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 2 [3]

Author Topic: List of minor improvements for major increase in quality  (Read 2218 times)

gG_pilot

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
    • View Profile
Re: List of minor improvements for major increase in quality
« Reply #30 on: September 04, 2022, 06:27:53 AM »

S-modes should be rare spice no staple food.
Then the system fails at the first hurdle, since s-mods are the direct replacement for the Loadout Design skill in previous versions, which was a 100% manadatory pick because many ships don't have enough OP to be fitted 'properly' without some kind of assistance.
Resulting in the same problem, just in a different location.


If you really really wanted to use s-mods as a credit sink, you could do that with a little thought.
Any exchange rate credits <> story point suppress the main reason for story point. It is unique limited currency for special purpose. When you link it to unlimited credits, then you better remove story points for sake of game simplicity.
Idea, or rather mindset that every ship have to be fully fitted by s-modes, because of obsolete  "mandatory Loadout Design"  is sick.
Opponent ships are deciding  factor, what works or not.  When opponent fleet of 200 dp has 2 pilots, 3 s-modes, and sub-optimal weapon load, then your fleet goal is becomes ONE STEP BETTER.

Regarding ships, loads, I would very welcome an dynamic system where ship weapons can be destroyed (turned into steel plates,supply boxes and useless ruble which can be released into space) after battle, so you have to mount on ship in space something you salvaged. Or arrange a  big cargo spare parts support ship. It means, that weapons change status into sort of consumable items.
This will makes you play with cards you have, instead of wait for full house.

I think this game is about a  finding and trying, so all the systems  should support(and create)  variety and  ever changing  situations.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2022, 06:35:48 AM by gG_pilot »
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: List of minor improvements for major increase in quality
« Reply #31 on: September 04, 2022, 06:50:02 AM »

This is why I consider Hull Restoration a must-have skill for me.  It lowers the bar from flawless victory to sometimes lose several ships.  Hull Restoration also means that looting ships from combat becomes a useful source of new ships.  (People keep saying ships are too easy to buy and acquire.  With either Industry capstone, player does not need to buy ships, he can just take them from the enemy.)  In my most recent game, I avoided combat at all costs until I got Hull Restoration at level 6.
Any ship with an officer or s-mod on it is guaranteed recoverable even without hull restoration, and you can put bulkheads on any ship you don't plan to keep longterm.
Recovery is not the problem; it is the d-mods that will appear on the recovered ship unless player has Hull Restoration or the (shieldless) ship has Rugged Construction.

It costs more to restore a ship than to buy a new one, if the ship can be bought at all.  If restoration costs more than the reward, then the fight must be flawless or it is effectively a loss (because replacing the ship costs more than the reward).  Hull Restoration often prevents d-mods and fixes those that appear (although I often have a huge backlog of ships that need d-mod removal, so I often do not want new d-mods).

Hull Restoration preventing d-mods from appearing some of time is what lowers the victory threshold from flawless to several ships lost.  (d-mod removal helps, but only if player does not already have a huge backlog of d-mods to remove.)  Few times, I lost most of my fleet and all of my ships were recovered without any d-mods; great - play on!  Other times, I lose two, three, or four ships and one of them gets two d-mods - reload!


Regarding ships, loads, I would very welcome an dynamic system where ship weapons can be destroyed (turned into steel plates,supply boxes and useless ruble which can be released into space) after battle, so you have to mount on ship in space something you salvaged. Or arrange a  big cargo spare parts support ship. This will makes you play with cards you have, instead of wait for full house.

I think this game is about a  finding and trying, so all the systems  should support  variety and  ever changing  situations.
For most releases up to about late 0.8 or early 0.9, weapons could and would be destroyed from your ships you could recover.  That was highly annoying, especially without colonies and the heavy industry to build more.  (Colonies were added in 0.9.)  During early 0.8, most ships were more common and easier to replace than any weapon that was not found in Open Market.  Some weapons like Tachyon Lance, Plasma Cannon, and Light Needlers were hard-to-come by and rare enough that they were effectively limited like Omega weapons even if they were theoretically unlimited.

Now that we have limited Omega weapons, losing weapons at all would not work well.  I would definitely reload if I lost a special weapon like that in a fight.
Logged

BCS

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
Re: List of minor improvements for major increase in quality
« Reply #32 on: September 04, 2022, 12:43:41 PM »

Problem: you get bonus xp from putting s-mods on ships in the first place, or from doing literally anything with story points, so you already have a massive amount of bonus xp waiting to be used up. At this point, scuttling for that bonus xp does not help you get your story point back any faster.

Eh, early in the game there's really not much to spend SP on. Disengaging from enemy fleets? Getting caught rarely happens. Having that random trade mission pay a bit more? Who cares. No colonies to spend SP on, spending them on Historian is a waste until you clear the entrie map and so on. Before you notice you're level, say, 5 and you're sitting on 20 unspent SP and you got no bonus XP from it.

I certainly hope not.
I'd hate to have to ditch software for dictating to me when I can perform basic software functions.

"basic software functions" are decided by the developer. Or should we criticize Microsoft Excel for not having a voice synthesizer?
Logged

Serenitis

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1458
    • View Profile
Re: List of minor improvements for major increase in quality
« Reply #33 on: September 04, 2022, 01:08:36 PM »

"basic software functions" are decided by the developer. Or should we criticize Microsoft Excel for not having a voice synthesizer?
Saving and Loading are basic software functions, along with Starting and Exiting, and the specific purpose of the software itself.
Excel "not having a voice synthesizer" is a meaningless non sequitur since it is does not require that functionality. And no-one would ever want it as it would not add anything that would be in any way useful to its intended function.

If you want to try and cow someone with glib off-handed nonsense, pick an easier mark.

Apologies for the derail everyone else.
Logged

FooF

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
    • View Profile
Re: List of minor improvements for major increase in quality
« Reply #34 on: September 04, 2022, 02:53:56 PM »

Regarding Story Points and S-Mods:

I would be in favor of having a credit alternative for S-mods. I think using Story Points for them is fine, but I also feel that I tend to hoard them specifically so I can dump a bunch on end-game ship S-mods.

I have two thoughts on this:

1.) A ramp-up Credit option. Make it possible to buy S-mods early in the game but each successive S-mod increases its cost. Start at like 10,000 Credits and then multiply the next one by 25% of the previous. After 10 iterations, you're at nearly 100k per S-mod. After 20 iterations, it's at nearly 1 million. There should probably be a cap of some sort, but until we get a true endgame, a money sink wouldn't be bad.

2.) Some sort of S-mod "Transfer" program. You spend credits to transfer S-mods off of one ships and put them on another. If there was a way to move S-mods from one ship to another, I might use them earlier in the game on less "permanent" additions to my fleet. I don't know what the cost would be and I think it should cost extra to move an S-mod from a smaller ship to a bigger one. The fact remains, however, that the Story Point is still "lost" in the S-mod mechanic and you don't get it back. Or, maybe you spend a Story Point to respec all the S-mods in your fleet (I think I like this better?).

I will admit that S-mods are not terribly interesting because it's always the most expensive hullmods. A part of me would prefer S-mods having an "Elite" effect rather than an OP refund so that each hullmod has its own value beyond OP cost. On the other hand, I really like the extra OP.

Also, for the record, I think once you hit Level 15, the threshold for Story Points should be at every 1/8th of a level, not 1/4th. You're still working off of the level 15 XP requirements, but they're half as much since you no longer earn actual experience. Just a thought.
Logged

Retry

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 420
    • View Profile
Re: List of minor improvements for major increase in quality
« Reply #35 on: September 05, 2022, 09:56:01 AM »

Why would this ever be a goal is beyond me. So basically what Megas had been saying for ages is now even more true with s-mods, and that is flawless victories. If I'm ever in a losing battle or in a situation where I'm forced to retreat, that's an instant reload. Because there's no way in hell I'm losing ships with s-mods.

Well, presumably in finished state the game will be pure ironman so no reloads.
Why, precisely, would that be presumed?  Why would Alex go out of his way to implement a feature (or rather, remove the optionality of a feature) that does nothing but reduce the pool of interested buyers once Star Sector is fully released?
Logged

BCS

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
Re: List of minor improvements for major increase in quality
« Reply #36 on: September 06, 2022, 03:19:39 AM »

Saving and Loading are basic software functions

Videogames started out without either of these functions and plenty of videogames today don't have them either for gameplay reasons. No matter how many times you repeat this lie it won't make it any more true.

Why, precisely, would that be presumed?

It is presumed because the tooltip for Iron Mode option when starting a new game says "...this is the setting the game is intended to be played on".

Quote
Why would Alex go out of his way to implement a feature (or rather, remove the optionality of a feature) that does nothing but reduce the pool of interested buyers once Star Sector is fully released?

What kind of argument even is this? You may as well ask why Alex made Starsector "Mount & Blade in space" and not a microtransactions-based MOBA with anime girls for mobile devices. Think of all the money THAT would make! Or maybe Alex had an idea for a game and wanted to make that instead of simply trying to appeal to the widest possible audience? I mean, we're not even talking about Ironman where the game ends when you lose your flagship, it's just Iron Mode where you can't savescum. This isn't exactly a rare feature in videogames, especially indie ones.

Hell, Elden Ring sold over 16 million copies and technically runs in "Iron Mode" permanently. I guess in the "pool of interested buyers" those who reject a game based on whether or not you can save/load at will aren't very numerous to begin with.
Logged

BigBrainEnergy

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 680
    • View Profile
Re: List of minor improvements for major increase in quality
« Reply #37 on: September 06, 2022, 04:08:01 AM »

Spoiler
Saving and Loading are basic software functions

Videogames started out without either of these functions and plenty of videogames today don't have them either for gameplay reasons. No matter how many times you repeat this lie it won't make it any more true.

Why, precisely, would that be presumed?

It is presumed because the tooltip for Iron Mode option when starting a new game says "...this is the setting the game is intended to be played on".

Quote
Why would Alex go out of his way to implement a feature (or rather, remove the optionality of a feature) that does nothing but reduce the pool of interested buyers once Star Sector is fully released?

What kind of argument even is this? You may as well ask why Alex made Starsector "Mount & Blade in space" and not a microtransactions-based MOBA with anime girls for mobile devices. Think of all the money THAT would make! Or maybe Alex had an idea for a game and wanted to make that instead of simply trying to appeal to the widest possible audience? I mean, we're not even talking about Ironman where the game ends when you lose your flagship, it's just Iron Mode where you can't savescum. This isn't exactly a rare feature in videogames, especially indie ones.

Hell, Elden Ring sold over 16 million copies and technically runs in "Iron Mode" permanently. I guess in the "pool of interested buyers" those who reject a game based on whether or not you can save/load at will aren't very numerous to begin with.
[close]

You have to admit it would be weird if Alex took away the option to not play on iron mode, especially when it's been part of the game for like a decade now. Many games are intended for you to play that way but almost all of them still leave the option to save and reload because it's popular.

The comparison to other games doesn't really work here: older games were based on arcade games which obviously didn't allow saving and loading so the game could charge you for extra lives or just force you to start over (which also costed money). On the other hand, the amount of progress you can lose in Starsector is much bigger than Elden Ring. Losing your runes ain't a big deal compared to a whole fleet or colony. A better comparison would be the new Xcom games, which are designed for you to play on ironman but you aren't forced to.
Logged
TL;DR deez nuts

gG_pilot

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
    • View Profile
Re: List of minor improvements for major increase in quality
« Reply #38 on: September 07, 2022, 10:34:39 AM »

Regarding ships, loads, I would very welcome an dynamic system where ship weapons can be destroyed (turned into steel plates,supply boxes and useless ruble which can be released into space) after battle, so you have to mount on ship in space something you salvaged. Or arrange a  big cargo spare parts support ship. This will makes you play with cards you have, instead of wait for full house.

I think this game is about a  finding and trying, so all the systems  should support  variety and  ever changing  situations.
For most releases up to about late 0.8 or early 0.9, weapons could and would be destroyed from your ships you could recover.  That was highly annoying, especially without colonies and the heavy industry to build more.  (Colonies were added in 0.9.)  During early 0.8, most ships were more common and easier to replace than any weapon that was not found in Open Market.  Some weapons like Tachyon Lance, Plasma Cannon, and Light Needlers were hard-to-come by and rare enough that they were effectively limited like Omega weapons even if they were theoretically unlimited.

Now that we have limited Omega weapons, losing weapons at all would not work well.  I would definitely reload if I lost a special weapon like that in a fight.
My experience is only 5  month so I  am not aware of ideas which didnt work. However,  what about this:
Turn weapons into a  "weapon system" just  for naming reason, then lets  say, crew can repair weapon systems same like hull CR. It means, after battle player  dont lose a precious weapon for ever, but it is  rather unusable for several days.  e.i. each  weapon system has its own  CR, then crew fix  them  after battle.  Probably a manageable queue across  whole fleet  would be fun, so player have to choose what repair first. The fleet share repair points  for weapon systems, same as storage of weapons. So player often re-fit ships to "fill all  slots"  becouse some weapon systems are unuseable due to low CR.
Result is, that very rarely player can fight all ships at ideal conditions, usually  something dont work,  a best weapon system is temporary replaced with something else.
Do you think,  such system could be acceptable ?
« Last Edit: September 07, 2022, 10:41:55 AM by gG_pilot »
Logged

Khaos

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: List of minor improvements for major increase in quality
« Reply #39 on: September 07, 2022, 11:08:37 AM »

Reading most of the points in this thread, I seem to miss the one or two crucial points that makes Starsector the enjoyable, hardcore, replayable game it is.

One of them is that there is a certain lack of balance. I strongly disagree that ships should be balanced to the T. There should be a lot of weaker ones, some good ones, and then some OP ones. It models how realistic group mechanisms work.
Similarly, the little aggravating things, like getting knocked around in an asteroid field, are injections of real issues that kick in most of the time. Just as the bickering of the factions, getting harrassed by the powerful while you are not, or getting mobbed on while you are the top dog, all of the experiences I have had in the game are giving back very similar, familiar, lifelike feelings to the gameplay, which brings in a level of rewarding feelings for simply playing and interacting in the game, that would be neigh impossible if you would be pillowed by hoards of QOL features.

This obviously does not mean that every QOL is bad. This is to say most are actually unnecessary, and can harm the game's response to the player's efforts, which are usually a lot more in depth, and virtually unmeasurable, such as 'feeling accomplished'.
I hope there will be little to no changes in most of the game's state QOL, and especially balance-wise.

But that might be only my extreme stance on this...
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]