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] 4 5 6

Author Topic: why is it that in starsector Losing != FUN!  (Read 26233 times)

dmaiski

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
  • resistance is futile
    • View Profile
Re: why is it that in starsector Losing != FUN!
« Reply #30 on: May 08, 2014, 08:13:45 AM »

:P encouraging what @Megas described is pretymuch the definitive reason for this problem :P
(not to say i dont do the same)


curently SS plays like a single player FPS/brawler/bullet hell game rather then anything resembling a strategy/tactics game. Unfortunately in FPS/brawler/bullet hell games, losing isn't be fun... i would really apreciate a rework of the command points system, ship death behaviour, and skill tree to make "a fleet of one" stop happening

im not sure, but leaving "space scrap yards" when massive fleets fight, from wich you(and the AI) can salvage hulks using supplies would go a long way to making losses more intresting, and make a great credit sink into wich you can put all that potential trade income into.

actualy this would also go along way to encouraging players to bring (and buy) more supplies, make the map more intresting, and make loosing alot less punishing, and more intresting (by increasing the "acceptable losses" threshold)
Logged
BISO
(WIP) lots of shiny new weapons ( :-[ i have more weapons then sprites :-[ )

i got a cat pad
its like a mouse pad but better!

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23987
    • View Profile
Re: why is it that in starsector Losing != FUN!
« Reply #31 on: May 08, 2014, 10:53:30 AM »

@dmaiski:
Win DF? SS is a game of chance with no acceptable losses? I feel like we're talking about different games...

Not saying this is necessarily the case here, but I think this could have a lot to do with the mods one is playing with. The AI handles some weapons better than others, I could see some over-the-top-ish or just unusual/oddball weapons resulting in fairly random outcomes.

(Incidentally, this is why I have a bit of trouble parsing the "suicidal AI" comments that pop up now and again. It's usually not clear whether they're referring to vanilla or modded (and even less clear about the specific situation), and I have a feeling the reader just tends to assume it applies to whatever they're thinking about, potentially making things even more confusing.)

Also occasionally there are completely BS autoresolves or situations where I die horribly in a complete fluke, which is why I never play Iron Mode these days (I only save-scum when I die for some completely BS reason).

I think that the restart ships should be slightly nicer (depending on how far you got before you died). Maybe like a nice frigate/crap destroyer instead of a shuttle that can't kill anything. tbh though, I expect that the trade update will solve things for me. Having ways to make money besides combat will make the non-combat ships a bit more viable.

This almost feels like you're talking about an older version, since autoresolve is mostly out of the game, and you no longer get a shuttle on restart - you get basically the same ships as the starters.

I strongly believe that any form of trading will be impossible to balance (too much cost effective) until the campaign layer AI fleets will start behaving a little bit better. Right now they start chasing you and then stop, then start again etcetc nullifying every possible burn advantage they may have and making the player impossible to catch even with very low speed ships. If they start chasing better, sticking to the target for days IMHO, trade runs could be infinitely more intense and fun. Would also make the runs in hostile territories a hard choice as it should be.

That's an interesting point. The fleet AI definitely needs a revamp (though I'm trying to hold off on that as long as possible, to minimize the number of revamps it'll ultimately need), and I'll keep this in mind. The idea of a long chase sounds like it has potential, though I think the overall fleet density might have to go down some for it to work. Which will likely happen eventually, so...

(Re: calculating an intercept: I'm not convinced that'd be good. It could just make them much, much easier to juke.)


I think it would be worth some thought to enhance the scalability of a player's battle-effort. To give it your very, very best is what struggling actually means, after all. The CR system was in good step in that direction. It gives you a reason not to go into a fight with full force, which makes going in with full force feel special. But that could really be expanded upon.
To throw around some ideas: How about allowing something like an overdrive mode that boosts your ships for one battle but costs extra CR/crew lives/hull points? How about calling in expensive help from nearby mercenaries? Maybe introduce super missile weapons that have to be purchased single piece and then authorized by you. Or you could give more "wiggle space" on the tactical side by allowing very costly special kinds of deployment (like from the enemy's side) or re-deployment.

Hmm, yeah. I've been thinking about similar things conceptually, focused more on the campaign than the combat side. I think in general new mechanics belong squarely in the campaign; the combat is in pretty good shape all around. It has some issues, obviously, but it probably doesn't make sense to try to adjust it before the campaign is more or less done, and the "struggle" should be prominent in the campaign. Which may drive whatever tweaks to combat end up being necessary.
Logged

dmaiski

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
  • resistance is futile
    • View Profile
Re: why is it that in starsector Losing != FUN!
« Reply #32 on: May 08, 2014, 11:16:13 AM »

(Re: calculating an intercept: I'm not convinced that'd be good. It could just make them much, much easier to juke.)

not in the least, i used this on the missile ai, and the resultant missiles are next to imposible to dodge... that algorithm is very responsive to changes in vector

when a ship is aiming at the LeadPoint, its allways taking the shortest route to intercept target, drying to juke out of the way would be totaly ineffective since it would just update to the intercept of wherever you juked to, also this would actualy reduce the overall time till intercept, not increase it (unless you are actualy faster then the missile/chasing object, and that algorighm has a case for that as well)

:P evasive manuvers only work due to movie magic, large turn arks, and bad targeting ai :P
« Last Edit: May 08, 2014, 11:32:47 AM by dmaiski »
Logged
BISO
(WIP) lots of shiny new weapons ( :-[ i have more weapons then sprites :-[ )

i got a cat pad
its like a mouse pad but better!

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23987
    • View Profile
Re: why is it that in starsector Losing != FUN!
« Reply #33 on: May 08, 2014, 11:32:18 AM »

I meant specifically for fleets in the campaign, not for missiles in combat. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
Logged

dmaiski

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
  • resistance is futile
    • View Profile
Re: why is it that in starsector Losing != FUN!
« Reply #34 on: May 08, 2014, 11:33:20 AM »

it doesnt mater, the same logic applies, unless fleets in campaign can teleport...

the rate of deflection requred to dodge that algorighm requires that you have to be faster then the shing chasing you, otherwhise jukeing has absolutley no effect
« Last Edit: May 08, 2014, 11:35:00 AM by dmaiski »
Logged
BISO
(WIP) lots of shiny new weapons ( :-[ i have more weapons then sprites :-[ )

i got a cat pad
its like a mouse pad but better!

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23987
    • View Profile
Re: why is it that in starsector Losing != FUN!
« Reply #35 on: May 08, 2014, 11:42:29 AM »

The code you posted doesn't consider acceleration. I'm not saying it's bad - it's probably not much of an issue for missiles that get up to top speed quickly, but would matter more for fleets that accelerate more slowly. I'm can't say definitively it'll go one way or the other, but there's more to it. Whether something that uses target leading can be dodged heavily depends on the relative accelerations involved. Anyway, this is getting rather off-topic...

(I ended up giving that code a quick spin in the vanilla missile AI, using the result of LeadVector as the point the missile aims for... hm. Missiles will happily head away from the (slower!) target under certain conditions, and it doesn't actually do a good job of tracking it when it does head for it. Maybe something else you're doing in the AI - or the stats of the missiles you're using - is/are somehow making up for it, but you might want to take a look at it. Anyway, again, totally off-topic.)
« Last Edit: May 08, 2014, 12:21:53 PM by Alex »
Logged

xenoargh

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5078
  • naively breaking things!
    • View Profile
Re: why is it that in starsector Losing != FUN!
« Reply #36 on: May 08, 2014, 12:07:21 PM »

Here are my thoughts:

1.  There is no reason to use disposable fleets in Vanilla, because there is no mechanic to replace them without losing large amounts of time, even if we leave cost out of the equation.  

Taking losses means losing time, and not in a fun way; when we're going to have to "defend an Outpost", if we lose, we're basically hosed; there being no way to replace the losses means that even if we have a million credits (as I've had, every time I've played Vanilla since the Supplies change, within three hours) there's no speedy way to spend it and recoup the real losses in specific weapons and ships.  I think it's very problematic that I have money I can't spend, ever, in a game like this.

Uomoz's solution is intriguing in that regard, but I think relative cost matters, too; if it's cheaper / faster / more efficient to build big fleets that I know will take some losses vs. tanky super-fleets that don't but cannot afford a catastrophic loss... I'm going to do the former.

In Vacuum, I largely did away with the delay; if there's a ship you want, you just need to know what Faction makes it and you can obtain another one, pronto, assuming you're on good terms with the Faction.  This, and having plenty of money by midgame onwards, if one plays smart, makes it possible to largely ignore this and take losses willy-nilly if it seems like a reasonably-fun thing.

So I don't mind taking losses or losing a battle- but in Vanilla, I really mind that I've lost the last five hours of my life and it's indeterminate how long it will take to replace those losses.  It's not like taking losses in a RTS, where either that means I just lost the game or I'll shrug and order up another 100 Peewees or Marines; given the open-world nature of the game, it's mainly about time loss, and time loss isn't fun.

Coupled with the "slow movement after battles" and other factors... this factor leads, very naturally, to extremely conservative play.  If you don't take losses, you don't have to travel to Askonia and hope that the ship you need, given your DPs, to fill a specific role, will exist.  This is similar to Mount and Blade, where all of the serious players who wanted to conquer Calradia gravitated towards armies of the most-OP troops for sieges and avoided open-field battles like the plague.  Losses there took serious time to replace as well, due to the need to re-level them up to the point where they were useful, and it encouraged a conservative attitude.  

I think it's even worse in SS, though, because there is no sure way to replace a loss, especially of a rare ship type.  If you lost an Astral, you may have to spend hours getting one again, unless you're farming Tri-Tach just to get one.  That's not much fun.

Given that "Askonia" as a concept is going away, this may or may not get worse, depending, to a large extent, on what replaces it.  If we can start placing orders for Autofacs to construct fleet replacements to replace losses, then the sting of loss is considerably less, so long as it wasn't a major strategic disaster; if you've managed to save that hapless Independent base from the scurvy Pirates of the Long Reach then that Hammerhead with custom gear you lost can be re-ordered and all is well- you've lost money, but not much time.

However, if things remain largely like they are, in terms of access to ships, or become even worse, in terms of time-investment per ship constructed, the opposite will happen; each battle is risk, risk might mean defeat, if not in detail then in irreplaceable time, and the tendency to only pick the sure thing unless there is absolutely no other choice won't work.

In terms of creating situations where there is absolutely no choice, there are mechanics problems atm.  Basically, fleet movements are pretty fast, and there is no warning given to the player that a given location is a target; if that's going to become a Thing, then players need to have good warning, or it won't be much fun.  Camping your Newbie Outpost and intercepting threats will be thrilling for about an hour, but after that, you're basically cutting yourself off from further adventures and expansion.  At a certain point, either your little empire's somewhat self-defending vs. anything that's not a huge threat, or you're stuck.  

In Vacuum, I made this work by making it quite difficult for the AI fleets to capture / destroy bases, and prevented them from wiping each other out, since that largely just helps the players; this kept things pretty simple, and players don't  have to spend much time on forced defense.  I'll try adding the occasional battle that players cannot avoid into the next build to see how that feels, though; it might be fun.  

I thought that another fun idea would be to let the player take control of battles between their forces and that of the enemy, if they wished, becoming directly involved in the outcome and assuming a more managerial role.


2.  Ship and weapon balance and relative costs matter a lot.  

There is no reason to use anything smaller than Cruisers unless you're trying to solo a fleet, Megas-style.  

Frigates and Destroyers don't have a point in big engagement, if handled by the AI; the difference in real capability vs. cost makes the bigger ships overwhelmingly more cost-efficient.  This has a lot to do with the DP costs of ships; if an Onslaught costs 50 DP to deploy, I'm going to think twice about using it vs. a scad of Destroyers who cost 5 apiece.  

The DP system doesn't have quite enough granularity (imo) in that regard; deploying a Wing vs. a Destroyer is usually a no-brainer (the Wing, unless it utterly sucks, because it's usually a lot more DPS in total and it's immortal).  I've thought about playing with that in Vacuum, using a different range of DP values and splitting the ships much more widely based on how powerful they actually are... the issue there is largely one of making sure the AI can deploy more forces than the player, which isn't a big deal, and adjusting the DPs so that the gulf between lots of cheap ships and a few powerhouses is enough that the cheap-ship fleet is tempting.  

I know there are Vanilla players who play with big fleets, but I agree wholeheartedly with Megas's analysis that it isn't efficient; it's cool and it's pretty, but would a serious player trying to be efficient use it right now?  No.  

Moreover... until it's not attractive to solo-kill fleets vs. using big disposable fleets, it's going to be the solution for practically all serious play.  I think I've got Vacuum just about cured of that problem, finally, but it took quite a bit of rebal to make it happen.  Vanilla's current balance remains at a point where I'd say that the frigate-fleet-of-doom approach is most efficient, followed by the Multi-Medusa Horde, and that is kind of worrying, because once again, the emphasis is on players flying solo, no losses, extremely conservative play.

In addition, big fleets run into some technical issues with the engine; viewing the Fleet screen when there are lots of ships is quite expensive computationally, to the point of lagging when large numbers of ships are present, largely because of engines rendering and other things like that, so far as I can determine.  

One solution to that would be to render the ships with gear and all that to a FBO when the UI opens and then just render that result; it'd look exactly the same but be lightning-fast.  There are other issues there of a UI nature, though; if really big fleets are the norm for high-end fleets going the cheap-DP route, then tools like being able to sort the ships becomes important, amongst other things.  And there is the obvious tension between DPs and the total cost in Supplies as well.
Logged
Please check out my SS projects :)
Xeno's Mod Pack

dmaiski

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
  • resistance is futile
    • View Profile
Re: why is it that in starsector Losing != FUN!
« Reply #37 on: May 08, 2014, 12:17:35 PM »

i think i understand what you mean, but in this case it does not actualy mater for the algorithm

:P i make pictures :P

basicly lets asume you fly in circles, and you have an object chasing you
if you used (distance/time)*TargetSpeed
the resultant time till intercept would be longer in practice

using the leadvector produces a concave when the objects are headed into eachother, and a elipsoid pattern when they are not
img (graph of LeadPoint of a object traveling in a circle)
Spoiler
[close]

even if you have the ability to turn your vector of travel 180deg without losing any speed, the chasing object would still intercept you in the minimal amount of time posible (without it being a precog)
« Last Edit: May 08, 2014, 12:27:24 PM by dmaiski »
Logged
BISO
(WIP) lots of shiny new weapons ( :-[ i have more weapons then sprites :-[ )

i got a cat pad
its like a mouse pad but better!

xenoargh

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5078
  • naively breaking things!
    • View Profile
Re: why is it that in starsector Losing != FUN!
« Reply #38 on: May 08, 2014, 12:24:59 PM »

Does that take acceleration differences into account? 

There is a weighted function there; it's not sufficient to do the quadratic interception every frame.  Anyhow, that's a major derail; perhaps a new thread?
Logged
Please check out my SS projects :)
Xeno's Mod Pack

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: why is it that in starsector Losing != FUN!
« Reply #39 on: May 08, 2014, 12:29:22 PM »

I'm a little late to the party, but a few comments:

As a stopgap, a higher chance of repairing disabled ships would mitigate the "hours lost" syndrome. Probably shouldn't make it to the full game, but for now its just a number.

On player control: I'm of a different opinion than you dmaiski. Recently I've been playing with quite large fleets and I feel like the losses are completely under my control. It takes a bit of getting used to, but the current commands offer a huge amount of control (yes I have a few complaints about how the AI gets distracted - in particular disengaging targets is a problem). There are some battles where I glance at how its unfolding and don't need to change my initial commands, but other battles I'm using 10+ command points to maneuver the fleet - either forcing ships to pull back or sending reinforcements. Most often when I see a destroyer pop and glance at the map, I see that it was my fault for having it be there or not responding to the enemy AI's force concentration.


On the intercept: I would like them to do an intercept solution, because watching fleets spiral around each other so much is silly... On another note, I still think the current chase mechanics are bugged: the enemy fleet will chase for a few seconds, juke to the side, chase again... repeat. I've had enemy fleets a burn or two faster than me be unable to catch up when I'm just going in a straight line.
Logged

dmaiski

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
  • resistance is futile
    • View Profile
Re: why is it that in starsector Losing != FUN!
« Reply #40 on: May 08, 2014, 12:35:23 PM »

Moving derail on LeadVector to modding:
http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=7967.0
Logged
BISO
(WIP) lots of shiny new weapons ( :-[ i have more weapons then sprites :-[ )

i got a cat pad
its like a mouse pad but better!

Aereto

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
    • View Profile
Re: why is it that in starsector Losing != FUN!
« Reply #41 on: May 08, 2014, 01:16:53 PM »

Spoiler
Here are my thoughts:

1.  There is no reason to use disposable fleets in Vanilla, because there is no mechanic to replace them without losing large amounts of time, even if we leave cost out of the equation.  

Taking losses means losing time, and not in a fun way; when we're going to have to "defend an Outpost", if we lose, we're basically hosed; there being no way to replace the losses means that even if we have a million credits (as I've had, every time I've played Vanilla since the Supplies change, within three hours) there's no speedy way to spend it and recoup the real losses in specific weapons and ships.  I think it's very problematic that I have money I can't spend, ever, in a game like this.

Uomoz's solution is intriguing in that regard, but I think relative cost matters, too; if it's cheaper / faster / more efficient to build big fleets that I know will take some losses vs. tanky super-fleets that don't but cannot afford a catastrophic loss... I'm going to do the former.

In Vacuum, I largely did away with the delay; if there's a ship you want, you just need to know what Faction makes it and you can obtain another one, pronto, assuming you're on good terms with the Faction.  This, and having plenty of money by midgame onwards, if one plays smart, makes it possible to largely ignore this and take losses willy-nilly if it seems like a reasonably-fun thing.

So I don't mind taking losses or losing a battle- but in Vanilla, I really mind that I've lost the last five hours of my life and it's indeterminate how long it will take to replace those losses.  It's not like taking losses in a RTS, where either that means I just lost the game or I'll shrug and order up another 100 Peewees or Marines; given the open-world nature of the game, it's mainly about time loss, and time loss isn't fun.

Coupled with the "slow movement after battles" and other factors... this factor leads, very naturally, to extremely conservative play.  If you don't take losses, you don't have to travel to Askonia and hope that the ship you need, given your DPs, to fill a specific role, will exist.  This is similar to Mount and Blade, where all of the serious players who wanted to conquer Calradia gravitated towards armies of the most-OP troops for sieges and avoided open-field battles like the plague.  Losses there took serious time to replace as well, due to the need to re-level them up to the point where they were useful, and it encouraged a conservative attitude.  

I think it's even worse in SS, though, because there is no sure way to replace a loss, especially of a rare ship type.  If you lost an Astral, you may have to spend hours getting one again, unless you're farming Tri-Tach just to get one.  That's not much fun.

Given that "Askonia" as a concept is going away, this may or may not get worse, depending, to a large extent, on what replaces it.  If we can start placing orders for Autofacs to construct fleet replacements to replace losses, then the sting of loss is considerably less, so long as it wasn't a major strategic disaster; if you've managed to save that hapless Independent base from the scurvy Pirates of the Long Reach then that Hammerhead with custom gear you lost can be re-ordered and all is well- you've lost money, but not much time.

However, if things remain largely like they are, in terms of access to ships, or become even worse, in terms of time-investment per ship constructed, the opposite will happen; each battle is risk, risk might mean defeat, if not in detail then in irreplaceable time, and the tendency to only pick the sure thing unless there is absolutely no other choice won't work.

In terms of creating situations where there is absolutely no choice, there are mechanics problems atm.  Basically, fleet movements are pretty fast, and there is no warning given to the player that a given location is a target; if that's going to become a Thing, then players need to have good warning, or it won't be much fun.  Camping your Newbie Outpost and intercepting threats will be thrilling for about an hour, but after that, you're basically cutting yourself off from further adventures and expansion.  At a certain point, either your little empire's somewhat self-defending vs. anything that's not a huge threat, or you're stuck.  

In Vacuum, I made this work by making it quite difficult for the AI fleets to capture / destroy bases, and prevented them from wiping each other out, since that largely just helps the players; this kept things pretty simple, and players don't  have to spend much time on forced defense.  I'll try adding the occasional battle that players cannot avoid into the next build to see how that feels, though; it might be fun.  

I thought that another fun idea would be to let the player take control of battles between their forces and that of the enemy, if they wished, becoming directly involved in the outcome and assuming a more managerial role.


2.  Ship and weapon balance and relative costs matter a lot.  

There is no reason to use anything smaller than Cruisers unless you're trying to solo a fleet, Megas-style.  

Frigates and Destroyers don't have a point in big engagement, if handled by the AI; the difference in real capability vs. cost makes the bigger ships overwhelmingly more cost-efficient.  This has a lot to do with the DP costs of ships; if an Onslaught costs 50 DP to deploy, I'm going to think twice about using it vs. a scad of Destroyers who cost 5 apiece.  

The DP system doesn't have quite enough granularity (imo) in that regard; deploying a Wing vs. a Destroyer is usually a no-brainer (the Wing, unless it utterly sucks, because it's usually a lot more DPS in total and it's immortal).  I've thought about playing with that in Vacuum, using a different range of DP values and splitting the ships much more widely based on how powerful they actually are... the issue there is largely one of making sure the AI can deploy more forces than the player, which isn't a big deal, and adjusting the DPs so that the gulf between lots of cheap ships and a few powerhouses is enough that the cheap-ship fleet is tempting.  

I know there are Vanilla players who play with big fleets, but I agree wholeheartedly with Megas's analysis that it isn't efficient; it's cool and it's pretty, but would a serious player trying to be efficient use it right now?  No.  

Moreover... until it's not attractive to solo-kill fleets vs. using big disposable fleets, it's going to be the solution for practically all serious play.  I think I've got Vacuum just about cured of that problem, finally, but it took quite a bit of rebal to make it happen.  Vanilla's current balance remains at a point where I'd say that the frigate-fleet-of-doom approach is most efficient, followed by the Multi-Medusa Horde, and that is kind of worrying, because once again, the emphasis is on players flying solo, no losses, extremely conservative play.

In addition, big fleets run into some technical issues with the engine; viewing the Fleet screen when there are lots of ships is quite expensive computationally, to the point of lagging when large numbers of ships are present, largely because of engines rendering and other things like that, so far as I can determine.  

One solution to that would be to render the ships with gear and all that to a FBO when the UI opens and then just render that result; it'd look exactly the same but be lightning-fast.  There are other issues there of a UI nature, though; if really big fleets are the norm for high-end fleets going the cheap-DP route, then tools like being able to sort the ships becomes important, amongst other things.  And there is the obvious tension between DPs and the total cost in Supplies as well.
[close]
I have been playing Vanilla for quite some time, that I think I can see your point. The probability of a ship I intend to purchase is at the luck of the draw. One of the save files, which has a 10 Leadership/Technology build, had more Paragon ships stored than Onslaughts. And then there's the DP part of things.

Due to ship count, I find myself facing down the Hegemony System Defense fleet with 90 DP. With that in mind, I can deploy 3 Onslaughts of the same variants, plus 1 Afflictor as the assassin flagship refitted with 4 antimatters and hardened subsystems to last the engagement. I noticed that I have to pay attention to the positions of my capitals to ensure that they can survive the ordeal. Each time any one of them blew it, I go back to the previous save once I figured out what went wrong (mostly bad judgment call). With the same build, I faced the fleet with a carrier fleet, Astral as the carrier carrying xyphos, gladius, and dagger wings and 2 Afflictor frigates of the same variety as flagships of the same previous task. I had to ensure that the crew count exceeds the skeleton crew minimum to avoid putting CR at risk in case of second engagement. A crowd of daggers by themselves cannot stand up to an Onslaught due to flaks, thus learning that having the blasters shoot the shields on purpose would overload and leave it open to a fatal dose of reapers. Again, the DP is 90, but the fighter/bombers can handle losses unlike any other ship class, no longer spending credits to buy new ship units, provided that at least one carrier survives the ordeal, just supplies.

At my other save, a Combat/Technology build, a close Paragon pair with two separate varieties between offense and defense can take on the defense fleet if careful. I stopped using smaller ship classes altogether when recovering losses is spotty due to said probability of purchasing the same ship class lost... unless I use that smaller ship as the flagship to pilot. My personal skills can't top the AI on the shield timing, but the attack part I can do better.

In short, learning from losses is fun, but recovering losses is not so fun. To me, at least.
Logged

ahrenjb

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
    • View Profile
Re: why is it that in starsector Losing != FUN!
« Reply #42 on: May 08, 2014, 02:42:16 PM »

Spoiler
Here are my thoughts:

1.  There is no reason to use disposable fleets in Vanilla, because there is no mechanic to replace them without losing large amounts of time, even if we leave cost out of the equation.  

Taking losses means losing time, and not in a fun way; when we're going to have to "defend an Outpost", if we lose, we're basically hosed; there being no way to replace the losses means that even if we have a million credits (as I've had, every time I've played Vanilla since the Supplies change, within three hours) there's no speedy way to spend it and recoup the real losses in specific weapons and ships.  I think it's very problematic that I have money I can't spend, ever, in a game like this.

Uomoz's solution is intriguing in that regard, but I think relative cost matters, too; if it's cheaper / faster / more efficient to build big fleets that I know will take some losses vs. tanky super-fleets that don't but cannot afford a catastrophic loss... I'm going to do the former.

In Vacuum, I largely did away with the delay; if there's a ship you want, you just need to know what Faction makes it and you can obtain another one, pronto, assuming you're on good terms with the Faction.  This, and having plenty of money by midgame onwards, if one plays smart, makes it possible to largely ignore this and take losses willy-nilly if it seems like a reasonably-fun thing.

So I don't mind taking losses or losing a battle- but in Vanilla, I really mind that I've lost the last five hours of my life and it's indeterminate how long it will take to replace those losses.  It's not like taking losses in a RTS, where either that means I just lost the game or I'll shrug and order up another 100 Peewees or Marines; given the open-world nature of the game, it's mainly about time loss, and time loss isn't fun.

Coupled with the "slow movement after battles" and other factors... this factor leads, very naturally, to extremely conservative play.  If you don't take losses, you don't have to travel to Askonia and hope that the ship you need, given your DPs, to fill a specific role, will exist.  This is similar to Mount and Blade, where all of the serious players who wanted to conquer Calradia gravitated towards armies of the most-OP troops for sieges and avoided open-field battles like the plague.  Losses there took serious time to replace as well, due to the need to re-level them up to the point where they were useful, and it encouraged a conservative attitude.  

I think it's even worse in SS, though, because there is no sure way to replace a loss, especially of a rare ship type.  If you lost an Astral, you may have to spend hours getting one again, unless you're farming Tri-Tach just to get one.  That's not much fun.

Given that "Askonia" as a concept is going away, this may or may not get worse, depending, to a large extent, on what replaces it.  If we can start placing orders for Autofacs to construct fleet replacements to replace losses, then the sting of loss is considerably less, so long as it wasn't a major strategic disaster; if you've managed to save that hapless Independent base from the scurvy Pirates of the Long Reach then that Hammerhead with custom gear you lost can be re-ordered and all is well- you've lost money, but not much time.

However, if things remain largely like they are, in terms of access to ships, or become even worse, in terms of time-investment per ship constructed, the opposite will happen; each battle is risk, risk might mean defeat, if not in detail then in irreplaceable time, and the tendency to only pick the sure thing unless there is absolutely no other choice won't work.

In terms of creating situations where there is absolutely no choice, there are mechanics problems atm.  Basically, fleet movements are pretty fast, and there is no warning given to the player that a given location is a target; if that's going to become a Thing, then players need to have good warning, or it won't be much fun.  Camping your Newbie Outpost and intercepting threats will be thrilling for about an hour, but after that, you're basically cutting yourself off from further adventures and expansion.  At a certain point, either your little empire's somewhat self-defending vs. anything that's not a huge threat, or you're stuck.  

In Vacuum, I made this work by making it quite difficult for the AI fleets to capture / destroy bases, and prevented them from wiping each other out, since that largely just helps the players; this kept things pretty simple, and players don't  have to spend much time on forced defense.  I'll try adding the occasional battle that players cannot avoid into the next build to see how that feels, though; it might be fun.  

I thought that another fun idea would be to let the player take control of battles between their forces and that of the enemy, if they wished, becoming directly involved in the outcome and assuming a more managerial role.


2.  Ship and weapon balance and relative costs matter a lot.  

There is no reason to use anything smaller than Cruisers unless you're trying to solo a fleet, Megas-style.  

Frigates and Destroyers don't have a point in big engagement, if handled by the AI; the difference in real capability vs. cost makes the bigger ships overwhelmingly more cost-efficient.  This has a lot to do with the DP costs of ships; if an Onslaught costs 50 DP to deploy, I'm going to think twice about using it vs. a scad of Destroyers who cost 5 apiece.  

The DP system doesn't have quite enough granularity (imo) in that regard; deploying a Wing vs. a Destroyer is usually a no-brainer (the Wing, unless it utterly sucks, because it's usually a lot more DPS in total and it's immortal).  I've thought about playing with that in Vacuum, using a different range of DP values and splitting the ships much more widely based on how powerful they actually are... the issue there is largely one of making sure the AI can deploy more forces than the player, which isn't a big deal, and adjusting the DPs so that the gulf between lots of cheap ships and a few powerhouses is enough that the cheap-ship fleet is tempting.  

I know there are Vanilla players who play with big fleets, but I agree wholeheartedly with Megas's analysis that it isn't efficient; it's cool and it's pretty, but would a serious player trying to be efficient use it right now?  No.  

Moreover... until it's not attractive to solo-kill fleets vs. using big disposable fleets, it's going to be the solution for practically all serious play.  I think I've got Vacuum just about cured of that problem, finally, but it took quite a bit of rebal to make it happen.  Vanilla's current balance remains at a point where I'd say that the frigate-fleet-of-doom approach is most efficient, followed by the Multi-Medusa Horde, and that is kind of worrying, because once again, the emphasis is on players flying solo, no losses, extremely conservative play.

In addition, big fleets run into some technical issues with the engine; viewing the Fleet screen when there are lots of ships is quite expensive computationally, to the point of lagging when large numbers of ships are present, largely because of engines rendering and other things like that, so far as I can determine.  

One solution to that would be to render the ships with gear and all that to a FBO when the UI opens and then just render that result; it'd look exactly the same but be lightning-fast.  There are other issues there of a UI nature, though; if really big fleets are the norm for high-end fleets going the cheap-DP route, then tools like being able to sort the ships becomes important, amongst other things.  And there is the obvious tension between DPs and the total cost in Supplies as well.
[close]

First off, the "slow movement after battles" mechanic only counts for fights that YOU picked. If you picked a fight with someone that you shouldn't have, or you royally mess it up, it should hurt. It should be frightening and you should worry about whatever you escape with being destroyed. That's why it exists. Of course it leads to conservative play. It should. Given the universe and structure of the game, no sensible captain would throw themselves headlong into fights if there was too high a risk unless absolutely necessary. It's a tough world out there, losses are not to be taken lightly.

Which brings me to the next point. You say there is "no reason to use disposable fleets in Vanilla", then go on to explain the difficulty of replacing rare or expensive ships. Those craft are directly opposite to the idea of a disposable fleet. Maybe mid-game you've acquired some powerful, rare ships. Or some expensive, uncommon capital ships. They have their place. You want them when failure isn't an option, or you have to maximize your capability. If you're just swaggering around the system starting slugfests that you can't expect to win, you shouldn't bring those ships along. Assemble a disposable fleet of common, inexpensive ships. Dominators, Condors, etc. That's a disposable fleet. Especially if you have a finely tuned fleet sitting back at base in case you get #rekd, in which case you can roll out and go earn some cash to build another disposable fleet. If you take large risks, expect large losses. If there are no serious consequences to making bad decisions, then there is no reason not to make them and you take away the entire sense of victory and defeat.

On to your next big point about balance, yes there are some balance issues at the moment. Not only because the game is still in its infancy, but because entire game mechanics are missing. It's an alpha. If a player wants to minmax, they're going to minmax. You can't force them to do otherwise. Smaller craft will become more relevant in a number of ways I have a feeling, from AI to balance to mechanics changes. Same thing with equipment. I can't be certain, but the way I imagine it your fleets will be comprise of a mix of ships you bought, captured, and more importantly constructed with blueprints that you acquired in one way or another. The weapon loadouts you use will probably never be "optimal" because getting the exact equipment you want will not be, and shouldn't be, easy. You're going to have to make do with what you can. Imagine the satisfaction of acquiring a blueprint for a heavy autocannon after you've been making do with Arbalests for a long time. It'll add a whole new level of depth and satisfaction to the game.

There has to be risk. There has to be accountability. There has to be incentive to carefully manage your resources. Otherwise, acquisitions and victories lose their entire appeal.

The current status quo does strongly encourage a playing in a way to avoid any ships at all being destroyed. The best way that I can imagine to improve this, would be to implement a mechanic that guarantees you'll be able to recover your destroyed craft after a battle given certain circumstances. First, you have to win the engagement. Maybe you start a battle with an equally matched fleet, it's gets a little heavy, and at the end most of your combat fleet has been destroyed. In your personal ship, you manage to just barely destroy the last of the enemy, or force them to retreat, resulting in a technical victory. At this point you're left with a damaged flagship and whatever ships you had in reserve, say a freighter, a tanker, and a few tugs. You can either harass / engage the fleeing enemies, leaving your destroyed ships forever, or you can let them go. If you let them go, you're presented with the option to salvage your own craft. This could be explained by something like larger ships taking smaller craft into their bays or your tugs towing the destroyed hulks (auto mothballed at 1-10% hull) back to your base or a friendly station for recovery and repair, or possibly repair them in the field if you have a construction rig and sufficient crew in reserve. This makes the value of utility ships even greater. Crew died, equipment was lost, and it's going to be expensive to bring the ships back to operational status but you didn't actually lose them. Or maybe you decide the cost of restoration isn't worth it and you sell them to a friendly station. I think you should get this option for ALL ships that YOU lost during the engagement, except for those that were totally and completely destroyed (gibbed). The current mechanic of recovering ships based on a percentage from a skill seems poor to me. The skill could be restructured to say, reduce the cost of restoring a destroyed craft.

EDIT: I would like to add that while this mechanic not only increases the usefulness and importance of utility ships, reduces the "lost time" effect of completely losing ships that may be difficult to replace, makes the "let them go" option a useful choise, and makes fighting with fleets more attractive, it also adds a new piece of depth to combat. Making sure your disabled ships don't get totally obliterated. Currently there is no reason not to pump a full broadside into one of your own hulks to destroy it and get it out of the way. If you could recover it after the battle, it makes more sense to try and steer the fight away from destroyed ships, or to lob a final torpedo at an enemy ship.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2014, 02:52:53 PM by ahrenjb »
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: why is it that in starsector Losing != FUN!
« Reply #43 on: May 08, 2014, 03:18:29 PM »

Another thing that encourages solo play in current Starsector is the excess loot that drops.  Players who want to take all the loot from endgame fights will need three Atlas ships or equivalent to take 5000-7000 worth of cargo that drops from a defense fleet or lucky supply convoy.  That is a Logistics tax of 18+.  Players who would have considered managing a fleet in battle (but did not pump up Fleet Logistics) will instead use one super flagship, a possible extra life, and the rest freighters of holding (and tugs to raise burn speed to an acceptable level).  Superfreighters should be not be required for optimal play.  Before 0.6, a few multirole ships would have enough, but now, the player needs an Atlas fleet.

Late in the game, some weapons are rarer and harder to replace than ships.  It is much easier to replace a frigate than the two to four light needlers it had that lets it perform much better than a frigate with crummy autocannons.

Quote
1.  There is no reason to use disposable fleets in Vanilla, because there is no mechanic to replace them without losing large amounts of time, even if we leave cost out of the equation.
There is one reason:  Faster XP gain.  Bring some scrap, let them die, and profit!
Logged

ahrenjb

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
    • View Profile
Re: why is it that in starsector Losing != FUN!
« Reply #44 on: May 08, 2014, 03:39:07 PM »

Superfreighters should be not be required for optimal play.  Before 0.6, a few multirole ships would have enough, but now, the player needs an Atlas fleet.

On the contrary, I think that freighters should absolutely be a vital part of any fleet. Support craft, including freighters, tankers, tugs, and constructions rigs should have very real utility, if not be downright essential to effective fleet composition.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6