Print

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

[David]

So Alex and David, what are your favorite ships to pilot now that all these changes are being worked in?

Definitely the REDACTED.

why do you guys have to be such a tease -_-

Okay, now I feel bad for being so glib.

Real answer: I don't really have an answer. I don't think developers are able to play the game like a player can. And it's not easy to just play Starsector "for fun", though I have done so. For the most part when I'm playing a ship it's because I'm in the middle of implementing it, or I chose something to play against the ship I'm implementing. When I'm testing something in the campaign I just cheat like crazy using dev commands to get to where I need to be. Now, playtesting for campaign balance? Ship choice comes up, but even then the approach is either 'do what works' or 'see if doing stuff like this is viable', it's not really about my opinion as-such. It's just a different mindset, you know?

Now if the question is what was my favourite recent ship that I've drawn? ... Definitely the REDACTED.

[Gothars]

Spoiler

1-4% to top speed of allied ships, depending on ship size (all ships in fleet)
10% total maximum

The phrasing doesn't make clear that all ships in the fleet apply a stacking bonus to all other ships. It could also mean that it is a flat bonus that is applied to all ships in the fleet.

Why not just write: "Every ship grants 1-4% (depending on ship size) to top speed of allied ships."

Same with ECM.

[close]

Not sure if I want go and adjust the blog post at this point, but yeah, fair point.

(Just to be sure - the quote was on a screenshot, so it should be adjusted in the game )

[Techhead]

What is officer skill allocation going to be like?

Same as now - if you'll notice, it already acts as if skills had 3 levels.

In 0.7.x, it behaves as if officers' skills had 4 levels. They go 1/4/7/10, and a level 20 officer can max out 5 skills. With the overhaul... a level 20 officer will max out 6 skills with 2 extra points. (And unlike the player, not have to worry about aptitudes or fleetwide skills)

[Cycerin]

My concern was because weapon range is such a dominating stat, and because it sounds like there will be more "buoys" overall than before, but like you both say, it's probably nothing to worry about. And yeah, deploying useful auxiliaries is a nice concept, but it could mean that you will deploy them after your main fleet as a "chore" and tell them to hug the absolute bottom of the map where they are unlikely to ever encounter an enemy.

[Dri]

Now if the question is what was my favourite recent ship that I've drawn? ... Definitely the REDACTED.

Well, hopefully we can get another Design-a-Ship post from ya that covers one or two of these new ones!

[PCCL]

Now if the question is what was my favourite recent ship that I've drawn? ... Definitely the REDACTED.

 

[Voyager I]

While we're talking about fleet commanding, here's a related question.  Right now, when a ship is retreating from the battle, it turns to face the side of the map it's withdrawing towards.  While this is helpful for conveying to the player what the ships is doing, it's often a suicidal behavior with no upside for the ship in question.  Ships aren't faster moving in one direction than another, so all they're doing is making themselves an easier target for pursuers (especially when the ship in question is one with primarily forward weapons and front shields!).  It's a little jarring to see the AI ships doing this, though when it's making them easier to kill I'm not necessarily concerned...but when it's my own fleet, I have stronger emotions.

Do you have any thoughts about retreating ships behaving a bit more rationally?

[Megas]

With Unstable Injector killing range and jamming cutting range more, I hope Starsector does not turn to StarJoust, StarChainsaws, or bump-em-cars.  Currently, it feels you have melee range (LMGs), short range (energy weapons), and medium range (Mauler/HVD).  Truly long range stuff aside from Pilums is non-existent.

[Alex]

(Just to be sure - the quote was on a screenshot, so it should be adjusted in the game )

Ahh, sorry. Now I feel dumb - yeah, made the adjustment.

In 0.7.x, it behaves as if officers' skills had 4 levels. They go 1/4/7/10, and a level 20 officer can max out 5 skills. With the overhaul... a level 20 officer will max out 6 skills with 2 extra points. (And unlike the player, not have to worry about aptitudes or fleetwide skills)

Oh, right, right - apologies. They'll probably get 7 skills total, which feels about right to me - don't want them to be too weak, but also don't want them to be much stronger than a player that's about half-dedicated into combat.

and because it sounds like there will be more "buoys" overall than before

There won't - same totals as before.

And yeah, deploying useful auxiliaries is a nice concept, but it could mean that you will deploy them after your main fleet as a "chore" and tell them to hug the absolute bottom of the map where they are unlikely to ever encounter an enemy.

I'm sure that'll happen now and again, but even if you're doing this with a bunch of 2-supply-per-deployment Kites, is +10% speed or ECM rating going to be uniformly worth 20 supplies? Add to that that if you're going solo while doing this, the Kites will probably get found and wrecked. And if you're deploying more ships than that, then you might as well spend the supplies on something that'll actually fight.

While we're talking about fleet commanding, here's a related question.  Right now, when a ship is retreating from the battle, it turns to face the side of the map it's withdrawing towards.  While this is helpful for conveying to the player what the ships is doing, it's often a suicidal behavior with no upside for the ship in question.  Ships aren't faster moving in one direction than another, so all they're doing is making themselves an easier target for pursuers (especially when the ship in question is one with primarily forward weapons and front shields!).  It's a little jarring to see the AI ships doing this, though when it's making them easier to kill I'm not necessarily concerned...but when it's my own fleet, I have stronger emotions.

Do you have any thoughts about retreating ships behaving a bit more rationally?

Hmm. ... yeah, I should probably adjust this. I mean, there's arguments for it (that I've made before), but the fact that a proper retreat is a two-step operation (order it to move away, then later on order an actual retreat) isn't good. Made a note to take a look.

[Voyager I]

While we're talking about fleet commanding, here's a related question.  Right now, when a ship is retreating from the battle, it turns to face the side of the map it's withdrawing towards.  While this is helpful for conveying to the player what the ships is doing, it's often a suicidal behavior with no upside for the ship in question.  Ships aren't faster moving in one direction than another, so all they're doing is making themselves an easier target for pursuers (especially when the ship in question is one with primarily forward weapons and front shields!).  It's a little jarring to see the AI ships doing this, though when it's making them easier to kill I'm not necessarily concerned...but when it's my own fleet, I have stronger emotions.

Do you have any thoughts about retreating ships behaving a bit more rationally?

Hmm. ... yeah, I should probably adjust this. I mean, there's arguments for it (that I've made before), but the fact that a proper retreat is a two-step operation (order it to move away, then later on order an actual retreat) isn't good. Made a note to take a look.

I didn't see these at the time.  Can you link them or briefly rehash them?

[Gothars]

In 0.7.x, it behaves as if officers' skills had 4 levels. They go 1/4/7/10, and a level 20 officer can max out 5 skills. With the overhaul... a level 20 officer will max out 6 skills with 2 extra points. (And unlike the player, not have to worry about aptitudes or fleetwide skills)

I'd argue there are currently 2.5 functional level at best: Level 1+4 bring a small bonus, while 6 and 10 contain the two perks. Selecting just level 1 for any skill has no discernible effect.

tell them to hug the absolute bottom of the map where they are unlikely to ever encounter an enemy.

I kinda hope AI admirals will do just that, so I can circumvent the enemy lines in my flagship and take out their support. More reason for tactics and daring maneuvers!

[Alex]

I didn't see these at the time.  Can you link them or briefly rehash them?

... I didn't say they were particularly compelling. Mainly it's that, as you note, it's more clear visually what's going on. And that when you do it and a ship dies, it's a clearly-your-fault type of situation, i.e. they don't just do this randomly without an explicit order.

I'd argue there are currently 2.5 functional level at best: Level 1+4 bring a small bonus, while 6 and 10 contain the two perks. Selecting just level 1 for any skill has no discernible effect.

Yeah, but in terms of how many opportunities there are to "invest in a given skill" when leveling up an officer... which is really the question here, right.

[Voyager I]

... I didn't say they were particularly compelling. Mainly it's that, as you note, it's more clear visually what's going on. And that when you do it and a ship dies, it's a clearly-your-fault type of situation, i.e. they don't just do this randomly without an explicit order.

I'm not sure I'd agree with the blame assessment.  The AI is very good about overall reasonable behaviors, and so I generally expect orders to be carried out in that fashion.  I can accept that reasonable behavior might still get a ship killed if I order it into a mismatched fight, for instance, but I'd still expect it to make a go of it to the best of its abilities.  The current retreat behavior isn't something I'd consider reasonable.  Rather, it's a bit of a contrivance to help convey information to the player.  There's value in that, but I don't think it outweighs the very tangible consequences of a ship exposing its tailpipe to pursuing enemies for no mechanical reason.

Maybe to preserve as much of this as possible, you could make the retreat command a two-stage behavior:  the ship initially attempts to withdraw using normal combat behaviors, and then only after it determines itself to be clear of immediate danger does it 'turn to flee', presumably returning to a fighting withdrawal if challenged.  A player can still identify an enemy that won't be returning to the fight at a glance, but they aren't free kills or liabilities depending on what side of the battle they're on.


Alternatively, you probably wouldn't lose much by just exempting player ships from the 'turn to flee' mechanic entirely.  Player ships only retreat with explicit orders anyways, so it's not like there's a pressing need for that sort of explicit visual cue.  I don't know if having separate behaviors for player and enemy AI ships is something the game currently supports or a direction you feel comfortable taking the game in.

[Alex]

I'm not sure I'd agree with the blame assessment.  The AI is very good about overall reasonable behaviors, and so I generally expect orders to be carried out in that fashion.

Right, but that's only true until you know how it works. From that point, regardless of how you might like it to work, you know how it actually works, and it's predictable, so what happens when you give the order is entirely on you.

Alternatively, you probably wouldn't lose much by just exempting player ships from the 'turn to flee' mechanic entirely.  Player ships only retreat with explicit orders anyways, so it's not like there's a pressing need for that sort of explicit visual cue.  I don't know if having separate behaviors for player and enemy AI ships is something the game currently supports or a direction you feel comfortable taking the game in.

Ahh, another reason I forgot about: stuff like burn drive. Makes a huge difference for a ship being able to flee successfully or not, and requires turning away. That's a big problem, actually. If you take away predictable retreat behavior, then ships with burn drive will get a lot worse at retreating, and there'll be nothing you can do to force the current behavior. The benefit of the current behavior is that it gives the ship the fastest exit time.

This would be a lot more problematic than the current behavior, which *does* have the "just order them away from the fighting, and then retreat as a 2nd stage" solution. And, come to think of it, maintaining a "ships pulled back from fighting" waypoint in the back, and then mass-ordering a retreat (for just 1 point) when a few ships are ready to isn't so bad.

So, yeah, thinking about this more, it really seems like the current way is better, since you're at least able to do what's needed, vs not being able to. Consider how frustrating it'd be to try to flee with a bunch of Cerberuses or Dominators or whatever and then not be able to get away, no matter what you do, despite a braindead "just keep moving forward and press F" being good enough.

This doesn't seem like something the AI could do a good job with, either. "When is it safe to turn around for a burn" is very hard to get right. It would inevitable make a mistake, and then it'd be the sort of frustrating, not-really-your-fault-but-you-lost-the-ship-anyway mistake. Vs now, where you give the order when the time is right, and what happens from there on out is predictable.

[Ranakastrasz]

I Am happy to see that the command points are being changed, and amusingly enough, similar to one of my old suggestions. Can't wait for next version.