or communications officer.

So while in the core systems, I piloted actively, but on mission runs outwards and back in, I just put on autopilot and read a book in real life.  Which meant I ran into a few fleets.  In the end I payed 600 credit tithes to Pather fleets probably a dozen times or so.  So at least for one of the default hostile factions, we have the option of not fighting to the death by paying what amounts to a small amount of credits relative to earning potential.

Pirates quickly became non-hostile after a few exploration missions for them, and so the reputation system can be used to help mitigate random hostile encounters.  However, even before that non-hostile point, I could generally just disengage successfully, no story points needed nor any combat screen, just suffer harassment and some CR loss.

Other hostile mission generated fleets typically I also could just disengage with some loss of CR due to harassment.  Or in the case of one Luddic fleet, pay off with 80,000 credits.  Although transverse jump typically meant I could completely avoid mission fleets in systems.  I only ended up doing one real retreat on the combat screen, which was pretty trivial given my 275 speed with maneuvering jets up (250 average speed).  Fast civilian ships (i.e. frigates mostly) modified for speed instead of cargo can certainly escape most fleets just by flying up.  Fleets with fast phase ships are a potential exception, although on the other hand, those are pretty rare.  Given the entire enemy fleet is shown to you before you choose your action, you can know it's time to spend a story point if they are present.

I did use story line points on unique dialogues when I could, but still ended the run at 9 story points at level 3.5 (10 earned by level 3.5 + 2 story line - 3 used I think?).  Didn't ever need to spend a story point to run, but it was helpful knowing it was there.

Even if at any one point all the features built into the game to keep my fleet alive failed, I'd only have been out some percentage of my credits on hand as a death penalty, and need to spend a total of about 15,000 credits to replace my ship and cargo loss.  I was essentially self-insuring.  Quick console test also shows if I have a fleet wipe with 2.5 million in the bank, I get returned with 2.0 million, so credit loss due to death isn't that bad.

As far as I'm concerned, the key to playing iron man, to borrow a phrase from another game, is "Don't fly what you can't afford to lose".  I have learned through hard experience, if you don't want to start from square one fleet wise, don't push your fleet to the limits of what you can afford and have on hand.

In my more typical runs, in addition to hoarding weapons at a drop spot (abandoned station, size 3 colony with negative growth on a gas giant in Duzahk), I also hoard useful ships.  If you're doing any sort of significant combat, the game literally throws tens of ships at you as salvage, so every time I return to my stash, I drop off another ship or two I've picked up.  What I have in storage generally outpaces what I have in my fleet - I'll typically have unused d-mod capitals before I've actually decided to transition to using capitals in my fleet.  It means my active fleet grows slightly slower perhaps, but my progress only gets set back a few minutes instead of out a few hours in a fleet wipe or fleet retreat situation.

Anything less than losing a fight outright just means I've got some new d-mods or I'm out some credits doing restores.  Ships can be made guaranteed recoverable in many ways, so it is entirely within the player's control to ensure "can't afford to lose" ships are not permanently lost due to a single mistake in combat.

Finally we come to arguably the easiest but most time intensive to acquire resource, story points.  I feel these require some discipline in their use, or at least experience and feel for their rate of gain.  I typically keep a healthy margin on hand, like 5 or so, as well as not flying all my s-mod ships at one time.  By level 15, you'll have earned 56 story points, and I typically don't need more than 20 s-mods in an end game fleet (perhaps 30 if I'm running special modifications), depending on skill choices.  That still leaves another 20-35 story points, just from hitting max level, that don't necessarily need to be invested in your primary fleet.  So at many points I'll be sitting on a pile of already s-modded ships in storage, as insurance against the worst case.  Or have the ability to s-mod up 4 capitals quickly.

I feel like experience in iron man games make my non-iron man games better and faster simply because I don't reach for the reload button, and I just roll with the punches.  I also evaluate threats much better.  In that sense, consequence in iron man has become one of my better teachers for the game, and forced me to incorporate a lot of the less used mechanics the game has.  I save time by not replaying the last fight 3 times to have no losses, when instead, I could have had 2 more fights in that time and made enough credits to restore the ships from the 1st fight.  It wouldn't surprise me if some people replay several hours worth of game time via save/reload over the course of an entire campaign, given late game fights might be 10 minutes or more real time each.  Or depending on how often they makes saves in long play sessions.

So in summary, I feel like a lot of the suggestions can already be done in game with the tools we have on hand.  Story points are essentially universal currency  to "buy off" any hostile fleet.  For factions for which it makes sense, you can also sometimes buy off fleets with credits.  A fleet of sufficiently fast civilian ships can simply disengage without ever going to the retreat screen and just pay some supplies.  Insurance can simply be done by holding a reserve of credits along with ships and weapons in storage.  With experience, the already existing campaign layer can be used to mitigate a wide variety of potential losses at the combat layer.  Could the game use some more tools?  Maybe?  I'm only a single player with experience at my skill level, so I can't speak for everyone.  Over time, I've come to realize the most recent versions of the game do at least give me the tools necessary to mitigate a total loss, or avoid it entirely.

498

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.95a (Released) Patch Notes

« on: September 24, 2021, 10:05:12 AM »

I am trying to make it easy to look at the comm directory at the slight expense of the bar's interaction flow. Like you are thinking with the submenu, but the comms directory is the submenu so it is streamlined.

Going to the bar would be "arrive at market" -> press 1 "look at comm/market directory" -> press 1 "go to bar". 1-1 instead of 2; no big deal, just a quick double tap.

I think I see what you're suggesting.  It would be a rework of the comm directory such that you can interact with it via mouse or keyboard press, since currently there are no number options available on the comm directory.

I still feel like it is two screens to look at to get the information you want, namely "Is there anything interesting on this planet I care about?".  Forcing the player to go the through the comms screen when there's nothing interesting there (i.e. no one to hire, no quests, no contacts), from a design standpoint, feels less than optimal to me.  Especially, if you're then diving into the bar to find nothing there as well.  It can also still lead to people skipping it if they get in the habit of double clicking and don't bother looking as they speed through,especially if they've got a full compliment of officers/administrators already.

I feel like in a really good user interface, information the player cares about (i.e. what makes this planet unique to interact with) should be presented front and center, from the very first screen.  Enough information so that you know looking at any given sub-screen is worth while.  Looking at a comm directory screen if there is nothing the player wants to do with it is pointless and just busy work, even if it is quick busy work.  If you have AI cores to turn in or want to start a commission, you actively know you want to go there, so no highlighting or extra communication necessary, and you are actively using the screen.  The random elements which aren't there all the time are the ones that need to be advertised prior to the screen.

Another way to put it is if a player is being led through a screen, even briefly, you should be able to answer the question "Why does the player want to look at this screen right now?".  If the answer is, to see if anything RNG has shown up, then I'd ask, could that randomly rolled presence or absence have been communicated earlier in a reasonable way?

So I'd almost rather the comm directory option at the top level (i.e. "1. Open the comm directory), be changed when officers/administrators, or quest contacts are available.  So if there's no one to hire present, it's the default "1. Open the comm directory", but if there's a hireable, do something like "1. Open the comm directory along with independent personnel advertisements".  You could also do this with the bar.  If there's nothing available in the bar it could say, "Take a shuttle down to visit a mostly empty dockside bar".

Going further along UI changes, I could see changing the text color of the comm directory to some color-blind friendly other color when there is an "!" (i.e. quest action) as well.  Change the text color on the "go to bar" to the same color when there's a specific quest interaction there as well (getting roughed up by the local intelligence authority comes to mind).  Also highlight the military options when you have a quest to do a particular military action.  I know I've gotten confused at least once on which military option does what to accomplish the goal someone has provided me.  Highlight the interactions which lead to the quest action in some way, all the way from the very 1st interaction screen.  We already have these kinds of meta information details (the ! in the first place), so I don't feel like the highlighting would be out of place.  However, this potentially is much harder to code up, as it'd require some kind of flagging system that passes information through a text tree.

The comm directory being the place to interact with your contacts to get missions, but the bar being where you get other missions does feel a bit weird, and I feel like is one of the driving forces behind this discussion.  A potentially easier to code rework than reworking the comm directory GUI completely would be to instead add a text option in the bar (instead of the gui mouse like comm directory) if you've got contacts on the planet. Like "1. Pull out your off-brand tri-pad and call...", and then go to a sub-text menu that gives numerical options for the contacts "1. Jill, your military contact", "2. Jack, your trade contact", "3. Jim, your underworld contact".   Then getting to your only contact on planet becomes a quick press 2, press 1, press 1.  Exiting out of the conversation drops you back to the bar, ready to go look for more missions, rather than the very first planet menu.

You could also add an option "2. Browse through the local personnel advertisements", that then lists "1. Jason, a freshly graduated cadet", "2. Jacelyn, a battle hardened veteran officer", representing the officers that could be hired on the comm directory.  If there are no contacts, or no one to hire, then neither sub-menu shows up in the bar menu.  This means pressing 2 once, and reading the options is enough to know if there's anything RNG related that might be of interest is on planet.  A single, unified RNG related menu.

Essentially, instead of making the comms directory the one stop shop, you could make the bar the one stop shop for RNG stuff.  I feel like text menu changes are easier than GUI overhauls, although I could be wrong.  The comms directory would remain exactly the same, and would be a fall back to get further missions if the bar is inaccessible (due to hostilities for example).  So you would have two different ways to hire officers or reach your mission contacts instead of one like we have now.
 
Anyways, that is how I'd approach it.

499

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.95a (Released) Patch Notes

« on: September 23, 2021, 09:28:19 PM »

Yeah, comms screen and bar being separated is pointless. In fact, there should be a unified "interact with the colony" screen for comms, bar and other activities, like going to meet Arroyo or Daud.

Oh yeah, those are also in the first set of options. Compressing all that into one spot is a good idea.

I was thinking it would be nice to be able to add more location buttons in the comms directory than just the bar - for example the Roider Union's ship retrofitting service could be there instead of tucked away in the bar. Something like:

COLONY NAME
|-----------|
|      Bar     |
|-----------|
|  Retrofits  |
|-----------|
| Meet Daud|
|-----------|
| NPC | NPC |
| NPC | NPC |
|                |
|-----------|

I do wonder from a "How many buttons do I need to press to do X", whether this is an improvement or not.  If you're not actually merging the bar sub-options  (i.e. press 1 to talk with historian, press 2 to talk with merchant, press 3 to talk with pather) with the comm directory screen (all the administrators/officers/etc), that doesn't sound like an improved flow to get to the bar options.  Especially if it's press 1, mouse over to the graphical representation of the bar, then go back to pressing buttons to talk to the historian.  The mouse flow interrupts and slows the whole process down.

If you're simply putting all the comms and bar and such under a new sub-menu (like how the military options are combined), then we're just adding more button presses compared to what we have now.  Press 1 and then 1 again to get comms, press 1 and then 2 to get bar strikes me as slower.

I feel like you'd have to merge it all on to one screen (so no separate bar sub-menu/screen) would be the only real way to improve interface flow over what we have now.  There is also some mechanical differences between bar, quest actions, and comm directories in terms of when you're allowed to access them.  If you're hostile to the station with transponder on, your only option generally is the comm directory - no access to things like the bar.  Not to mention quest actions on planets without a comm directory.    Although I'm guessing that wouldn't be too hard to code into such a composite screen, but potentially could get crowded with a lot of mods.  I guess I'd need to see a better mock up to get a feel for how the user flow would go and how expandable it'd be.

500

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.95a (Released) Patch Notes

« on: September 22, 2021, 05:27:42 PM »

Also there could be some bar events/missions where player end-up encountering a character that wants to join his fleet as officer (uhhh, this one doesn't already exist, right?).

The reveal the location of a Pather base bar event has the option of spending a story point to turn the "contact" into an officer instead of paying them off with credits.

501

Suggestions / Re: Weird AI fleet behavior defending a station.

« on: September 21, 2021, 11:15:27 AM »

I'd be interested in hearing how you would want an approach and hold formation command to play out in practice.

Would this be hold in formation until first contact with the enemy?  Or maintain after contact?  How would you see reinforcements interacting with such an order?  Would this be the equivalent of a line of move orders horizontally across, even with the station, one for each ship?

I admit, it's probably a better situation than a single defense point behind the station, halfway to the edge, and only a few escort ships moving outwards to the sides.  On the other hand, two defend orders, assuming they are far enough forward, is moving in that direction, although using current command logic.

The thing about formation commands is I'm not sure how rigid of a relative positioning people envision for them?  If they're not rigid, then they are likely similar to a defend, move, or escort commands, perhaps with more space between ships?.  If they are rigid, that makes it easier to pick off ships on the side of the formation by a player if that side ship can't withdraw.  There's possibly some middle ground, but even in that case I always wonder how one indicates the direction the formation should be and how that interacts with the positions of enemy ships relative to the formation.  Do ships simply turn in place, or do they swing around forcing ships to wheel around the center?

502

General Discussion / Re: NPC shipbuilding ramble

« on: September 17, 2021, 10:12:43 PM »

I think whether mechanics like this make sense depends on what end game is eventually going to look like in Starsector and the goal of the fleet generation code in general is.

If the game moves more towards a Nexerlin style "conquer the core worlds" option, then it makes more sense for fleets to become weaker the more you hit them.  If you're doing well in a war, then it ideally would present quicker buckling of enemy forces instead of a long slog.  If you've got a fleet strong enough to repel expeditions and invasion fleets, then you don't need to be constantly proving it.  The goal is the elimination of enemy fleets entirely and "winning" the game.

On the other hand, vanilla Starsector at the moment doesn't go the conquer the core route, and in fact, eliminating the core has negative effects.  While it is less simulationist, from a game play standpoint it is more satisfying that difficult fleets are available to fight as your own fleet strength grows.  Remnants and Explorium drones do the exact opposite of these kinds of mechanics as their fleets are destroyed. They get stronger and provide even harder fights rather than presenting easier fights.

I guess the question to ask is, what is the benefit to gameplay to damaging the sector wide economy and ship generation?  If it's just making the player's life harder by making ships and weapons are harder to find and buy, or leaving fewer good quality salvage ships after combat (finding only 5 d-mod ships instead of 1 or 2 d-mods after each fight), then you're just punishing the player for success.  So the answer might be there are no benefits in vanilla, but mods could certainly introduce some payoff or benefit.

Having better modding hooks built into say the route manager, to allow for different campaign level mods seems like a very reasonable request to me however.  Although I have no clue how much effort is involved in that on Alex's part, nor the specific hooks you need.

503

Suggestions / Re: Autofire and Fire Mode loadout is still being randomly ignored.

« on: September 17, 2021, 01:18:24 PM »

Auto-fire isn't an AI setting though, it's a player-assist setting.
It's like complaining that your saw is a terrible hammer: Of course it is, it's not supposed to be a hammer.

If this was truly the case (which it of course isn't), why is the AI disabling my autofiring setting because my piloted ship was accidentally in the group I selected to give a tactical command to? And I thought to just have given plenty clear examples why the firing mode should not be overridden by the AI. Why ignore something useful?

I'm going to agree with Yunru, it's a player assist at start of combat setting.

The reason for your weapon selection/autofire state changing is as soon as you give your ship a tactical order, you are no longer piloting it, the autopilot is.  It's not your ship anymore in terms of commands, and thus acts like any other AI ship.

If you put the ship under AI control, why would you expect it to act different from any other AI controlled ship?  I personally expect it to act like an AI ship, and my guess is that would be most player's expectations.  I'll note, as soon as you do anything (like select a weapon group), it goes back to being under player control, so clearly weapon group selections and autofire status are considered important for the AI to function, and if it doesn't have full control of those, will hand everything back to the player.

So here is my stab at explaining what I see is the miscommunication.  There are two very distinct features being discussed here in regards to the autofire toggle on the loadout screen, as opposed to in combat autofire status.

1) Convenience feature for the player reducing the number of shift-number button presses at the beginning of each and every fight.

2) Fine grained AI control determining when weapons fire.

I totally agree that the autofire toggle on the loadout screen does nothing for AI ships, but on the other hand, that is not its intent.  It is purely a convenience for me, the player, to save on pointless repetitive motions.  It means I don't have to stretch my left hand awkwardly to hit shift-7 every fight to turn my point defenses on my Onslaught or Paragon.  I would object if that convenience feature was taken away by combining it with a fine grained AI control setting which has absolutely nothing to do with how I fly my flagship at the beginning of each fight. 

If such a fine grained AI control were added, it should be a different toggle, as Alex suggested, or completely new screen intended for AI control stuff, and not remove features that are currently used by, I would guess, most players for flagships.

As for autofire in combat itself, it is intended to be an in combat toggle, for both the player and AI.  Removing the option from the AI's pool of options seems like it could only hurt the general ship case, and breaks the symmetry between AI and player piloting, while perhaps helping some small parameter space of highly optimized loadouts.  The game would likely be poorer for it (or harder, as all the default loadouts for the AI would need to be tweaked to take into account this new autofire behavior, and thus be much more optimized flux wise) and the parameter space of loadouts that are viable would shrink.

I think this feature request would need to be a new feature, and not interact with the current autofire logic and settings, but be its own new thing.  It also feels like such an override of the basic AI should be hidden behind a tutorial explaining in detail what the general effects of each would have on the AI, and intended only for advanced players who understand what it's going to do to ship behavior.  And not on the standard loadout screen. 

In summary, changing logic to not touch autofire once set is likely easy for Alex.  However, I fear there would be complicated repercussions for every single ship and combat, that would not be as easy to handle.

504

General Discussion / Re: Enemy fleets larger over time?

« on: September 13, 2021, 05:31:26 PM »

Well, Alex is the game designer as I understand it, so I'll wait to hear from more Veteran players.

Something must be determined by character level or time in game or something, because the ships available in the faction military base stores do get larger as the game progresses.

In terms of availability, do you mean have access to, or showing up at all?  I just started a fresh game, no mods, went to Jangala on day 1, and see two Onslaughts and a Legion for sale (along with 4 combat cruisers, and a smattering of destroyers and frigates) on the military tab.  I don't have the reputation, commission, or the credits to buy them, but they are there.  And that is consistent with my experience.  I'm pretty sure colony size, industry/military base status, and stability play into what size ships and what d-mods you end up seeing.  But big ships are just as available early as late game.  I've never noticed a trend related to time or level in terms of ship shopping.

Intel bounty fleets size (i.e. the ones that randomly pop up on the intel screen when near an appropriate comm relay) has one of the inputs on their size being the number of intel bounty fleets you've completed previously.  So those are indirectly correlated with level.  You get experience for beating the fleets, but it's not because your level is X+1 that the next intel fleets is bigger, it's because you beat the fleet.

505

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.95a (Released) Patch Notes

« on: September 13, 2021, 05:15:33 PM »

I feel like many veteran Starsector players have a giant stash of weapons they collect and never sell, since selling them isn't really worth it, and the stores never have that one weapon you're looking for when you need it.

The better question is, why don't you have a hoard of weapons? It's the only way to guarantee you'll have at least basic access to every role you need.

Never said I didn't.  Having played since 0.7.2, I feel like I fall into the veteran category for Starsector by now, so in my mind, I was including myself in the statement.

506

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.95a (Released) Patch Notes

« on: September 13, 2021, 01:06:42 PM »

And those that are 'rescued' have to be evaluated as 'is this person useful right now?', because it's going to be a non-trivial amount of time before I can throw them at an academy to change them to a disposition I can actually use.

Out of curiosity, what is the academy that can change an officer disposition?  Is it from a mod?  I'm unfamiliar with that in the base game.  I am familiar with the mentoring option accessed from the officer screen in the 0.95a release, which lets me spend a story point and shift an officer's original nature by 1 along the timid/cautious/steady/aggressive/reckless continuum, along with being able to pick from among 3 skills at level up instead of 2.  Admittedly, that option is greyed out for max level (or higher) officers you happen to find, but it is an instant effect otherwise.

Although, question to Alex, would it hurt to allow it to at least shift a max or higher level officer's nature, even if you don't get the leveling benefits?  It would certainly mean those high level cautious/steady officers I find in escape pods in the wild would be more likely to be used.

It just seems a bit rough when officers are now hard required or it makes the game 10x harder, but the only way to get them is play 3 separate lotteries each of which involves a significant investment of playtime which may or may not line up with what you actually want to do.

To be honest, officers are only required for the combat portion of the game.  If you're not focusing on combat at the time, then you can pretty much ignore them, and simply run from/avoid significant threats.  If you're not doing a lot of combat, officers are a negative as they're just draining credits without doing anything. 

The way I see them, is when I'm gearing up to a combat fleet, officers are just another piece of the puzzle I have to put a little time into getting, along with good combat ship hulls, sufficient rarer weapons, and hull mod unlocks.  All of which are lottery driven as well.  Although I do tend to grab good officers/weapons/hull mods as I find them and hoard them in anticipation of that transition.

If officers are so vitally important that the game is significantly harder without them, why is there no guaranteed way of getting them regardless of what the player is doing?

This could be leveled at any of the random aspects of the game that feed into fleet strength.  At the moment in 0.95a, I personally don't have too many issues with officer rarity given the new mentoring mechanics, as 80% of starting officer dispositions are at least usable (cautious->steady and reckless->aggressive help a lot), and 3 picks at level up leaves me with at least one good skill pick. 

Finding an Odyssey to purchase, on the other hand, when I've got more than enough credits on hand is a pain.  Or making sure I've got Plasma Cannons/Tachyon Lances stored somewhere, as the shops inevitably don't have them when I finally have a ship to fit them on.  I feel like many veteran Starsector players have a giant stash of weapons they collect and never sell, since selling them isn't really worth it, and the stores never have that one weapon you're looking for when you need it.

507

General Discussion / Re: I don't pilot my own ship in combat

« on: September 06, 2021, 10:04:18 AM »

What? You're telling me the intended way to play the game is to *not* pilot a ship?

No, no I did not. So since everything posted after this is based on this incorrect starting point I'll just stop you there.

Are you not intended to save scum? Hardcore is a thing, is that the "intended way to play the game" suddenly now. No, it's a way. Same difference.

I'll point out the tool tip on Iron Mode literally says "This is the setting the game is intended to be played on, but since it's an alpha right now, use at your own risk".  So it may not be the analogy you were looking for.  Yes, you are intended to play the game without save scumming.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure Alex would be the first to tell you to play the game in a way you find fun, and has no issues with people finding different ways to enjoy the game, it's not just where his vision of the game experience is going.  Save scumming is in the same category as using autopilot all the time.  A happy unintended consequence that some people enjoy.

I feel like the only mistake Foof made was confusing what you're saying the game is currently versus what you're advocating the game to become, although I admit I'm having a tough time parsing that distinction with the way you are wording things.  Calling piloting personally cheating can be interpreted from a developer's stand point.  If a developer declares that doing something is cheating, it is by definition not part of the game's vision or intended way to play.  You've said you feel like it's cheating, but some people may have missed that and read it as it is cheating, which is a very subtle difference and easy to miss, and what you're trying to distinguish here with this last post (again in a very round about way).  If you feel like it's cheating, you as a player are trying to express you don't like the intended gameplay as opposed to developer's intent.

As for your actual message, some of us have stated we enjoy the piloting part of the game.  Completely removing it's effect would be a massive change to what the game fundamentally is.  There's nothing inherently wrong with that other game you are advocating for, but it is one I would be less interested in and likely not play.  I have no issues with the game being balanced around player skills (and Doom/phase ship changes are going to be in the next patch, so Alex agrees at least on that front), but if my piloting or not makes no significant difference to outcomes, what is the point in piloting at all or getting better at it?  If piloting can only make outcomes worse (i.e. autopilot is always equal to or better than human piloting), then effectively the intent becomes not to pilot at all.

You might get a better reception if you explained how much an impact you'd like to see piloting to have.  As much as fleet composition and loadout?  As much as campaign layer wealth generation buying whatever ships you need?  Beating an end game Ordo with Radiant(s) in a self piloted game start Wolf just doesn't work right now.  So clearly there already is a ceiling on what player skill can do on it's own without these other considerations.  Do you have a suggestion for how to improve the AI in an easy way that Alex hasn't tried, or are you simply suggesting the entire game's movement and positional abilities/speeds be toned down?  How would you get to the point of having the game you want from the current game?  Simply saying piloting is cheating/casual doesn't tell us much other than you don't like the current game's piloting effectiveness.

I think the fact that if you apply a high level of skill to fleet composition, along with commands issued in combat, you can find success in end game confrontations means that the ability to pilot a ship hasn't yet skewed the overall level of difficulty too much.  I also disagree with your assertion that player skill and what is possible in a solo ship is not taken into account when Alex makes updates.  The previously mentioned Doom/phase changes are attempts to mitigate some of that.

508

General Discussion / Re: I don't pilot my own ship in combat

« on: September 03, 2021, 01:52:25 PM »

My point mainly is that personal skill in this case has an insane impact on gameplay difficulty and people don't acknowledge it's impact much at all in threads related to balance.

It's quite true that personal skill does have a large impact, but that's true of many games of many types that people find fun.  I don't think people are ignoring it though.

It seems like a terrible idea from a balance perspective to focus more power into an unstable variable like player skill. Alex can clearly do w/e he wants but this is a reality.

I know you're talking about piloting, but I want to approach this comment by looking at if from a different skill perspective.

The ability to configure ships well, and pick ships that compliment each other, really does have a wide player skill range.  Just take a look AI tournament submissions and try running them against each other.  Of course, I personally don't consider it a cheat/exploit to customize your ship and fleets, since it's intended to be there and seems to add fun for many players.  More generally, I don't think I'd call configuring your fleet cheating or casual play.  Even if I did, I don't see cheating or casual gameplay as a problem unless it is reducing the fun of the game (for the player or others) - which at the end of the day is the entire point of games.

Fleet setup is a skill that can be developed, but it's definitely has a massive impact on a player's success or failure in the game.  A fleet composed only of over fluxed, high explosive only Onslaughts against end game Ordos is going to do far worse than a balanced fleet with two anchor capitals supported by some screening ships to prevent flanking, along with missile/fighter support ships which can effectively fire over allies to concentrate fire.  Adding more ships and weapons with each release just means even more places for fitting skills to shine or fall flat.  I suppose one could limit that variable by removing the ability to choose and outfit ships - just hand the player pre-made fleets that can't be modified would eliminate that unstable variable, although I feel it would reduce interest in the game.

Now to get back to the skill you were referring to, specifically personal skill piloting a ship, I think similar arguments apply.  Success and failure in game are highly impacted, but if you reduce or eliminate agency in that regard, you will reduce interest in the game.  Alex clearly cares about the skill ceiling associated with piloting, given the changes that are coming for phase ships, for example.  And I feel like in balance discussion threads, the concept of in player hands or in AI hands is either explicitly mentioned or implicitly assumed.  And I've never heard anyone say they believe everyone plays at the same skill level.  I personally often qualify statements as being mutable due to piloting, officer choice, and fitting.

I'm not even sure which design decisions discussed in threads on the board you're referring to.

At the end of the day, Starsector is a game with a variety of different concepts merged into a single, greater whole.  The game would not be the same without the piloting, nor would it be the same without the fleet either.  I personally think there is a synergy, which makes for a fun game that is different from many others.  I have plenty of RTS games I have and could play, including things like Sins of Solar Empire or Starcraft that scratch the space ship or sci-fi itches.  But I play Starsector because it tests my piloting judgement and skill.  I originally came to Starsector when looking for something similar to Escape Velocity:Nova.  A top down, 2-D spaceship combat with trade and multiple storylines without the fleet customization options.

Not that there's anything wrong with playing Starsector as an RTS and having fun that way - but it's not the only or primary reason I personally play it.  Now if you want to call me a cheater because of that, feel free, but it seems like an unusual way to try to convince people to your viewpoint.

509

General Discussion / Re: Please don't overnerf the Fury

« on: September 02, 2021, 01:14:43 PM »

Feel free to tell me if I'm in denial and it should definitely get annihilated.

15 to 20 is a crazy big nerf, though.

Yuuuup, this is the same as a 45 DP capital getting bumped to 60. Overperforming ships should be slowly brought down, not kneejerk reaction nerf them because people are yelling. For 2 Furies you could deploy a whole capital, that seems a bit off.

[/quote]

I'll note the Radiant is getting its DP increased from 40 to 60 DP, which is a 50% jump, while the Fury is only a 33% increase.  Do you feel that raising the Radiant's cost to 60 DP is annihilating it or a kneejerk reaction?  Personally, I don't think the size of the change matters.  The question is, what is the appropriate final balance point that it should be at, not what the relative change is.  Keep in mind, this isn't a next day patch kind of change.  It's happening over more than 6 months by the time next patch comes out.  So people have had plenty of time to mull it over and play with it at the current deployment cost.

Also, do you have thoughts on the 15 to 20 DP jump for the Pirate Falcon?  It is an identical sized jump, and we've had that ship through multiple releases now.

I will note that a DP change is primarily a late game fleet composition nerf, as opposed to an early game or mid-game balance change.  The 5 extra supplies here and there tend to be lost in the noise for me.  I still think the ship will be excellent for leading destroyer/frigate packs and better than a Falcon as a first cruiser.

As for where its deployment cost should be is a tough call.  Fully kitted, they have strong shield tank combined with high mobility, which means they survive extremely well.  Those two factors seem to offset the AI's tendency to get into bad positions via plasma burn. Throw on SO and they can be packing the effective firepower of 1 and a third Plasma cannons backed by ion cannons and quite reasonable PPT.

Having played with it, 15 DP does feel too low.  9000 flux capacity, is 600 flux dissipation, 90 speed, possibility for 360 shields at 0.7 efficiency.  It all adds up to fairly strong package.  Would 18 DP be the right number?  Maybe?  It's only 10% different from 20 DP, and well, 10% is easily lost in officer skills, fitting, fleet composition, fleet orders, and player piloting.  I think Furies will definitely still see use at a 20 DP point - although you probably won't be seeing end game fleets composed solely of Furies at that point, but used to fill a fleet need and compliment other ships.  Or maybe you will.  I remember seeing a post somewhere of a player testing their current Fury fleet assuming the new DP cost and it still had no losses against Ordos with Radiants, so likely still strong enough for typical end game.

510

General Discussion / Re: Lost in Campaign Tutorial Combat

« on: August 24, 2021, 09:51:42 AM »

Thanks, that did the trick!

I think in future versions it would be good to add an explanation about this. If you go from the tutorial right to the campaign, as I did, this will be your first time seeing the command view with no introduction at all.

From the start screen, there are 3 tutorials accessible under Tutorial: combat, advanced combat, and fleet command.  The fleet command tutorial starts you out in the command interface and explains how to tab between piloting and command.  It also explains how to deploy ships, issue orders, and transfer command between ships.

The tutorial from the campaign is more about the campaign layer of the game, and I believe assumes you have knowledge from the 3 other tutorials already.

So to clarify your suggestion, are you saying there should be more in game messages directing new players to do all 3 tutorials before jumping into the campaign or missions?  All 3 are really necessary to understand how to get the most out of the game.

Or does the fleet command tutorial need more work to be clearer about transitioning between piloting and command?  Clearly, the game failed to teach the necessary commands, and knowing where the game specifically failed would make the suggestion easier to act on for Alex is my guess.  For every player that comes to the forums and actually registers, there's presumably more that have the same problem and don't bother to post.