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: New music for Galatia Academy (06/12/24)

Pages: 1 ... 66 67 [68] 69 70 71

Author Topic: Starsector 0.6a (Released) Patch Notes  (Read 560880 times)

Psycho Society

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.6a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1005 on: September 17, 2013, 10:43:37 PM »

Yes, that makes much more sense than an instant-win objective. A delaying action shouldn't be an artificial mechanic. What an odd proposition.
Logged

Madgamer13

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.6a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1006 on: September 18, 2013, 06:16:04 AM »

I havn't found any problems with the retreat and harry mechanics.  I do like to run like hell when outclassed.  This issue with transports engaging then harrying all your CR away is a puzzle to me though, part of the withdraw mechanic is to get a speed boost with your fleet.  If you use that speed boost to get away from the problem, surely the enemy fleet won't manage to engage you again to harry you?

Of course, if all else fails you can always just respond to engage with engage, then run like some of the enemy fleets tend to do to me. xD
Logged

Gotcha!

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
    • View Profile
    • Welcome to New Hiigara
Re: Starsector 0.6a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1007 on: September 18, 2013, 06:57:00 AM »

This worries me:
Spoiler
Code
	"engine_loop":{
"sounds":[
{"file":"sounds/sfx_engines/engine_01_lotek_00_fighter.ogg","pitch":0.67,"volume":1}, # index:  0
{"file":"sounds/sfx_engines/engine_01_lotek_01_frigate.ogg","pitch":1,"volume":1},    # index:  1
{"file":"sounds/sfx_engines/engine_01_lotek_02_destroyer.ogg","pitch":1,"volume":1},  # index:  2
{"file":"sounds/sfx_engines/engine_01_lotek_03_cruiser.ogg","pitch":1,"volume":1},    # index:  3
{"file":"sounds/sfx_engines/engine_01_lotek_04_capital.ogg","pitch":1,"volume":1},    # index:  4
{"file":"sounds/sfx_engines/engine_02_midtek_00_fighter.ogg","pitch":0.67,"volume":1},# index:  5
{"file":"sounds/sfx_engines/engine_02_midtek_01_frigate.ogg","pitch":1,"volume":1},   # index:  6
{"file":"sounds/sfx_engines/engine_02_midtek_02_destroyer.ogg","pitch":1,"volume":1}, # index:  7
{"file":"sounds/sfx_engines/engine_02_midtek_03_cruiser.ogg","pitch":1,"volume":1},   # index:  8
{"file":"sounds/sfx_engines/engine_02_midtek_04_capital.ogg","pitch":1,"volume":1},   # index:  9
{"file":"sounds/sfx_engines/engine_03_hitek_00_fighter.ogg","pitch":0.67,"volume":1}, # index: 10
{"file":"sounds/sfx_engines/engine_03_hitek_01_frigate.ogg","pitch":1,"volume":1},    # index: 11
{"file":"sounds/sfx_engines/engine_03_hitek_02_destroyer.ogg","pitch":1,"volume":1},  # index: 12
{"file":"sounds/sfx_engines/engine_03_hitek_03_cruiser.ogg","pitch":1,"volume":1},    # index: 13
{"file":"sounds/sfx_engines/engine_03_hitek_04_capital.ogg","pitch":1,"volume":1},    # index: 14
],
[close]

Does this mean that modders have to assign new/unused index numbers to their engine sounds? If that's the case, then I hope modders won't accidentally choose the same numbers, since one would be overruled when both mods are loaded, right?
Logged
  

Silver Silence

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 980
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.6a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1008 on: September 18, 2013, 07:04:25 AM »

So long as they don't have to be sequential, it can probably be done like modded blocks are done in Minecraft. (plucking a number out of thin air and going from there. I.E. index #15000)
Logged

Cycerin

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1665
  • beyond the infinite void
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.6a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1009 on: September 18, 2013, 07:13:13 AM »

The "index" is a comment. Currently there is an overlap for all modded engine sounds. Alex knows.
Logged

tinsoldier

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.6a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1010 on: September 18, 2013, 07:57:52 AM »

Yes, that makes much more sense than an instant-win objective. A delaying action shouldn't be an artificial mechanic. What an odd proposition.


How are the randomly placed nav buoys or the constraint that they don't improve fighters and frigates any less artificial ?

It's not an odd proposition  >:(
Logged

Nexusin

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.6a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1011 on: September 18, 2013, 08:57:30 AM »

First post  :)

Here are some problems I have noticed after playing a good while:

Quote
Ships delivered to stations will randomly replace ships already at the station if the total number exceeds 50,   items delivered to stations will randomly replace stacks already present at station if the total number exceeds 100

I think this is the cause of some problems, items in stations have been replaced by huge amounts of supplies and fuel, and the hegemony station has barely two rows of equipment. Supplies are much easier to get from a random pirate than to buy too, so it never really decreases. Rare ships also get replaced by unwanted, for example the neutrino mod: A single Unsung and a few of the new capitals are there in the beginning in a good mix and so on, but by the time they can be afforded they are all gone, and will not be replaced. Might be more of a trouble in the mod, but the point stands.

Is it intentional for the hegemony defense fleet to deliver damaged, mothballed ships to the station when it resupplies? Its pretty cool.

Because of supplies being so expensive now the game has gotten easier, and with a little patience you can afford a paragon in no time by staying close to stations and immediately sell looted supplies that a far above cargo hold. Just a few attacks on lone destroyers in a hound can net you enough to jump into Tri-tachyon destroyers, and after that currency quickly become worthless as you raid supply fleets with stacks of supplies worth 80k each without a single transport ship, because you have more than enough time to dock and sell it before any accidents.

There are no clear way to view how much logistics a ship takes, the old way with a number on each ship was much better instead of replacing it with a subtle supplies/day.

It would be nice if crew experience would be displayed in the "battlescreen" instead of afterwards, and where is crew losses?

For some reason hostile fleets are much more passive around me than before, I can just fly right through fleets that are more than happy to fight me, and doesn't keep aggression long at all. Once a pirate fleet decided to pursue me only to immediately switch to a trader far away. Only if they are much smaller or bigger than my own will they do something else than to ignore my existence.

This is all I can think of right now ;)
Logged

Taverius

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • Mistake not ...
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.6a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1012 on: September 18, 2013, 09:34:38 AM »

Alex, how does the AI decide if your fleet is so big it needs to run away?

Fleets the same size as mine in combat craft always try to run. Is it always looking for that 2x advantage? Or do the civilian craft count?
Logged
No faction is truly established without a themed Buffalo (TAG) variant.

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 24407
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.6a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1013 on: September 18, 2013, 09:58:54 AM »

First post  :)

Hi and welcome to the forum :)

Quote
Ships delivered to stations will randomly replace ships already at the station if the total number exceeds 50,   items delivered to stations will randomly replace stacks already present at station if the total number exceeds 100

I think this is the cause of some problems, items in stations have been replaced by huge amounts of supplies and fuel, and the hegemony station has barely two rows of equipment. Supplies are much easier to get from a random pirate than to buy too, so it never really decreases. Rare ships also get replaced by unwanted, for example the neutrino mod: A single Unsung and a few of the new capitals are there in the beginning in a good mix and so on, but by the time they can be afforded they are all gone, and will not be replaced. Might be more of a trouble in the mod, but the point stands.

Right, capping fuel/supply deliveries is on my list. For the ships being replace, that's just the breaks - sorry!


Is it intentional for the hegemony defense fleet to deliver damaged, mothballed ships to the station when it resupplies? Its pretty cool.

Not entirely. Perhaps the AI decides to mothball some of its damaged combat ships along the way? I'm not actually sure :)

Because of supplies being so expensive now the game has gotten easier, and with a little patience you can afford a paragon in no time by staying close to stations and immediately sell looted supplies that a far above cargo hold. Just a few attacks on lone destroyers in a hound can net you enough to jump into Tri-tachyon destroyers, and after that currency quickly become worthless as you raid supply fleets with stacks of supplies worth 80k each without a single transport ship, because you have more than enough time to dock and sell it before any accidents.

There are no clear way to view how much logistics a ship takes, the old way with a number on each ship was much better instead of replacing it with a subtle supplies/day.

Yep. The economy isn't exactly balanced because one doesn't exactly exist. Smoothing out the progression is something I'll definitely look at later!

It would be nice if crew experience would be displayed in the "battlescreen" instead of afterwards, and where is crew losses?

The crew losses are displayed in the text, after the final engagement.


For some reason hostile fleets are much more passive around me than before, I can just fly right through fleets that are more than happy to fight me, and doesn't keep aggression long at all. Once a pirate fleet decided to pursue me only to immediately switch to a trader far away. Only if they are much smaller or bigger than my own will they do something else than to ignore my existence.
Alex, how does the AI decide if your fleet is so big it needs to run away?

Fleets the same size as mine in combat craft always try to run. Is it always looking for that 2x advantage? Or do the civilian craft count?

It's based on total deployment points, but it's not too big a gap, much less than double. Civilian craft do count.
Logged

L33tGuilty

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.6a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1014 on: September 18, 2013, 10:03:38 AM »

Trying it out and here are my thouths:

ive got now middle size fleet and EVERYONE is avoiding me. i cant catch up to them and im losing supplie sooooooo fast that im forced into buying it or selling off my ships just to stay alive >.<

Either the price of suplies is way too big or the suplies lost due to low CR is wayyyyyyy toooooo biiggggggg !!!! 




hotfix pls :)
Logged

xenoargh

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5078
  • naively breaking things!
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.6a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1015 on: September 18, 2013, 10:11:45 AM »

Don't worry, you'll figure it out eventually :)

Raise your LR, get rid of Marines, don't buy ships you don't need to win battles, especially when you're trying to earn money (two Hounds > Buffalo Mk. II ... profit), use Mothball, keep your fleet in good repair so that supplies aren't being used :)
Logged
Please check out my SS projects :)
Xeno's Mod Pack

Nexusin

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.6a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1016 on: September 18, 2013, 10:17:51 AM »

Thanks for the response!
Quote
Not entirely. Perhaps the AI decides to mothball some of its damaged combat ships along the way? I'm not actually sure
Its the whole fleet, instead of resupplying, it docks and I can buy damaged onslaughts and a new one will appear after a while. It still calls it resupplying though.
Logged

stardidi

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.6a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1017 on: September 18, 2013, 10:51:33 AM »

Something that might be nice is to highlight crew losses and other important information in the After Action screen.

I currently tend to dismiss or miss the information too often as I don't feel like reading the entire combat log every time (I know, begin lazy)
Logged

Silver Silence

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 980
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.6a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1018 on: September 18, 2013, 11:24:10 AM »

Trying it out and here are my thouths:

ive got now middle size fleet and EVERYONE is avoiding me. i cant catch up to them and im losing supplie sooooooo fast that im forced into buying it or selling off my ships just to stay alive >.<

Either the price of suplies is way too big or the suplies lost due to low CR is wayyyyyyy toooooo biiggggggg !!!! 




hotfix pls :)
Easy mode CR. All ships cost 1 supply per day, all ships cost 1 CR to deploy. CR is now irrelevant, carry on as you did in 0.54.
Logged

Debido

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1183
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.6a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1019 on: September 18, 2013, 12:23:11 PM »

I love the update so far, it's a joy to play....eventually...after you get past the initial learning curve of the new CR system and having myself spanked by other pirates...anyway

* When the enemy fleet is fleeing and have the CR to fight back, some or all of the combat ships (non-transport vessels) should probably fly backwards so their guns/armour are pointing towards you/enemy. Otherwise it makes it too simple to shoot out their engines, strand them, and finish them off.

* New sound effects are good, but as mentioned previously - MORE BASS!

* The CR depletion in combat can be annoying in strung out engagements. I'm see what you're trying to 'model' and penalise by having it deplete after a few minutes on frigates in particular, and it seems more like a penalty system for having a long battle. I re-read your blog on CR to understand it again, but I'm not sure the modelling is satisfactory, at least for me.

I would meet you half way on the fighters with maybe the CR affecting their engines. A real life analogy is that fighter craft engines in the likes of the Su-27, or could have been the MiG 29...anyway, basically they'd be good for *one* flight then require an engine overhaul. However this was a function of having a large amount of power generation in a small amount of space. As the energy production per cubic meter goes down the maintenance per flight hour goes down. Something like the AC-130 requires 2 hours of maintenance per hour flown, all the way up to the gas turbine engines on sea faring vessels that go for many months before requiring maintenance or an overhaul.

Perhaps a different model to effect 'stamina' in combat is to have hull and armour damage affect CR. This way your ships capabilities are derived from your initial CR, minus the damage you take during combat. So if your ship engages in combat and is damaged THEN penalties to engines, weapons and missiles apply. At the moment if you take damage to your weapons or engines, they may go offline for a short time but they come back and do so with no penalty.

I'm not sure the of the exact formula, but let's start with CR = InitialCR% - (Hull% x 0.5) - (Armour% x 0.5).
- Next have EMP weapons take a fixed % from CR (from your blog), though need some more definition on EMP dmg to %CR reduction
-flux overloads make a % CR penalty as well
- Engine damage/flameouts make a CR % penalty

With this way of modelling CR players are penalised when they use bad strategies and play styles that gets their fleet damaged, and rewards you when you do better.
As for playing with a small frigate vs an arbitrary sized fleet as in the youtube video, I'll address that in the next 2 points.

* Missiles need to go faster, much faster. If you noticed in that video of the player kiting, he often had scores of missiles after him but never really hit. I'm still disappointed in the implementation of missiles, and I often forgo using them. If I have a choice between installing missiles vs Flux capacity/Armour/Speed/Shield mods for OP - I'll choose the mods. All too often missiles are shot down or bump into the shield unless their engine seeking, and the most effective way to use a torpedo is to ram the enemy ship and fire them point blank.

If in the example youtube video that guy was being hit with the missiles all the time he wouldn't have lasted one minute. I'd suggest a minimum missile speed of 1000, with greater acceleration/turning rates. At the moment if I see missiles coming towards me I often view them more of an annoyance than a threat.

Missiles are fairly limited with a small chance of hitting unless in enormous quantities. These things should scream through space, and as soon as you see those red crosses, warning klaxons need to go off with flashing around the screen. An incoming missile should make you feel fear, not sigh with annoyance.

Perhaps the further away missiles are when launched, the more time they get to speed up, by the time they reach you or the enemy ship they’re going at 6,000-10,000 SU’s if fired from half way across the map. The greater the velocity the less chance you or the enemy has to react, and less chance of PD weapons intercepting them.

By giving LR missiles a far better speed and range you can have carriers and missile ships stay away from the main battle front, but still make a difference in combat. Of course for carriers and missile ships to engage distant subjects you’ll still need fighter craft and other vessels to spot enemies that are beyond visual range.

To help with modelling missiles as more of a threat, the velocity of the missile could affect a % chance of bypassing the shield or doing more damage to the shield.

I’ve already tried playing with the missiles speed values in 0.54a and found combat to be faster, though I did note that they hit an in game maximum projectile speed of may be 2,000 or 3,000 SU’s
Edit: Ah ok, just found your formula for max speed.

* CR Penalties also apply to the shield, if you have a low CR from lack of supplies, combat etc. Then
a) The shield can intermittently collapse and be offline for a period
b) The shield starts letting through projectiles as a % that is proportional or some formula that relates to the CR and hull/armour
It’s hard to say what exact formula to use, but it’s certainly something to play with in option B. If you used something like option B and had it directly proportional to the CR%, then even the best ship starting at 80% CR would let through 1 in 5 projectiles. It could be crazy but it would certainly speed up combat if shields were fallible.

* Another completely different line to go down is to have a separate CR for:
- Ammunition based weapons as a function of % of magazine fired in combat, modelling barrel wear and ammunition reload; CR drop applies after combat.

-Energy weapons as a function of % of pre-determined rounds fired before barrel wear lowers CR *during* combat. The intention is for energy weapons to be able to continue firing after you run out of conventional ‘ammunition’ based weapons.

- missile loading: based upon function of missiles from magazine fired, CR reduction occurs after combat. The intention is the same as in the blog.

- missile system: Based upon armour/hull/direct impact/overloads. Models damage to the launch system. CR penalties include mis-targeting (possibly hitting your own ships), launching from the ship but missile engines not firing, and finally the missile exploding whilst on the launch system (% chance at 0% CR)

- engines integrity: CR based upon 2 functions

a) Time using engines *above* a pre-determined thrust to weight ratio (a function of SU speed to weight ratio and acceleration to weight ratio we’ll call TWR).  Weighted at 50% for most ships, weighted at 64% for frigates (or higher).

b) direct-hit-flameouts, hull damage. Weighted at 50% for most ships

The intention of the above model in part A is so that slower and avg. speed ships for their class/weight take little or no penalty for simply driving flying combat, but faster ships for their class/weight take a penalty to model additional wear and tear on the engines and reduce fast frigates kiting forever.

Using your engines above the ‘optimal’ TWR redline consumes engine CR points, the higher value above the optimal CR value for the class/weight the faster it is used. A fast frigate for example may be able to maintain maximum thrust for 2-3 minutes before engine integrity CR penalties reduce their speed below normal TWR values.

What this also potentially means is that ships of any class can be ‘fast’ for its weight/class but they will receive the penalty. There could large battle cruisers that can now engage fleeing vessels by getting catching up or getting ahead of them just once or twice before engine CR haults them. ATM it’s only frigates or fighters that are able to catch up.

This would also mean that ships frequently using their ‘burn’/after burner drive enough times would start to reduce their engine CR as well.

Part B has been mentioned in previous posts.

Engine malfunction and speed penalties as normal. Engine CR also helps determine auto-resolve if your ship escapes and you ‘lose’ the combat round

- shield: function of armour/hull integrity, engine CR and power systems CR. CR penalties can apply as stated previously

And possibly

- Power systems: Affects Flux capacity Max & Flux dissipation Max as well as %chance of overload. A function of energy weapons CR%, engine CR% and % of time spent above 80% of Flux capacity Max.

In the UI you can show a total CR% for a given ship, but clicking on the ‘?’ shows the CR % that make up the total. Fleet logistics would still work and would still consume supplies to recover total CR, but those supplies are being divided amongst the different systems as needed

I believe the overall intention of CR is maintained with this system:

On one extreme end agro players with a fast fleet that continually spam their fast ships will eventually need to wait for maintenance (CR recovery),and will need to spend much more on said CR recovery.

Players that frequently use bad tactics and allow their ships to be damaged while using copious amount of ammunition will also spend a much longer time waiting for CR recovery.

Players that use good strategies and balance playing styles receive small to average CR penalties BUT they may not destroy as many enemies as an agro player so will not be rewarded with as much loot.
On the opposite end players that try to use lots of very slow, heavily armoured and armed ships trying to minimise CR usage won’t be as able to engage AI enemies unless they use faster attack ships to slow the enemy down.

You could probably plot the efficiency for a given fleet size in terms of return on loot as negative parabola, with aggressiveness on the x-axis and loot return on the y-axis – fast/aggressive players going past peak efficiency (saturation point) get less loot return due to CR penalties of wear and tear.

Hm, anyway I think that may be another way of modelling CR so that it’s proportional to usage and that the penalties are appropriate to the tactics and strategies of the player rather than being an arbitrary number per deployment. In the current state of the CR formula a capital ship can enter combat, tot around for a few minutes and may not even fire it’s ammunition based weapons – yet it costs a whopping 40 to 50 CR points to do nothing but burn a little fuel and may be fire a couple of LR missiles? The current modelling just doesn’t seem to reasonably equate to fair usage and gameplay.

You’ve probably already considered such a complex CR system already, and I have to admit it would be more difficult and time consuming to implement and beyond your original intended scope of game complexity. What’s mentioned above is probably a month or two of coding, tweaking and testing but I believe it will help balance the game out and make it more dynamic and allow more tactics and strategies.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 66 67 [68] 69 70 71