Print

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

[Avan]

Large weapons generally are not very good at shooting down fighters and stuff anyways because they have poor turn rates, or are in hardpoints. But when they do hit, they rightly are devastating. HILs are IMO the best anti-fighter large slot weapon because they are a beam, and so its much easier to hit with it, and you can turn your ship to aid in the turret's aiming. They are still far inferior at the job to having a bunch of proper PD weapons though. (Except at long range, because none of the PD has comparable range)

[tinsoldier]

Some of this discussion reminds me of FreeSpace 2.  In that game, the size difference between the fighters and capital ships felt immense.  You were rarely targeted directly by the big guys and occasionally, rarely, you would get get in the anti-capital ship beams and get obliterated instantly and hilariously.  Even if you had spent god knows how long in the battle and now had to redo it all, it was such a hilarious way to die you didn't much care.

I don't think the big guns should magically miss fighters, that sounds awful and frustrating.  But maybe there can be gameplay tweaks made that make it unlikely or impractical for you to want to use the big guns against fighters and hell, if you do, why *shouldn't* they die?

Fleet composition is also an important factor.  The missions we have today are typically very large force on force battles but, correct me if I'm wrong Alex but battles in the campaign won't typically be that large.  Fleet composition will be important and we may not be able to guarantee that we have sufficient anti-fighter capabilities at all times.  Hell, I've certainly lost my fair share of missions when my Apogee got caught without any fighter support and was shredded by those filthy low tech fighters!

Btw, having played a lot of Skyrim lately, I dig the concept of perks.  Is StarFarer going to have something like that when you level your captain?  Buying perks that improve the speed of torpedos/bombs shot by your bombers or that give your fighters procs that allow them to occasionally dodge capital large munitions or get speed boosts temporarily after killing an opponent could add a lot of flavor.

[Alex]

I don't think the big guns should magically miss fighters, that sounds awful and frustrating.  But maybe there can be gameplay tweaks made that make it unlikely or impractical for you to want to use the big guns against fighters and hell, if you do, why *shouldn't* they die?

Fleet composition is also an important factor.  The missions we have today are typically very large force on force battles but, correct me if I'm wrong Alex but battles in the campaign won't typically be that large.  Fleet composition will be important and we may not be able to guarantee that we have sufficient anti-fighter capabilities at all times.  Hell, I've certainly lost my fair share of missions when my Apogee got caught without any fighter support and was shredded by those filthy low tech fighters!

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Hard counters don't fit in well in a game where you might be running around in a single ship or with a small fleet. They also seem problematic for a game where you are in direct control - the mechanics for hard counters (such as heavy shots magically missing fighters) would just feel "cheap". Piloting skill should be able to triumph against just about anything, assuming you're not simply overwhelmed by numbers - but having the right soft counters will make it easier, of course.

Btw, having played a lot of Skyrim lately, I dig the concept of perks.  Is StarFarer going to have something like that when you level your captain?  Buying perks that improve the speed of torpedos/bombs shot by your bombers or that give your fighters procs that allow them to occasionally dodge capital large munitions or get speed boosts temporarily after killing an opponent could add a lot of flavor.

Maybe. There are some ideas but they're too half-baked to really talk about - I'd like to see how skills play out first. It's under consideration, though I can pretty much promise you it won't be in any time soon.

[Dead Tom]

I think carriers should be able to hold a lot more fighters and bombers, though they should only have a set number out at a certain time. For the lore, I picture a fighter and a bomber as engines, with guns and life supports systems, they need a home base for any navigational computers or anything else. So only a set number of fighters can be out at one time because of the home ships inability to handle any more fighters.

[Darrow]

I think carriers should be able to hold a lot more fighters and bombers, though they should only have a set number out at a certain time. For the lore, I picture a fighter and a bomber as engines, with guns and life supports systems, they need a home base for any navigational computers or anything else. So only a set number of fighters can be out at one time because of the home ships inability to handle any more fighters.

Don't quote me on this... but i'd imagine the current fighters and bombers are manned not un manned?


Also kinda out of context but it would be really cool for some ship to be the C&C (Command and Control) ship. Kinda hang back and give radar and information on other ships... if destroyed you'd lose map intel and information on the enemy ships... Losing the ship wouldnt be a OMG WHERE SO DEAD NOW, just more of a *** it's useful. Also C&C's could control small drone fighters? maybee?

[Thana]

Don't quote me on this... but i'd imagine the current fighters and bombers are manned not un manned?

Alex has talked about the manning of fighters, for example in the blogpost "Crew management and you", so I think we can take this as a given. (Maybe, maybe with the exception of fighters that are called drones, like the mining drones.)

Also kinda out of context but it would be really cool for some ship to be the C&C (Command and Control) ship. Kinda hang back and give radar and information on other ships... if destroyed you'd lose map intel and information on the enemy ships... Losing the ship wouldnt be a OMG WHERE SO DEAD NOW, just more of a *** it's useful. Also C&C's could control small drone fighters? maybee?

You know I do like this idea. If nothing else, it could operate as an AWACS analogue, giving a large sensor coverage and maybe even one or more additional command points and/or fleet points. Of course, the downside of this idea is that it would downgrade the importance of the capturable objectives on the battlefield, which is why I'm not sure Alex would be interested in implementing them and if not, I could certainly see his logic. Still, not a bad idea, if possibly - possibly - a bad fit for the game's mechanics.

[CommComms]

All indications point to fighters being manned, and supposedly even the drone wings have someone sitting at a control console on the carrier that brought them there... but then if the ship blows up I guess they'd stop working... Hey, it'd be pretty cool if the mining drones and wasp interceptor drones had different (worse?) ai than the supposedly manned fighters!


Also, Alex has alluded to the possibility/plans for ecm/eccm ships and ship systems in the future.  I do really like the idea of certain modules that give some decent bonuses to your ships though.  You could strip the guns off an onslaught and turn it from a front-line battleship into a lightly armed command and control ship.  That could be nifty.

[Alex]

I think carriers should be able to hold a lot more fighters and bombers, though they should only have a set number out at a certain time. For the lore, I picture a fighter and a bomber as engines, with guns and life supports systems, they need a home base for any navigational computers or anything else. So only a set number of fighters can be out at one time because of the home ships inability to handle any more fighters.

That's pretty much how it's set up in the campaign - ships have a "hangar capacity" which lets them carry fighters while moving between star systems. Carriers are special in that they also allow in-combat repair and rearming, but even a fleet without carriers can have some fighter support. Capital ships in particular mostly have a decent hangar capacity.

[Darrow]

I think carriers should be able to hold a lot more fighters and bombers, though they should only have a set number out at a certain time. For the lore, I picture a fighter and a bomber as engines, with guns and life supports systems, they need a home base for any navigational computers or anything else. So only a set number of fighters can be out at one time because of the home ships inability to handle any more fighters.

That's pretty much how it's set up in the campaign - ships have a "hangar capacity" which lets them carry fighters while moving between star systems. Carriers are special in that they also allow in-combat repair and rearming, but even a fleet without carriers can have some fighter support. Capital ships in particular mostly have a decent hangar capacity.

How do you feel about command ships alex? Or intel ships in combat?

[Alex]

How do you feel about command ships alex? Or intel ships in combat?

I can see maybe some ship systems that reveal fog of war, or something along those lines. In general, though, I don't want to overcomplicate combat. I think what's there works, and would like to build on it instead of changing anything drastically. A "command ship" is whatever ship you're on, really.

[SeaBee]

How do you feel about command ships alex? Or intel ships in combat?

I can see maybe some ship systems that reveal fog of war, or something along those lines. In general, though, I don't want to overcomplicate combat. I think what's there works, and would like to build on it instead of changing anything drastically. A "command ship" is whatever ship you're on, really.

I like that approach. I envision the "command ship" being the flagship with our avatar in it (and all the skills/talents at his/her disposal), and I could easily see those bonuses suddenly vanish if the ship is destroyed. Our avatar, now in a shuttle to another friendly ship, might not deliver those same bonuses while he's in transit. Once he transfers his flag, the bonuses could resume from the deck of this new ship.

Even if it doesn't work that way, I do think combat works well right now. Perhaps our avatar has technology at his disposal that allows him a tremendous access to battle information wherever he is, info that can be shared with his command staff instantly -- in effect, making the entire fleet one decentralized command platform.

Cool stuff to think about, isn't it?

[Alex]

Cool stuff to think about, isn't it?

It sure is. I really love delving in to things like that, makes the game world feel so much more real. Just have to be careful not to make all this detail too explicit, and leave mechanics on a fairly abstract level, so that everyone can do that delving for themselves if they want to.

... aand I'm now thinking of what kinds of bonuses might get cancelled while the transfer is in progress. As a purely theoretical exercise

[Avan]

I Was actually assuming that impending commander bonuses/perks/skills already worked like that (Where the ones that affected the command ship only applied while the commander was actually on board the ship)

[Alex]

Well yeah, anything that affects the ship should only affect it while you're on it. Meant any potential fleet-wide bonuses.