Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - FuryoftheStars

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12
Bugs / Re: Duplicate weapons / turrets
« on: February 26, 2020, 10:03:48 PM »
You could report it via the in game bug reporting feature.

That said, bear in mind that if you have a Creative Mode galaxy that you are playing, this is intended.

News / Re: Beta Branch Patch 0.33.0 Patchnotes
« on: February 26, 2020, 09:58:17 PM »
You post too early.  Steam doesn't show 0.33 yet. :P

Definitely some great stuff in there (especially turret blueprinting and valuables detector showing flight recorders (YAY!)), and some stuff that made me lol.  I'm tempted to write "banana lemon cookies" in here, but as I haven't been able to get in and actually see it, yet....

:) :P

--> manouverabillity should be nerfed on big ships, not speed (!)

I keep feeling myself going back and forth on this.  On the one hand, I feel like small ships are always going to be inferior so long as they are not able to out maneuver and outrun large ships, but on the other hand, the devs aren't wrong about big ships being capable of higher speeds.  Just look at Naval ships.  A US Naval Aircraft Carrier is more than capable of reaching speeds that leaves the rest of the ships in its fleet behind, but in the short run, the rest of the ships are capable of reaching their maxes much faster and leave the carrier behind.  If they're going over enough of a distance, then the carrier can eventually catch up and surpass them.

I'd be willing to give the maneuverability nerf to large ships a try first.  And maybe a nerf to acceleration for them as well?  That way they can't just boost out of a string of weapons fire as easily.  Small craft may need a boost to accel as well, though.  Edit: Actually, I'm thinking the nerf to large ship accel I'd like to see is a nerf to their accel while boosting.  That might work.

That's because your weapons reach up to 25km and their usual attack range is 5km, its clear as crystal how this is taking away any chance of balance.

Again, youre misdirecting blame to the speed changes (which need reverting). Players need slowing down as well as having shorter range weapons, this will make combat engagements harder to get away from and more balanced. Making everything faster is not EVER going to make them catch you, and break the game more. Instead, slowing the players down and removing the ludicrous weapon ranges allows for easier solutions to balance.

There is no reason you or the AI should be playing RoadRunner and Wile Coyote with each other until youre hundreds of km away from the sector. With how things are now, there is no dogfighting, just buggy looking cat and mouse chases.

While I agree that the ships shouldn't be chasing each other around like Wile Coyote and Roadrunner, I do not agree with nerfing weapon range.  I do not want this game to turn into a dogfighter with capital ships where they have to be scraping each other's paint to get in weapons range.  Large ships should be able to hit at long range.  They just shouldn't be able to get out of the way as easily.  Dogfighting should be up to the fighters and smaller ships.

As mentioned above, I think I'd be willing to give maneuverability and acceleration nerfs to large ships and potentially acceleration boosts to small ships a try and see how that works out.

I'd call this broken behavior a bug, but ya know its not like theyre posting on steam that they want us to report bugs or anything.

That kind of stuff is called balancing, not bugs.  Two different animals.

General Discussion / Re: Improvements to Ship Generation are Ongoing!
« on: February 25, 2020, 03:36:50 PM »
Tried to "generate" such ships over and over on shipyards. even with "mad" seeds. Never get such designs. All 4 ships types have an own seed and only differ in some blocks. Or whats my failure?

Each faction has further differences in design. The one(s) you’re looking for are probably with a different faction somewhere.

News / Re: Our new Public Relations Member
« on: February 25, 2020, 03:35:25 PM »
Hey, awesome!  Congrats and welcome!

Suggestions / Re: energy suppressor satellite update suggustion
« on: February 23, 2020, 11:13:11 AM »
Hazard zones do occur with pirates if they destroy enough.  Destroying pirates isn’t quite the same, and I imagine they’re exempt from it because of the frequency with which they spawn.

It doesn’t make sense because the energy suppressor is not a comms jammer. And even if it was, it stands to reason that if enough ships disappear in a given sector, civilians are going to start avoiding it on their own and nearby factions may send scouts to see what’s going on.

You can’t just sit in one sector and expect freighter after freighter to come through like stupid AIs of old games.  In reality, pirates would be constantly moving around to find ships, stay ahead of the law, and to not cause any one area to become so “hot” that no one wants to go there anymore.  This is what a hazard zone is.

A good use of the energy suppressor for single player would be for it to reduce or stop pirate/xsotan attacks as their radars wouldn’t pick up any energy signatures (green blips) and they’d think it was an empty sector.

Mods / Re: [REQ] Engine Effect
« on: February 23, 2020, 11:02:36 AM »
If A block of 0.5 thickness or greater covers the engine it should prevent the engine effect from coming through.

No block can “prevent” the effect from coming through.  Best you can do is bury the engine deep enough that the effect dissipates by the time it reaches the end of your ship.

This is obviously harder to impossible with smaller ships.

I’m not sure if the effects themselves are moddable.

Suggestions / Re: energy suppressor satellite update suggustion
« on: February 23, 2020, 10:59:02 AM »
As mentioned over in the steam forum when you posted this there, that concept doesn’t make sense.  That’s not what a hazard zone is about.

I would Suppose If you don't think ships should go over a certain speed, then it would reason to not build a ship that can go over the speed you desire. Like wise there are ways to giver ships over 1,000,000 Omicron but if you you don't want to nuke a target then use lesser weapons. The nice thing about creativity games is you are free to limit yourself.

Putting small engines on a large ship to limit max speed to a more sensible level would not only look stupid, but would also prevent you from being able to move as you’d be unable to get enough acceleration.  Just the act of attempting to get acceleration will result in more engines that then give higher speed.

Also, the AI would not play by those rules, so wouldn’t do any good and gimps you beside.

Bugs / Re: Linux Dedicated server issue (v0.31.2)
« on: February 22, 2020, 01:18:15 AM »
Thank you for the explanation of the issue. If I wanted to delete the sector, what is the proper way? I see the sector folders. There looks to be two folders  for each sector. One folder named with the sector coordinates and one named with the sector coordinates  with the letter v on the end. Do i delete both or just one of them?

I delete both.

You will notice minor issues after.  For example, all of your weapon groups on your ships in sectors that you delete will be reset.  Any sectors where (non-player) stations had been destroyed will be back.  Stuff like that.

Bugs / Re: AI trade haulers are utterly broken
« on: February 22, 2020, 01:15:45 AM »
I think the real problem with the heavy cargo haulers is that they have no engines, atleast the ones that come into my system dont  :o

That's a separate issue.,6225.0.html

Yes, the skewer thing would be neat to look at, but I don't think it'd make sense for huge, fat ships/stations.  So having a limit on how many blocks would allow for that effect on smaller craft or thinner sections of the larger ones, but on the bigger ones the slug would get stuck in it midway.

Having it able to skewer anything, though, could cause extra problems if the enemy was in front of a friendly ship/station, too....

The only real difference between a railgun projectile and a cannon projectile is the velocity at which the projectile is traveling

So then what would be the point behind having the two different weapons? :)

I was using the term pierce as essentially a bullet hole through a piece of paper.  A purely kinetic projectile would just slice through a certain amount of the ship unless it hits something volatile which could cause an explosion.  The amount of damage it would do wouldn't be much considering that railgun projectiles are usually much smaller than cannon projectiles in order to reach their high speeds.  The damage to the hull/armor would be a hole and slight deformation around where the projectile went through. You could of course have a super massive railgun projectile, but that would be more of a doomsday weapon as a super massive projectile hitting a ship at a high speed would punch a large hole through the ship, vibrate it to pieces, and knock it back substantially.

So Perhaps the best representation of a railgun with an explosive charge would be to do ~10% damage through every block it pierces then full damage to the block where the explosive charge would detonate.

Another option if you wanted a kinetic only projectile would be to have it pierce through the whole ship doing damage to each block it passes through.  The damage of the railgun would need to be drastically reduced though (~10% of value currently) and only do extra damage when hitting volatile blocks.

I'd be ok with either of these (though lean towards the purely kinetic to keep the distinction from it and cannons, but not with infinite pass through), except you were saying before that a railgun could pierce (pass through) armor but not hull.  This is opposite of how it should be.  Hull is weaker than armor.  It should strike armor, and whether you want to say that it penetrates into the block or not, it should not then pass through to the next block in line.  Armor should stop it from continuing on and damaging other blocks.

Shields might could use a nerf, but with enough plasma damage applied it may not need the nerf.  Plasma damage type torpedoes are extremely good at taking out shields last I checked as well.  Hull and armor still needs a buff though, imo.  Antimatter damage absolutely lethal if your shields go down thanks to hull HP being much harder to build up and less rewarding since armor adds a ton of mass.

Weapons need a nerf, actually, too.

Because I don't know how other players rather then my friends and I lay out weapons I cannot truthfully judge what is "op" or what other players consider excessive damage in regards to rail guns. My ships tend to have 6 forward facing and 4 independent targeting to each broad side unable to fire forward, In such a lay out 8-14  salvos of the forward guns will destroy a smaller ship, while large enemy ships may take several dozen volleys up up to a hundred to scratch some dreadnoughts unless they have Physical shield polarizers then it is not feasible and i need to use torpedoes to crack the shields. To me this kind of game play is fun, and interesting having a ships that deals volleys from range. Most of the fire is eaten up by shields and after they drop even large ships are destroyed in a small number of salvos.

The fact that once shields are down it only takes a hit or two to destroy even dreadnoughts is what we're talking about.  That is OP.  Especially if you think for a second that there is a torpedo that will take shields completely offline for a few seconds if it hits.  And that's not hard to do with multiple launchers.

Pt.1 Lightning, A simple damage drop off at range added to reduced accuracy with increased close range damage could be a reasonable means to negate the long range shield cracking abilities of lightning, while still allowing it to be relevant at long range, but devastating at close range to shields at least. It could also cause (providing it can be programmed) system failures causing short disabling of upgrade tokens engines, or shield recharging abilities as if it were shorting out systems rather then merely burning the hull of an enemy. This would make players not want to close with lightning ships, or feel the sting of one ambushing you.

Some interesting ideas.  I like the idea of the damage falloff for them.  The damage falloff could even be reversed making them more of a sniper weapon, making players want to close the distance to reduce the damage.  Changing them as more of an EWAR weapon disabling systems is not a bad idea, but it will need a damage reduction to keep it balanced.

I like Cairo1's idea on lightning weapons, but would disagree with reversing the damage falloff to make it into a sniper weapon.

Hey, so I just was doing some playing around, happened to kill some Xsotan in a sector where relations weren't that great, and it did improve my relations with the faction.

This was on Beta, though, so don't know if it's "new".

Actually, I do feel as though shields need a nerf for exactly the reasons you stated. One of them could be interior walls, making it so you have a minimum size for the block. Another is to not have the shields recharge so fast. I may even go so far as to say the sp density of them should be reduced, possibly even have diminishing returns (same could possibly be said about other blocks like generators).

I also feel as though we’re using the penetrate term differently here with the railguns.  I mean it in the games current mechanic sense where if it penetrates a block, it deals damage to it and the next block after.  Armor would still take the full damage it should by being hit, it just won’t let the round damage the next block in line.  However, I think the amount of damage it causes needs to be balanced.  I think closer to how I thought it was working. If it can penetrate one block, then it deals something like 100% damage to the first block and 40% to the second.  Penetrates 2, it can deal 100/60/20, so on and so forth.  Then the actual damage the railgun can cause should be reduced to compensate.

A railgun firing a round with a charge in it just sounds like another cannon, imo.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12