Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Pages: 1 ... 86 87 [88] 89 90 ... 116

Author Topic: Starsector 0.8a (Released) Patch Notes  (Read 639199 times)

orost

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 436
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1305 on: April 28, 2017, 11:29:38 AM »

@Alex

I'm not sure how much of it is real and how much is confirmation bias but I have a feeling that officer personalities might be causing some trouble with carrier AI. My Cautious carrier commander seems reluctant to send fighters to engage, preferring to keep them withdrawn or escorting a friendly ship, which results in him not getting much done compared to a Steady officer. Given how expendable fighters are it's not desirable behavior, Cautious or not. (if it's real)
Logged

Hussar

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1306 on: April 28, 2017, 11:45:10 AM »

Hi - welcome to the forum, and thank you for your feedback!

(Hey, someone's using Operations Center! That's really cool.)

<3 and I thank u for your work :)

Imgur
I personally found it to be a must have when a fleet gets big so yes. But even with combined 300% faster CP gain I still sometimes manage to ran out of orders xD
I hope to find an XIV Onslaught or Dominator in the future but guess I'll stay on my Admiral class command Eagle while other ships will be more specced for frontline combat. The Enforcers fully uparmored can be a really tough nut to crack already (I found out that they more often hinder themselves than enemy threatens them if I sent 2 of mine against single even cruiser size target? kind of funny), so I'm interested to see what an uparmored Eagle or Onslaught can do :)

Made a quick note re: carrier AI and orders - I think they may not be obeying "eliminate" properly with regards to fighter targeting, I'll take a look. Will think about the other stuff some more.
I'm not sure how much of it is real and how much is confirmation bias but I have a feeling that officer personalities might be causing some trouble with carrier AI. My Cautious carrier commander seems reluctant to send fighters to engage, preferring to keep them withdrawn or escorting a friendly ship, which results in him not getting much done compared to a Steady officer. Given how expendable fighters are it's not desirable behavior, Cautious or not. (if it's real)

That's interesting. If that's true then I wonder what will happen if I spec a reckless captain into carrier? This could be interesting, but I don't think I have an Atlas to support "her" in that :O

I still have space for a 3rd carrier commander so maybe I'd shall look out for an agressive one to check. But yeah, since carrier-borne craft are now handled as weapon mod and benefit from officer skills - it might be it.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23986
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1307 on: April 28, 2017, 11:45:56 AM »

@Alex

I'm not sure how much of it is real and how much is confirmation bias but I have a feeling that officer personalities might be causing some trouble with carrier AI. My Cautious carrier commander seems reluctant to send fighters to engage, preferring to keep them withdrawn or escorting a friendly ship, which results in him not getting much done compared to a Steady officer. Given how expendable fighters are it's not desirable behavior, Cautious or not. (if it's real)

There's no difference between steady and cautious here. I did however tweak the logic (for .1, I think?) that decides whether to defend friendly ships, so it should only do that 1) in emergencies and 2) when 2/3rds or more of its wings are "defense-capable" (i.e. not bombers), so that may affect this as well.
Logged

orost

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 436
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1308 on: April 28, 2017, 11:51:03 AM »

Well it's good to know I'm just imagining things so I can use cautious officers for carriers without worry  ;D
Logged

Sy

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1309 on: April 28, 2017, 11:54:35 AM »

Made a note - right now it just auto-assigns.
okay. i guess the Sabot+Reaper thing is an issue with auto-assign then.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23986
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1310 on: April 28, 2017, 12:02:03 PM »

Auto-assign is a bit tricky to get right sometimes. I do think that that AI is capable of handling a "sabots + reapers in 1 group" setup without the awkwardness a human would face, though. But, yeah, I'll see what I can do here - autofit should probably respect the original groups.
Logged

Sy

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1311 on: April 28, 2017, 12:13:53 PM »

thanks. :]
Logged

Cosmitz

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 758
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1312 on: April 28, 2017, 12:19:16 PM »

With a few dozen hours under my belt.. i see combat has become very.. "Spartacus swinging his sword left and right as to not give the enemies an opening". That's my best way of putting it.  

Before, it was akin to a battlefield, individual battles happening in the greater fight. But they seem rather focused on one or two points now, one of them often being the player (points which all the enemy ships apparently are aware of, judging by the Harpoon spam coming off screen from a group of ships which weren't even attacking you). I think this is because all AI plays it quite 'safe' now and mechanical. While this encourages a lot more ship use to give enemies fewer 'focus points', and i guess this was implemented to allow less player ships to be lost by the AI, i can't help but see a downgrade in the 'fun' of the chaotic combat before.

This also shows in the lack of a 'flow' of battle. It used to be that sometimes i'd have to reinforce a point, or move my ship over, generally travel around the battlefield. That made flying destroyers or even frigates sometimes preferable because you could influence different fights within the larger battlefield. But right now, it seems i just have to hope to guess which side 90% the enemy fleet is going to come in at, and try to flank the densely-compacted blob of death. A few hardy frigates which i hope will peel off and get the attention of at least a few frigates, and if they meet the enemy fleet face on since i didn't guess the side right.. hope for it to be salvageable.

Excuse the "soft" description but that's how it feels now. Feels like i'm fighting a hivemind, linked and synched ships, instead of individual ships or small clusters of ships within the enemy fleet. If i haphazardly overextend, simple human error, which is easy given how speed and vector is quite relative an 'unseen' in SS, almost the entire enemy fleet will let me know i have to reload the game.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2017, 12:29:04 PM by Cosmitz »
Logged

Allectus

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1313 on: April 28, 2017, 12:56:31 PM »

Could someone explain the new carrier command paradigm to me?  I fear either that I don't understand it, or worse, that I do understand it and it is a pretty significant regression from where we were before.  Losing the rally CV, rally fighter, and strike assignments are a very significant blow to the command style that originally attracted me to this game way back in 2012.

Am I correct in that I no longer have any direct control over fighters or their positioning?  All commands have to be issued directly to the carrier which will then pass them on to fighters?

If this is the case, and I am aware this sounds melodramatic but it is absolutely true, then you have sucked all of the fun out CV--and thus tactical--game for me.  Battles used to consist of moving my CVs to keep them safe, fighting delaying actions to screen them, rallying fighters to avoid opposing screening elements, and striking at the most tactically beneficial time from the best direction.  That entire game-cycle has--seemingly--been replaced with a single button press of "eliminate target."

I appreciate the immense progress you guys have made over the years, but this single change has essentially reduced the tactical game to be functionally equivalent to what is offered by Space Pirates and Zombies.  I already have SPAZ, I kept following and bought SS because it was different.......
Logged

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4112
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1314 on: April 28, 2017, 01:02:58 PM »

@Alex: is current CR system version final? Personally I'd like it having more steps of deployment-cost than just one big. (IIRC you had conflicting opinion on deployment cost... Somewhere...) I have an idea how to buff combat freighters indirectly, but it would end up painful if all freighters would be forced to deploy and player would loose supplies because of that. I'm asking here because if you say "full deployment cost no matter what happens on the battlefield (besides running out of peak time)" whole idea is pointless.

@David nice that you did (D) reskins for every ship (I think). :)

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23986
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1315 on: April 28, 2017, 01:21:19 PM »

@Cosmitz:
I haven't noticed exactly what you're describing. I suspect it may have to do with orders given, skills picked, ships deployed, etc - if you happen to have a save handy where a battle like that is about to happen, I'd be happy to take a look.

@Allectus:
There's a blog post on the fighter redesign, here. In brief: you have control over the fighters launched from the ship you pilot, while other carriers control their own fighters. There's more tactical depth to using carriers, and more decisions about how to fit them - making them attractive flagships - but less strategic aspects.

I appreciate that you were enjoying the way they worked formerly. Unfortunately, that way had some design issues that 1) made fighters woefully underpowered and 2) made it difficult to improve them without becoming broken when fielded in numbers. There were also other issues and awkwardness in how they worked on the campaign level. Basically, the whole thing was a giant bandaid until now, even if it had some redeeming qualities.

So: all I can say is my apologies, but I feel like this change is very much for the best overall, even if it does nuke this particular playstyle.

I'm asking here because if you say "full deployment cost no matter what happens on the battlefield (besides running out of peak time)" whole idea is pointless.

Aside from a partial CR recovery if the enemy didn't fight, yeah, I don't see changing that.
Logged

PCCL

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • still gunnyfreak
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1316 on: April 28, 2017, 01:35:34 PM »

debated whether or not to start a new thread, but think I'll just post this here:

@alex: what do you think is the tone you want for the game? It's obvious there's a whole range of players in that regard from those who want a slow grind in a decaying society to those who want an arcady shooter to blow stuff up in and (presumably) everything in between. Where on the spectrum do you stand? Is the current tone (I use this term as a shorthand for pace, progression speed, and player power level) something you're happy with? Where do you see your game sitting in the tone scale between say guardian of the galaxy/the new star trek and battlestar galactica reimagined/the expanse
Logged
mmm.... tartiflette

Allectus

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1317 on: April 28, 2017, 01:54:22 PM »

@Cosmitz:
I haven't noticed exactly what you're describing. I suspect it may have to do with orders given, skills picked, ships deployed, etc - if you happen to have a save handy where a battle like that is about to happen, I'd be happy to take a look.

@Allectus:
There's a blog post on the fighter redesign, here. In brief: you have control over the fighters launched from the ship you pilot, while other carriers control their own fighters. There's more tactical depth to using carriers, and more decisions about how to fit them - making them attractive flagships - but less strategic aspects.

I appreciate that you were enjoying the way they worked formerly. Unfortunately, that way had some design issues that 1) made fighters woefully underpowered and 2) made it difficult to improve them without becoming broken when fielded in numbers. There were also other issues and awkwardness in how they worked on the campaign level. Basically, the whole thing was a giant bandaid until now, even if it had some redeeming qualities.

So: all I can say is my apologies, but I feel like this change is very much for the best overall, even if it does nuke this particular playstyle.

I'm asking here because if you say "full deployment cost no matter what happens on the battlefield (besides running out of peak time)" whole idea is pointless.

Aside from a partial CR recovery if the enemy didn't fight, yeah, I don't see changing that.

That is the single most depressing blog post I have read regarding this game.

At this point fighters/bombers act simply as glorified missiles in terms of how they play.  In the blog post you even discuss flanking, _but with the carrier_.  I have a carrier with much faster tender ships, it makes no sense to flank with a big slow capital ship when we have these nice fast maneuverable ships that [used to be able to] do it on their own.  Now, like missiles, they're just point, shoot, and hope for the best.  Rather than making it more interesting to play a CV as a flagship you've just reduced the feature space by removing an entire class of weapons and replacing them with modified missiles.  

I really do appreciate your efforts, and I understand you care deeply about your game and closely consider balance issues, but by cutting cutting CVs in this way you have removed one of the key features that differentiated your game from the myriad of competing top-down space sims.  I'm genuinely not sure why I shouldn't just play Starpoint Gemini 2 or SPAZ at this point as they treat drones/fighters in exactly this way but execute the combat much better. The strategic angle is what sold me on your game and it's being cast aside for more shallow single ship shenanigans.

I'm seriously depressed by this development.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2017, 01:58:46 PM by Allectus »
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23986
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1318 on: April 28, 2017, 02:15:50 PM »

@alex: what do you think is the tone you want for the game? It's obvious there's a whole range of players in that regard from those who want a slow grind in a decaying society to those who want an arcady shooter to blow stuff up in and (presumably) everything in between. Where on the spectrum do you stand? Is the current tone (I use this term as a shorthand for pace, progression speed, and player power level) something you're happy with? Where do you see your game sitting in the tone scale between say guardian of the galaxy/the new star trek and battlestar galactica reimagined/the expanse

I find this a bit confusing, as the question contrasting backstory tone with gameplay feel. That said: probably in the middle, with variation depending on playstyle etc.


@Allectus:
I think a lot of this is down to personal preference, and not an absolute. Carriers absolutely *are* much more interesting to pilot directly, and I think you're entirely glossing over (or simply missing out on) all the related mechanics, decisions, tactics, etc because (forgive me if I'm making a wrong assumption) of a focus on the prior mechanics which no longer exist.

On the other hand, yes, the strategic depth of using carriers has been reduced. In my opinion, that wasn't working very well in the first place, and the change is a good one. Quite clearly, you strongly disagree. All I can do is make the best decisions I can to move the development forward. This - of course - includes listening to feedback, which I very much appreciate - but there's no way to make everybody happy with every decision.

So, again: genuinely sorry to disappoint, but it's a decision I stand behind, think ultimately is a good one, and would make every time.
Logged

Sy

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1319 on: April 28, 2017, 02:18:56 PM »

I'm genuinely not sure why I shouldn't just play Starpoint Gemini 2 or SPAZ at this point as they treat drones/fighters in exactly this way but execute the combat much better.
i'm sorry you dislike the fighter changes so much that they ruin the game for you, but i still have to say that i vehemently disagree with the notion that either of these two games "execute the combat much better" than Starsector...

SPAZ' combat mechanics are incredibly simple (and i would shallow) compared to Starsector's (though much faster, which some players prefer), and the same goes for any sort of ship customization, fleet management, skill progression, campaign activities, etc.
i quite like SPAZ myself, but the combat gameplay is barely comparable to Starsector in depth and quality, imo.

and SG2 isn't even the same genre. both are set in space and allow direct control of one ship, but that's pretty much where the similarities end. and again i feel SG2's combat mechanics are quite lacking in depth and overall quality, though i haven't played much of it.

please understand that Starsector's strategic fleet control was always meant to be secondary to real-time control of your flagship. so reducing the amount of micromanagement on the tactical map necessary to make fighters effective, and in turn increasing the direct control players have over their fighters when piloting a carrier themselves, fits well with what has always been the design intent.


personally, i love the new fighter mechanics (even if i believe the balance needs some work ^^) and was really looking forward to getting to play with them ever since reading that blog post. :]
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 86 87 [88] 89 90 ... 116