Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

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.

Messages - pigreko

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9]
121
General Discussion / Re: range indicators fail?
« on: March 09, 2012, 12:58:09 AM »
I little addition to the thread: I know understand the drop dog mechanic, good, but I feel not being able to actually see where my weapons can reach is kind of a missing feature. For instance it could be done with a range indicator of different color, OR the bonus distance should be reduced to something less significative. Actually weapons like plasma cannons fire bolts that travel for at least a 20% more beyond the indicator, and with all that burst dmg you can deal with a huge dmg drop if means landing 2 hits on a dodgy target.


BTW it just about the feeling and some peculiar situations, weapons work pretty fine for me for everything else... damn I love this game.

122
General Discussion / Re: range indicators fail?
« on: March 08, 2012, 12:26:04 PM »
thanks for the info mates

123
Suggestions / a simple carrier feature
« on: March 08, 2012, 11:16:50 AM »
I think there is one simple ability missing to the carriers: to "carry" fighters.

I'm talking about carriers being able store very limited number of fighters in their cargo bay.
The idea is that when I enter the battlefield with a carrier there is a set of fighters directly popping out of it without the need to spend more fleet points.
This free pack of fighters could be something linked to the kind of carrier you are using (like an astral with 3 drone wings), or maybe something players could decide in an alternate fleet tab.

what do you think?

124
General Discussion / range indicators fail?
« on: March 07, 2012, 04:19:19 PM »
I've now tried every weapon in the game, and what I noticed is that only beam weapons range is correctly displayed. Every other weapon is able to hit a target way beyond the displayed range. The Plasma Cannon bolts flies for a bonus 20% or maybe more, just to pick one. Is this intended?

125
Suggestions / Re: overloading versus venting
« on: January 28, 2012, 07:07:27 PM »
Having your shields change colours (canadian spelling of color), would be handy say gradualy changing from blue to red as your flux goes up.

You could overload without having the shields up since there are weapons able to rise the flux level on their target.
Adding some flavour to the shields when you are supercharged seems a nice idea, but I'd prefer something directly on the ship's hull, like some sparks around the vents.

126
General Discussion / Re: Spinning barrels? What for?
« on: January 25, 2012, 12:03:39 PM »
Both of those have problems with the fact that the magnets would need to be replaced frequently at least in today's testing designs. Gunpowder weapons require very little in a technical way and require very little training to operate and repair to keep functioning while a rail gun is much more complicated.

not really, the coil needed for the mass driver is not a magnet but a conductor. And the what generates the ele.magnet field is the shape of the coil itself, whenever you discharge the impulse to fire. That is why they are actually not so hard to produce/use.

127
General Discussion / Re: Spinning barrels? What for?
« on: January 24, 2012, 07:21:26 PM »
Hm, it is all about efficiency. I am pretty sure that the theoretical energy efficiency of a railgun should be much higher then that of powder weapons, i don't see where large energy losses would be absolutely necessary. So if you have a sufficiently efficient energy source, the fuel + bullet for a railgun should take up a lot less space then powder + bullets for a powdered gun.

However, i think one important factor should also be style. A railgun feels far "cleaner" than a powdered gun, where you are basically producing a lot of additional unwanted trash in the form of shell hulls, gases, additional heat, and so on, when compared to the railgun which basically takes a lump of metal and energy and without a lot of byproducts accelerates the bullet.

You raise a very good point, if rail-guns do one day become efficient, weapons relying on gunpowder discharge to function may well go away. I guess I'll have to appeal to the lore to prop up this argument. Given how many high-technologies have been on the decline for many centuries, the ability to produce or maintain railguns might have become too expensive for everyone without a functional government backing them. Thus powder discharge weapons might make a comeback due to how easy it might be to produce these types of rounds and barrels. Although, since I've not known anything about the lore that specifies this, I think I'll leave this point to speculation :P.

Quote
I don't really agree with this. If you have efficient railguns, they should be more effective then gunpowder weapons in pretty much any situation. Worst case, you need another additional reactor (or a larger one) for the additional power, but since you also need a lot less space for the bullets (you don't need bullet hulls and powder, just good shaped pieces of metal), that should balance out to still having more space left over. Also, i am pretty sure that heat, or more specifically getting rid of it, is a very important aspect in space combat. And i just can't see a railgun ever producing more excess heat than a gunpowed weapon. Sure, you have pretty high currents to induct the necessary magnetic fields, but as long as you have good enough conductors that should still work out. Using superconductors might be problematic because of the formerly mentioned heat problems, but it is pretty easy to increase the conductivity of any conductor by simply increasing its size.

Some areas may become efficient, and others may be stagnant. Perhaps these rail-guns though highly energy efficient, are produced in materials that are prohibitively expensive, or ammunition that doesn't harm the barrel is, or their maintenance might be staggering or require a great deal of expertise whereas a chain gun or simple gunpowdered weapons might not. In any case, I don't know whether any of my objections are true on this point, so I'll concede this part of the argument :D.

On a pointless realism point of order gunpowder technonolgy dosnt work in space because of the lack of oxeygen, you have to use self feeding types of propelent or compressed gas weapons. Energy weapons are one of the few things which become more practicle in space because there is far less obsticles (mostly micro scopic) to disapate the beam potential.

It was surprising to me when I found out, but apparently gunpowder contains its own oxidizer as well as many other explosives. C4 for instance. We may not get the shockwave and the sound may not travel all that far in a vacuum before its dissipated, but igniting a charge inside a barrel where the discharge is focused and sheltered away from the vacuum the bullet will fire; guns will work perfectly well in space (potential tweaks may be needed, but the theory is the same :P).

Railguns generate an insane amount of heat, therefore I can imagine them being used to deliver powerful killing blow and nothing more.
I'm surprised weapons like mass drivers, also known gauss cannon or coil cannon, that are actually already famous, are often misjudged as conventional weapons. These weapons are on the same league of rail guns, and are better then them under many aspects... like having the projectile suspended all the time in a magnetic field, therefore nullifying any kind of heat for friction with the barrel. They are also very easy to realize and to operate energy wise.

So whenever I see a gauss cannon, I suppose that kind of tech was developed instead of the rail one.


128
General Discussion / Re: Spinning barrels? What for?
« on: January 24, 2012, 06:35:32 PM »
I found another fun anti-fighter-multi-barrel gun design:



kinda like how Mel armed that deck gun in the final arc of Serenity.

first serenity quote I see in 6 years of love for that series.

129
Suggestions / Re: Fleet Fomations and Carriers
« on: January 24, 2012, 04:02:33 PM »
It doesn't make a lot of sense to have ships locked into relatively static positions in Starfarer.

WHY? Do you care so much about 360° line of fire? I think there are not a single powerful weapon with that coverage, surely not one any human player is going to directly control. Instead, is actually very annoying when an allied ship just crosses your line of fire while you are engaging, often because she is also engaging along a different route.
Would you not prefer for a flank (or your unshielded back) to be protected by a nice support destroyer while you unleash your wrath upon unsuspecting enemies? would you not love to build a marvelous assault line with a cross fire able to pulverize any kind of strike craft you meet? formations are just for that, to optimize an output, and of course they are vulnerable to certain type of engagement.

Still they would be an epic addition.

130
Suggestions / MAC shortcuts
« on: January 23, 2012, 11:32:45 AM »
The mac shortcuts do not work. :D
Would be nice to have them working.

best regards.

131
Suggestions / Re: Statistic from how each ship performed in the battle
« on: January 22, 2012, 03:13:43 PM »
Good idea. Totally agree with you!

132
General Discussion / Re: Starfarer performance
« on: January 21, 2012, 03:31:43 PM »
MAc user here:
macbook pro with
intel core I7 2,66 ghz
8 gb ram
7200 rpm hdd
nvidia geforce GT 330M 512mb

full speed ahead! playing at 1920/1200 on apple led display 23" without problems, insta-loading screens and maximum performance.

MAC OS X 10.7.2

133
General Discussion / Re: [.35a-pre2] Predator or Prey?
« on: January 21, 2012, 03:23:02 PM »
mmmh the tactic to just ram with your ship through the nebula to snipe the carrier looks utterly impossible. The slow dominator class is way to slowed by the nebula debuff, and you cannot hold even one navbuoy for the time needed to reach the carrier... the enemy's bomber squadron with 3 missiles overcharge the ship if I absorb the impact with the shields, leaving me without power for ages. Dodging them is nearly impossible when you move at 25 and your turn rate is like non existent. Every other ship is insta-killed by the bombers and fighters far out of my reaches.
I've tried rallying every ship in a location and wait for the enemy fighters to arrive and kill them, but they just snipe my frigates when I'm out of range and same goes for my strike crafts.
I've tried focusing on the control of one of the major locations, with the same result.
I've tried charging inside the nebula to kill the carrier asap but it is simply too far away, I should consider myself lucky just for the fact I reached it 2 times out of 10, with my ship almost destroyed.

I'm out of ideas, any advice?

version 0.35a preview

134
Suggestions / Re: Weapon Distance and Camera Zoom
« on: January 21, 2012, 12:31:25 PM »
Actually the capital ship are fragile as they should be when left alone. If well accompanied they add massive firepower and reliability.
From reality to other video games, capital ship are vulnerable to many kind of attacks, they are not jack of trades.

The ship-of-the-line is an old concept of warfare, I like how there are different kinds of fights and approaching maneuvers for each ship...
about the range I agree some weapons have an actually surprisingly short range, but the only issue I have with them is that you are bound to fire them without reason, when they are linked with longer range weapons, rising flux and consuming ammunitions.

Looking forward your next version ;)

135
Suggestions / about commanding your fleet
« on: January 21, 2012, 12:01:19 PM »
premise: I totally love the idea of commanding a fleet without direct control of each ship. A mindless armada is what usually makes good RTS games a bit flat, and that is why they need heavy scripting to generate challenging opponents. So keep up the good work with the AI.
premise 2: I just love that you are bringing the game also on mac, I would have just bought the game for that alone, nevertheless your game actually rocks and deserve what I paid.

Lets get to the point. There is just one thing that is missing about the fleet control: more flexibility.
IMHO, there are too few kinds of "assignments", I'll articulate.
lets pick the escort command. It gives very little options, just light or destroyer (that is actually very open as definitions, given that there is not "light" class and "destroyer" actually includes also cruisers I think). Lets say I want all the fleet to escort my flagship, I cannot do cause the lack of a full fleet escort command. I'm be able to achieve that using a lot of command points, but this is not always a good idea.
Lets expand the theme in at least 2 plausible situations:

first - I have a powerful but very slow capital ship, like the onslaught. My shield is only frontal, that means I'm weak versus fast moving ships that can avoid my frontal barrage and strike at my back (bis'mark :D), PLUS I'm very vulnerable to missile attack due to size and speed.
Now in my escort group I need some point defense frigate and interceptor wings for bombers. Aalso a sister capital ship (or equally powerful ship), to bring some additional firepower where I cannot reach with my slow moving mammoth, therefore nullify my weak spots.


second - I have a conquest type flagship, that more than anyone resembles the ship-of-the-line concept. With this I also mean that you are bound to show your wider fronts to the enemy, that means you are a big and easy target. While the directional shields are a flexible beasts, you cannot efficiently protect both your broadsides, and the PD system cannot save the day in front of a combined volley of torpedoes (for examples).
A group of bombers with a single medium ship can easy outmaneuver and destroy you... given they can avoid being destroyed by the conquest mighty weapons in the early stages of the fight. As the conquest commander, more than anything I would like an insurance that while I'm engaging enemies, nothing is going to strike at my sweet spot, or that it not an easy task to do so.

In general, what I need is another rank of assignment, the said fleet commands, that ask every ship in the fleet to follow given orders.
More that that, I'd like the possibility to change the rule of engagement: If I want a close escort, no one should leave my side under any circumstances. Now escort ships tend to chase enemies until they are destroyed, leaving my flagship exposed. I'm talking about making a reliable battle group.

Captains personalities are bound to generate many type of different responses to these kind of orders so I'm not talking about recreating the mindless armada, I'd simply like the idea of a deeper degree of organization.

I'm having a lot of fun beating the missions with better tactics and maneuvers, and that is just bit hindered by the lack of variety of the assignments.

WoT done, thanks for the reading, and GAMBATTE.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9]