Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.98a is out! (03/27/25)

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 - Simberto

Pages: 1 [2] 3
16
General Discussion / Re: TB's new WTF
« on: February 19, 2012, 11:22:46 PM »
Why is it so bad for your strategy to say instead of "that ship goes there" "some suitable ship go there". You just need to think a bit differently, rather than "What do i want those guys to do", you need to think about "what do i want to be done". I only rarely find myself correcting the AIs choice of unit, so if it chooses the unit you would have chosen anyways, there is not really a difference here.

And i don't think you understood what i meant with the stupid units. Either you have stupid units, or you have units not listening to your orders in a classical RTS scheme. There is no way around that. While for an RTS, stupid units are usually fine because part of what you want to do is make your units do what you want them to, in Starfarer i don't think this is the case, because you don't really want to spend your time micromanaging your fleet on the tactical screen, you want to fly around in your flagship. And units disobeying orders because they are smart and want to do something else is just annoying, i don't think anyone would disagree with this.

17
General Discussion / Re: are the tri- tacyon suposed to be super anoying?
« on: February 19, 2012, 10:44:14 PM »
High-tech ships in this game are usually just better then others. They have more weapons slots, better flux handling, and better shields. To fight a TT armada efficiently, you either need high-tech ships yourself, or just lots of stuff, and prepare to have some losses if you use the second way. When fighting against TT, you should always have some sort of anti-shield (kinetic?) weaponry, because most of their ships have pretty strong 360° shields.

18
General Discussion / Re: TB's new WTF
« on: February 19, 2012, 10:39:33 PM »
No. Usually, it is the same amount of clicks.

"All attack that target"

Starfarer now: Click target, click attack. 2 clicks
classical rts: Box fleet, rightclick target

"Some fighters go there"
SF: click target, click capture
RTS: click fighter, right-click target

The SF layout at the moment is annoying if you want a specific ship instead of just any ship that fills the role to do something, and is better in some other cases, like if you want all your bombers to strike a cruiser (SF: click cruiser, click strike, RTS: shift-select all bombers one after another, or maybe strg+ click if they are close enough to each other and all of the same bomber type, right click cruiser), or if you want all ships of one role like carriers be at some place. Also, the classical RTS control scheme usually involves micromanaging pretty stupid unit at most times to make them do something useful, and starfarers ships already have a mind of their own, so i don't really know how it would feel if ships suddenly don't do what you want them to, or if they suddenly ignore the cruiser firing at them and run for the objective while the cruiser pounds their back. I really don't want to have to micromanage the fleet all the time, but i also don't want it to not listen if i want it to do something.

19
General Discussion / Re: I've got fuel, how do i travel?
« on: February 19, 2012, 10:24:40 PM »
QED makes no sense in that sentence, stop trying to be clever.
"As was to be expected" does not make sense there?

I don't think it does. Why would it be obvious that fuel serves no purpose at all, and you just can't travel to other star systems? And, while i don't know a lot of latin and thus can't really talk about double-meaning and stuff like that, QED is probably far more often used as "which was to be demonstrated", which makes even less sense in this case.

20
General Discussion / Re: TB's new WTF
« on: February 19, 2012, 10:18:46 PM »
I found out about this game through TB's WTF and I'm really enjoying this alpha... BUT, I agree with TB completely on the fleet control aspect.  Current system is very clunky and why wouldn't tradition RTS style work?  I can only see the fleet management improving through traditional RTS control scheme.

Actually, i am not that convinced. The problem with a classical RTS control scheme is that you would want to have your main ship on autopilot and be staring at the tactical screen most of the time for maximum efficiency through microing all of your stuff all the time. Though i agree that fleet commands at the moment needs some work (A "stick together" options would be nice, for example, and it would be really useful if you could set some sort of behavioural patterns for your ships, and be it only through putting the right officers onto them), it at least does a pretty good job at making you concentrate more on flying your ship on the beautiful game screen, and less on giving orders to icons on the tactical screen.

21
General Discussion / Re: Tactics, anyone?
« on: February 19, 2012, 10:10:14 PM »
I am not really convinced. The main difference between fightercraft and missiles is that they serve completely different goals. A missile is supposed to go somewhere and explode, while a fighter is supposed to go somewhere, do something, and then return. At least that is how i understand it. Now, this means that a lot of the stuff you build into the fighter will be used multiple times. Sure, if all you worry about is fuel efficiency/payload, a missile is obviously better. Though i also would not agree with the *4 factor you guys use, since that assume that the ideal way to rerendevous with the mothership is to completely decelerate, accelerate into the opposite direction and then decelerate again to meet the mothership. While that might be true in absolutely empty space, if you have some gravity wells in the area you probably can have a cheaper return voyage.

But that is besides the point anyways. Fuel efficiency per payload is probably not the most important thing for space weaponry. If, for example, some tech thingies are far more expensive then fuel, it is not always reasonable to build them into a thing that is designed to never return. But it might make sense to build them into a fighter whose mission involves returning to base. This might involve shields, guidance systems, PD systems, scramblers, cloaking technology, etc... If any of those or others are far more expensive then fuel and fuel storage on the mothership, and also bolster the probability of hitting the target by a large margin, it can increase the fighters effectiveness beyond that of missiles. Basically, you only need something that increases the probability of hitting your target by a percentage large enough to offset the larger amount of missiles you could launch which would make fightercraft cheaper in total because of the increased probability of retrieving the tech (over 0 for a rocket)

Now, for space combat to be interesting, it is also strictly necessary to have some sort of deflection for basic relativistic nonguided weaponry, because otherwise if two fleets charge each other at relativistic speeds, both just need to spread some sand out of an airlock for complete destruction of both fleets through sand pieces with kinetic energy equivalent to smaller nuclear bombs. If you don't have any tech that achieves that, any space combat between fleets of any size will end in complete destruction of both fleets, and any attack on an inhabited planed will make that planet inhabitable. That "tech" could just be problems with actually detecting fleets, but that would mean that there is no way to defend your planets, so interstellar wars would end in fleets flying around blowing up planets, and both sides completely annihilated pretty fastly. So lets just assume that there is some sort of shielding that prevents that kind of relativistic weaponry. Now, it is completely dependent on how that technology works whether fightercraft can be better than missiles or not.

If it is a technology that can be overwhelmed by large amounts of firepower, and unless any of the stuff i mentioned in the above paragraph is relevant, missiles are superior because they can deliver more payload per fuel/cargo space. But those are pretty large "ifs". If the technology can not be overwhelmed by pure firepower, and needs some other way to be circumvented (non-frontal assault, cloaking, scrambling, shield-penetrating technology, whatever), and if that technology is not cheap, fighercraft who penetrate the relativistic shielding, deliver their payload, and are retrieved after the battle might suddenly be better just because you get your expensive shield-penetrating tech back afterwards.

Also, i can envision a fleet where fightercraft are deployed in some distance in front of the mothership and used as forward PD nodes against enemy missiles/fightercraft to increase your chances of deflecting them by having multiple lines of PD weaponry spread out ahead of the mothership.

22
General Discussion / Re: are the tri- tacyon suposed to be super anoying?
« on: February 19, 2012, 09:33:24 PM »
As far as i am concerned, Tri-Tachyon or pansies. "Uhhh, we hide behind our 360° shields and fire with long-range lasers,   we could get our hands dirty if we do any real fighting", while the Hegemony uses big, manly ships. Minimal shields, big armor, big guns, big explosions. I am pretty sure that Hegemony ships smell like oil and burning gasoline, while Tri-Tachyon's are parfumed.

23
General Discussion / Re: 0.5 feedback
« on: February 18, 2012, 11:16:00 AM »
http://fractalsoftworks.com/preorder/

Download buttons at the bottom of that page.

24
General Discussion / Re: new WTF is... for starfarer
« on: February 18, 2012, 11:15:03 AM »
The shuttle is very good. I killed a few destroyers and carriers with it in my first playthrough, and stuck to it for a pretty long time. You have long range weapons and are pretty fast, so blowing up larger, slower ships is actually not that hard. You probably will not get a cruiser because those have enough flux reduction to never have a problem, but destroyers a pretty easy. Just shoot them at max range with the IR lasers, have shields up, vent flux after a missile barrage hit your shields and back up a bit, continue until the destroyer is dead.

25
However, it is true that at the moment, i don't really see any reason to deploy anything besides interceptors, bombers and one single carrier.  Especially if you have Wasps, which just kill anything. You can take control of all of the objectives really fast, and thus win the game. I am starting to believe that fighters need a bit more of a downside for being so fast, maybe carriers should not reinforce damaged squads in combat, and only repair and rearm the returned fighters? I feel like the ability to reinforce fighters like that makes them ridiculously cost-effective, and pretty much invincible to the PD weapons of larger ships. Especially considering that if you have more fighters, the ships will spread out their fire and never even kill a single fighter division.

26
General Discussion / Re: Surrendering
« on: February 17, 2012, 10:29:31 AM »
I just noticed that the two top threads are "Retreating" and "Surrendering", and was very tempted to make a very bad joke about France. I managed not to do so, but it was hard. Anyways, i think we need better threads, how about "Winning" and "Blowing stuff up"

27
What exactly does better crew do?

28
Useful thread, but would you mind fixing the grammar? I always think that guides and FAQs should be correct in that regard.

29
General Discussion / Re: hotfix? :3
« on: February 16, 2012, 08:51:36 PM »
I would much rather have the developers spend their time on actually developing the game, instead of finishing and uploading new versions every day. I don't know anything about software development at all, but i imagine that that would take time, which can be spent much better doing other stuff.

This way, while i might have a bit longer for the smaller fixes, i will get the larger releases far earlier.

30
General Discussion / Re: 0.5 feedback
« on: February 16, 2012, 06:38:53 PM »
First of, 0.5 suddenly made the game awesome. I would say that at the current state, it is already very much worth the price. One thing i particularly liked once i noticed it was how the objects in the system actually revolve around each other, instead of just being one static map.

However, here are the things i noticed which might need improvements.

There needs to be some way to get basic ships for each role in large quantities, that does not involve capturing them. Interceptors in particular are both very important in my usual fleet layouts, and also have a tendency to sometimes die, so the amount the station has is depleted pretty fast, and then i can just have as many as i can capture.

The start of the game is a bit rough. Although, if i had just used my initial found to buy some talons, it probably would have been much easier. I also have already played a lot of the former version of the game, and i think a newer player might have some problems being forced to fight fleets which are basically double your strength at the beginning of the game. A simple tutorial popup suggesting to buy something with your money might even be enough here.

Something seems a bit off in the way the AI uses their shields. I particularly noticed that when i was fighting a Paragon in my Onslaught, and did not really have a lot of kinetic damage. I would have never broken through its shields, and it could have just used it superior shield efficiency to slowly grind me down by just firing enough to not overload, while being completely safe behind its shields. But instead it chose to randomly lower its shield and allow me to hit it, while firing with all its guns all the time and then venting flux, which again allowed me to blow it up. Generally speaking, the AI lowers their shields far too often in dangerous situation just to immediately restart them, which often allows multiple heavy hits to go through until the shield covers a large enough area.

There needs to be a system to store your stuff on a station instead of having it all on your fleet all the time. I really like to have a large storage of all types of weaponry lying around just in case i want to use it, and if cargo capacity would be relevant, this would be very problematic at the moment, because either i have half of my fleet consisting of freighters, or i have to sell that stuff and buy it back for inflated prices when i want to use it.

I might just not have noticed it, but at the moment there appears to be no way to empty specific slots of a ship except completely strapping it and refitting the other slots.

Some way to speed up time during boring episodes might be useful. Like when i am waiting for 30 days for my onslaught to get repaired, or when flying across the whole system with a slow fleet, especially considering that you seem to want to make a far larger galaxy for the final release.

I find it a bit strange that the tachyon lance can fire far further then you can see. This means that you basically have to use autofire with it at any given time. Sure, autofire works just fine, and my tachyon lance blows up stuff across half the battlefield without me even seeing it, but i think it might be more fun to manually blow it up and actually see it explode.

I think someone already mentioned it, but showing the weapon that is in that turret at the moment when refitting would be very nice.

A functionality that automatically fills up crew, supplies, fuel and marines to some level point, either every time you enter a station, or by clicking a button when on it would be very nice.

I think the whole buying/selling interface in general is not very good. For example, i don't really see why marines, crew etc... need to be in large amounts of 500 stacks. In my case, there are now about 60 stacks of both supplies and fuel which clutter the interface a lot. Why not just have one large stack per item type? Some sort of filtering mechanic might be useful, and i find it highly irritating that i have to mouse over every icon (except for the very obvious ones) to find out what that weapon actually is, or to find the weapon i am looking for. This might be just me, but basically the only thing i can instantly identify are reaper torpedoes, because they are red.

At the moment, fleets just hang around until they are completely destroyed. At some point, they should really retreat, a Tri-Tachyon attack fleet consisting of one single wasp wing flying around the station forever because it is pretty hard to catch is just strange.

I think it is much easier to escape when defending when compared to escaping when escaping. That is a bit weird. When defending, you just need to run away to your edge of the map, while when escaping, you need to go across the whole map to the enemy edge.

When i attack the convoy to loot the Atlas, i don't feel like a get the amount of stuff a superfreighter carries. Also, usually some fightercraft escape and, now being far too fast to catch, continue onward to the station and a message that the convoy has delivered it's load appears. I am not 100% sure, but i also think that the station get additional stuff.

I think some way to set a behavior for ships would very useful, for example to keep your carriers out of trouble, or your fighters from engaging large ships all on their own far in enemy territory, but maybe that is something you already plan to do with the officers. Also, there should be some way to set some weapon groups to autofire by default. This is very minor, but a the moment i start every battle by setting PD-weapons on autofire right out of the gate. Or just keep the settings you had when finishing your last battle active for the next one.

Now, this is a lot of negative stuff, most of which is probably already known and/or planned to be changed anyways, so i just want to state that the game is actually very fun. The combat is very good, and especially the low-tech weapons feel just right and meaty. I just want to help make this game even more awesome by pointing out stuff that might be improved.

Pages: 1 [2] 3