Print

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

[johngalt]

I have purchased starfarer (starsector now) a couple of months ago and have loved playing it. I have completed all the missions at around 80-100% completion rating (with the exception of one or two really obnoxious ones) and have tried out a variety of mods and tested each available stock game ships.

I like the concept of this game and it has a lot of cool things going for it. However, after playing 20 or so "tough" battles I've realized that combat is pretty simplistic. You get 0-6 "flag" points which allow you to bring more ships into the combat zone while giving other bonuses (increased speed and weapon range as well as command points).

This concept was fun for the first several games until you realize that the "easy" win is to sweep command points from one side to the other with fastmovers and then spam capital ships.

There are several issues with this concept:

-whomever captures "flags" quickly wins. Spamming fighters to start gives your caps the advantage of speed and range (which makes your piloted ship unstoppable and your ships very formidable).

-flags give the early cappers superior numerical advantage in the localized battlefield (this makes it impossible to win without the flags unless you have superpowered caps that can win 2-1 or 3-1 odds.

-The small scale (both number of fleet points and surface area of the map) make mass battles impossible. Even massive fleets only get so many pieces to put on the field at one time. The small size means that fighterspam-capspam concept is the only "strategy" capable of being used.


Solution:

-When opposing fleets are equal size, scrap fleet points and allow all pieces to be placed on the board at once. The fleet points are good for ensuring smaller fleets have a chance but totally prevent large scale battles.

-Scale the maps to the size of the engagement (already done to a point) include many more "flags" but make the buffs area specific and non stack-able. This means that a fleet that controls a majority of the flags does not have a massive advantage over one that does not. Make large fleets contest 10-20 control points.

-Add more objects into battlemaps (since they are larger it can be scaled a bit better) such as dense asteroid fields, planetary bodies (with gravity and sensor implications), and perhaps denser nebulae which lowers sensor detection range.


There are probably a lot of other things that could make each battle less simplistic and repetitive and have more depth to it. As it stands this game has a very low re-playability factor to it.

[Hyph_K31]

Nice ideas, and welcome to the forum!

Your first idea really sticks out to me, as currently in starsector large battles aren't really large battles, and more of a prolonged skirmishes IMO.

[Gothars]

Welcome johngalt!

I agree that the overall setup of the battles is not diverse enough. It is my strong belief that this will be fixed as the campaign progresses. I think that the environment where two fleets meet in the system view will determine the appearance of the battlefield. Since the "real" campaign is not yet in place this mechanic can't be either. This is nothing official, though.

I like the idea of range limited Capturable influences, maybe we will see that at least at some types of battles.

Regarding the scale of engagements, it will likely not grow. The problem with having too many ships on the field is that it shifts the game character from a tactical action game to a strategy game. The importance of piloting your ship is undermined. Sector is not designed as such a game and it would not really work.

[Pendragon]

+1 for the idea of range limiting the benefit gained from capture points.

I have found the same thing with early caps generally equaling an easy victory. In general play, once I get a couple of Hyperion frigates with their phase skimmers and quick engines I'm basically guaranteed to capture the central points as well as any points on my side of the deployment field since they're faster and for the most part more powerful than any other frigate type and can swat opposing fighter wings out of the sky with ease. I'm not sure what an appropriate solution would be.

One idea I had was to have fleet points rise on a timer which is sped up by capturing control points rather than just rising in bulk blocks. This means that the advantage of capturing control points early is still substantial but would not let you instantly steam-roll the opposing fleet and would let them bring in a steady drip of reinforcements too. This is more realistic I feel too as the timer represents the time it takes for your or the enemy's spread out fleet to converge on the battle-field and engage.

With a smaller fleet used effectively you can destroy the enemy piecemeal before he has time to marshal his forces and bring his full strength to bear against you. But if you're not quick enough to destroy the enemy it doesn't matter how many control points you have, eventually the rest of his fleet is going to show up and you're going to be in trouble unless you've already taken care of what he had on the field.

[Thaago]

...

One idea I had was to have fleet points rise on a timer which is sped up by capturing control points rather than just rising in bulk blocks. This means that the advantage of capturing control points early is still substantial but would not let you instantly steam-roll the opposing fleet and would let them bring in a steady drip of reinforcements too. This is more realistic I feel too as the timer represents the time it takes for your or the enemy's spread out fleet to converge on the battle-field and engage.

With a smaller fleet used effectively you can destroy the enemy piecemeal before he has time to marshal his forces and bring his full strength to bear against you. But if you're not quick enough to destroy the enemy it doesn't matter how many control points you have, eventually the rest of his fleet is going to show up and you're going to be in trouble unless you've already taken care of what he had on the field.

I really like this.

[Gothars]

Mhh...this is tricky business. Would that not make fast ships much weaker? It would mean your main concern is not capturing Objectives in time but to hold or conquer them, which favors powerful ships.


Maybe emphasizing the recon function of small ships could balance that out, it would be nice if you could find hidden Objectives.

[Thaago]

Or better yet that all objectives start as hidden, maybe? That way you also wouldn't know where the enemy fleet was heading (they might have found a different objective cluster).

[Iscariot]

-Add more objects into battlemaps (since they are larger it can be scaled a bit better) such as dense asteroid fields, planetary bodies (with gravity and sensor implications), and perhaps denser nebulae which lowers sensor detection range.

I definitely agree with this one. Asteroids move very randomly, without much of an impression that they're at all bound by gravity. That, and they're too small and ineffectual. Asteroids can get REALLY big. Even if you assume a warship like the Paragon is three or even five kilometers long, there are asteroids large enough to at least serve as cover-- asteroids that would most certainly annihilate your ship if you flew right into them. I disagree with having planetary bodies or nebulae that lower sensor detection:

Planetary bodies: I don't feel that a planet would fit on the scale of the combat that is taking place, and trying to apply locational gravity on a 2d plane is wonky enough on the overworld. I do, however, think that fleets ought to be able to fight in high orbit, which could create cool visual effects like a ship's hulk dropping into the atmosphere as its orbit decays, burning and breaking apart (or not, they could just make a crash landing). It could also create new combat conditions, like having to fight an enemy fleet with planetary battery fire harrying you at the same time, as well as maybe new gametypes, like troop recovery, or delivery.

Dense Nebulae: Nebulae are stellar bodies on a galactic scale. The action in Starfare is intrasystem. The existence of nebulae that can slow you is odd enough, in my opinion, to render the idea of even denser clouds of gas slightly silly. However, fighting in the upper atmosphere of a gas giant WOULD make sense and would be super cool.

[Gothars]

I do, however, think that fleets ought to be able to fight in high orbit, which could create cool visual effects like a ship's hulk dropping into the atmosphere as its orbit decays, burning and breaking apart (or not, they could just make a crash landing).

That sounds so awesome. If ships would end like that I would purposefully lure all my enemies to planets just too see their carcasses burn up in the atmosphere.

[hairrorist]

I agree.  These ideas are a great start to addressing the issue.

[Pendragon]

Mhh...this is tricky business. Would that not make fast ships much weaker? It would mean your main concern is not capturing Objectives in time but to hold or conquer them, which favors powerful ships.

Maybe emphasizing the recon function of small ships could balance that out, it would be nice if you could find hidden Objectives.

I really like that idea, the same sort of spread of objectives but with variations on placement and no high-light on the map until they're spotted by one of your ships. This would make for hundreds of new tactical situations and interesting layouts that would have to be accounted for and would make the initial scouting much more exciting and dangerous. The more I think about it the more I like the sound of it.

I definitely like the idea of greater variation in the environments too. In the scenario mentioned above, of a fight above a planet maybe you could even start having gravitational effects vary across the battlefield? The closer you fight to the border of the map that has the planet the more its gravity field is going to slow you down and once a ship is scrapped it slowly starts to get dragged towards that edge before finally being captured and falling to its fiery end. Love it.

[Aratoop]

Remember, planets are in the game- you just don't see them during the campaig, only in missions. Hell, there's even the possibilty to add a star, which damages you if you sit on top of it.

[Pendragon]

Remember, planets are in the game- you just don't see them during the campaig, only in missions. Hell, there's even the possibilty to add a star, which damages you if you sit on top of it.

Missions? Are you talking about the scenarios or the system map? There already is a star in the system anyway which you can traverse (I'm assuming by giving it a wide berth on an unseen 3D plain rather than plowing straight through it).

The idea of a star having additional effects is a cool one though. If you're going to have battle maps incorporating gravitational/atmospheric effects from taking place close to planetary bodies on the system map you could very easily see the same thing from them taking place near the sun. Having an "object" that a ship has to sit on or fly around wouldn't make much sense given the sheer scale of a star but you could get varying effects over the whole battle space.

Maybe the EMI and heat produced by it make shields unreliable or flux drains at different rates. Maybe it scrambles guidance systems for missiles and drones. Heck, maybe the solar radiation and plumes affect the focus of lasers and shortens their effective range. It would certainly explain why the Tri-tach, which favors late-epoch, laser heavy ships is confined to the outer system. There's a lot of cool things that could be put in place to make combat near a star more interesting.

[BillyRueben]

Maybe the EMI and heat produced by it make shields unreliable or flux drains at different rates. Maybe it scrambles guidance systems for missiles and drones. Heck, maybe the solar radiation and plumes affect the focus of lasers and shortens their effective range.

I like those ideas. Reminds me of MechWarrior when you have different heat sink efficiencies when you fight on a cold planet vs. on a hot planet.

[johngalt]

Regarding the scale of engagements, it will likely not grow. The problem with having too many ships on the field is that it shifts the game character from a tactical action game to a strategy game. The importance of piloting your ship is undermined. Sector is not designed as such a game and it would not really work.

Not necessarily. Currently you have the ability to switch your flagship "controlled ship" using the command interface. There is really no reason to do this unless your ship is about to be destroyed. If maps were larger and shuttles given the ability to move at very high speeds you could switch to localized conflicts on different parts of the map. It would inject a strategic aspect into a tactical game but it would do so in order to enrich the tactical aspect of it.

+1 for the idea of range limiting the benefit gained from capture points.

Thanks. It is just absolutely absurd that when a team has captured all the points that they move 50 units faster and have 50% longer range. Given that both sides select from the same weapon groups the team with the advantage really cannot be beat unless the numbers are incredibly different.

Planetary bodies: I don't feel that a planet would fit on the scale of the combat that is taking place, and trying to apply locational gravity on a 2d plane is wonky enough on the overworld. I do, however, think that fleets ought to be able to fight in high orbit, which could create cool visual effects like a ship's hulk dropping into the atmosphere as its orbit decays, burning and breaking apart (or not, they could just make a crash landing). It could also create new combat conditions, like having to fight an enemy fleet with planetary battery fire harrying you at the same time, as well as maybe new gametypes, like troop recovery, or delivery.

Dense Nebulae: Nebulae are stellar bodies on a galactic scale. The action in Starfare is intrasystem. The existence of nebulae that can slow you is odd enough, in my opinion, to render the idea of even denser clouds of gas slightly silly. However, fighting in the upper atmosphere of a gas giant WOULD make sense and would be super cool.

I dont mean planetary bodies as an object that is collision bound. However it could be represented by a backdrop and area effects (such as atmospheric deflection of energy based weapons or maneuverability issues). It could also open up the possibility of orbital defenses being added.

Mhh...this is tricky business. Would that not make fast ships much weaker? It would mean your main concern is not capturing Objectives in time but to hold or conquer them, which favors powerful ships.

I've seen the small/fast ship issue pop up around the forums. I think the real solution IS to make the battles larger and distance larger. Increase the speed differential between a capital ship and a frigate and a frigate to a fighter. Right now standard fighter wings cost something like 6 points? Bringing 4 piranhas into a battle is equivalent to a heavy cap which is ridiculous in the way that bombers work Get the points reworked so that a player could choose to bring 10 bomber wings over a capital ship. Then you will see all three flight decks of the Astral being used in full force (another complaint I see around the forums). Making bombers easier to spam means you dont want to have PD systems of a single ship having to deal with all of these bombers. This makes it neccesary to bring in frigates/destroyers geared to A-A (anyone call for 5 thumpers on their enforcer?). Right now this game favors packing a handful of powerful ships that are preceded by spamming the fastest thing you can find with stopping power and it gets old. Once you get caps you really dont need destroyers anymore. Make players consider outfitting their fleet to engage a multitude of threats and choose what they need to bring with their reserve points based on what they see, not the same old vanilla strat. Or to make it clearer: Make the player fight the opposing fleet, not the map.

I like those ideas. Reminds me of MechWarrior when you have different heat sink efficiencies when you fight on a cold planet vs. on a hot planet.

Mechwarrior was a lot more fun in Beta when the devs broke flamers and forgot to make them generate heat until you let off the mouse (meaning you could hold down fire endlessly without a single heatsink). Throw 9 flamers (which used to do as much as a medium laser[SOBROKEN]) onto a hunchback 4P that was fully loaded on armor and the most massive engine you could find (because you are carrying ultra light weapons with no heatsinks to speak of) and you literally could average 5-8 kills per game(This isnt an exaggeration, I had a 100% win rate in beta because it was so broken and I ran premades with 2-3 other trolls ) just solomelting atlas's faces off in less than 20 seconds. It got so bad that there was a whole petition to get me and a buddie of mine removed from beta "because we were abusing the beta experience for others". Since they removed that, the game just hasnt generated enough pubbie tears for me to try and pick it up again