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 - Darky

Pages: [1]
1
Star Ruler Discussion / Re: Where is my bottleneck?
« on: November 05, 2014, 07:16:16 AM »
Hmmm, the only bit I admit I have not done is "spam Spaceports".  I will look into that.  I am dubious about how long it will take a "like size 12" dry docks to build a #1024 ship though.

I guess you're saying I have to understand which planet a dry docks is attached to in order to know where I need lots of spaceports?

No, I am saying that, while I don't remember specifics, dry docks give an inordinate amount of labor for their size so you should simply focus on your import rate (also cargo as others have mentioned as I have forgotten) on the planet

2
Star Ruler Discussion / Re: Where is my bottleneck?
« on: November 04, 2014, 03:04:43 PM »
Your import rate determines the rate at which you can recieve resources from the Galactic Bank. Simply spam Spaceports on a spacious Renovate Only planet (researching that science that improves Spaceports also helps, haven't played in a long time but I think it was called Economy Science) and then get a tiny (like size 12) station with nothing but dry docks on it. Labor might as well be free from the orbital station and the small size means you won't be having issues labor at all
especially if you built a Shipyard to develop your colony more quickly to begin with.

3
Suggestions / Modifiers
« on: November 04, 2014, 07:42:57 AM »
I'm in a bit of a hurry and this is pretty straightforward anyway so I suggest these multiplier sliders, with x1 (or 100% if that's what SR2 will be doing) as the current defaults:

Fire Rate
Damage
Armor Health *
Health **

*Health on armors only. Cumulative with Health.
**Both non-armor and armor subsystem health.

4
Suggestions / Re: A few new wonders + recources
« on: November 04, 2014, 07:39:22 AM »
As I said, pretty much like it, that does not mean that you can not mark a fleet as uncontrollable by AIThat was a mistake of mine, If you take it as a wonder it can lower the costruction speed (aka labor cost for those who don't get that construction speed is equal to labor cost, even you used construction speed by the way). It could also be renamed to "part factory" if you want it expressed in a better way. Furthermore your refers seem unclear.

You else disagree to the torpedo suggestion as a wonder for 2 reasons:
- OP: you probably misunderstood: AoE is not the entire universe, it's around 50% of the average system size. The costs for 1 useage is 20000 FTL, which is fair enough in my eyes
- UP: ICBM capabilities are not underpowered, especially if you can destroy all fleets in a specific systemthat is indeed OP. equip a ton of railguns to a single battleship and voilá you have a fleet-ripper.

You'll never realistically get 20000 FTL even if you never use it. (I'm not even sure if that cap is even possible without dedicating an entire very-very late game economy into paying FTL Storage upkeep). I'm all for AoE weapons you can use defensively, it just so happens that a) 20k FTL is ridiculous b) if anything it should be energy and not FTL. As for the fusion warheads being OP, it starts out 25% in the center and tapers off, with radius being proportional to damage and scale. Considering railguns already deal piss poor damage this isn't going to help much on rapid fire weapons (since lower damage means the explosion will be smaller, hitting 0 damage sooner.)

Silicate recource is not only ment to lower construcion speed of ordered support, it is meant to increase construction speed of defense pressure

So a specialized building construction speed buff? Would make more sense if it was just generic.


5
Suggestions / Re: A few new wonders + recources
« on: November 02, 2014, 05:39:27 AM »
Inactive? How do you mean? If you mean untouched, that's probably not going to happen. If you mean Remnant Ships, that would be interesting though might be a bit OP considering they are omnipresent.

Shipyard exists as an orbital so that sounds redundant. There's also no such thing as construction speed; it's determined by labor, so it is basically a more specialized Factory, or rather a Forge.

That's incredibly silly.

As long as it is unexportable, sure.

Kinda underpowered for a Level 2 resource.

Also, here's one from me:

Fusion Warheads:

An ancient, highly advanced fabricator that can be attached to a flagship. All projectile weapons create area-of-effect explosions on impact, with 25% of the weapon's primary damage on the center dealt as an extra.

6
News / Re: Star Ruler 2 Announced!
« on: May 31, 2014, 08:08:13 AM »
I don't know about you but Star Ruler felt pretty finished to me for what it was hoping to achieve. Weak aspects of a game don't mean that the game is unfinished, and you should give these guys credit for trying to fix what made Star Ruler boring or downright unplayable (crashes are frequent and stuff like that) at times. It was fun and promising. Why don't you just hope it gets better with its sequel instead of assuming the developers are trying to make bank (which is quite far fetched in this context) at the expense of killing the series?

7
Star Ruler 2 Discussion / My Hopes for Star Ruler 2
« on: May 25, 2014, 03:47:13 PM »
Greetings. I wasn't not a fan of the 4X genre previously, so my entry to it was with Star Ruler. Fittingly, it was a very enjoyable experience, 163 hours of making friends, building ships, and destroying things. Naturally I am excited about Star Ruler 2, but below are the kind of changes I would like to see.

Make diplomacy better: Simply put, Star Ruler is all about destruction. It shouldn't be. When I create my space empire, I want to be its emperor and not its admiral. Diplomatic options are far too limited, and everything results in total annihilation. More diplomatic options could help alleviate this, and I would really like to see a vastly increased number of deals to make that would impact the game in various ways.

Ship design made more signifiant: Make no mistake, it is very significant as it is, but armor plating being destroyed first no matter what (before subsystems, I know that external mounts die first) sort of ruins placement. I would like to decide between covering my ship in armor and getting universal protection at a slower speed and placing armor at key locations. This would also mean that ship design should be in 3D, or at least with indicators about where the armor plating will face; up or down.

Better research system: Yes, SR's research system is adjustable and oftentimes I played with it nerfed. However, the whole system calls for improvement, as it's far too straightforward.

Don't trivialize big achievements: Planets shoudn't be so easily destructable completely later in the game either. A Ringworld, even later on, should be a massive fortress of system-spanning awesomeness, not something you place on every system. Star destruction? A default paced game shouldn't allow them before at least about 10 hours, since Star Ruler can save and reload, it should fully capitalize on that by offering long term gameplay. Simply won't happen if you can snipe planets from 3 star systems away.

More customization: Race traits and game settings are already very customizable in SR, even if the former is a bit lacking (fixed by Galactic Armory). I would love to see more of that. An advanced mode should totally exist, like the mod in SR that allows you to modify planets and a lot of stuff.

Expand on the boarding mechanic: Boarding could be better than just a numbers war.

Carriers improved: Extremely unwieldly to use, and they're useless without a construction bay. Not to mention they often make poor combat ships, in contrast with the glorious battlecarriers of Sci-fi.

Fighters improved: The above is partly the fighters' fault, as they blow in SR. They should be improved in ways you'd know better, which leads me to:

Improve horde power: Large ships are nice, but that doesn't mean they should absolutely annilhilate entire fleets of smaller ships (unless they're sufficiently large) I would like to actually use size 8 ships every now and then, instead of rushing to a size 32 ship as soon as possible.

Improve non-Galactic Bank based trade: Cargo Drones should be smart (make them not take the stuff from eachother, that's a start), and should be more viable. This gives the player two choices, spend space but safely transfer using the Space Port, or carry them in vulnerable ships that take time to reach their destination for faster resource transfer. Mix them both for optimization.

More ship modules: Star Ruler has a lot of options for ships that aren't for combat, and this is a strength that should be capitalized on. Research modules, fuels, you name it.

Fuel and Ammo: Galactic Armory's Fuel and Ammo resources are very well implemented. It's also great that you can collect from stars, giving them more purposes than just sitting there being pretty or being a WMD once you can destroy them.

Asteroid Mining: Basic mining tools should be available earlier and supplements should follow at higher tiers. Mining has the potential to be very important, yet right now it's only viable.

Balanced Race Traits: There's no way that Indebted is worth the same point boost as Fledgling Empire. Absolutely no reason you shouldn't take Slave Labor every single time. Engine Catalysts are incredible because Bussard Ramjets are like easily the most efficient engines early on in the game anyway. Don't even get me started on Scorched Earth. Stuff like that. Less no brainers and no-goes, more options.

Smarter Haulers: Ammo and Fuel carriers should be smarter. Options to generate that on board besides the super late Matter Generator would be nice as well.

That's about it for now. Thanks for reading. I'm looking forward to playing SR2 with all of you.

8
Galactic Armory / Re: Two Questions
« on: July 31, 2013, 01:47:25 PM »
Okay so, massive bump, but I have installed GA 1.9.4 and extreme range artillery still won't work.

Ceteris paribus, I can force fire it on a neutral or friendly object just fine, but if I give it an order, even if manually, to fire at an enemy target right next to the said object, I can fire. This is a nuisance, as I could use strategic artillery to wipe enemy fleets out, but it doesn't work for whatever reason. And as I have said, I can force fire on something that isn't hostile at the exact same distance, so range can't really be the problem.

Please help me fix this.

9
Galactic Armory / Re: point defense against fighters/bombers?
« on: July 26, 2013, 03:56:42 AM »
That reminds me, can multi shot weapons fire at multiple targets? Doesn't need to be all at once, but I would hate to see an extended magazine shot go wasted on a single .50 fighter.

10
Star Ruler Discussion / Re: Strategic Game
« on: July 25, 2013, 11:12:21 AM »
Count me in. Add DarkyPwnz with the avatar over steam, but my current nickname is AWACS Ghost Eye. So either one of those, or DarkyVX should work.

We'll discuss the details there and I can bring friends.

11
Galactic Armory / Re: Question regarding Ringworlds
« on: July 23, 2013, 07:58:22 AM »
Massive amount of NBC Warheads.

12
Galactic Armory / It's been a while
« on: July 18, 2013, 07:47:02 AM »
Hello uhm, I for some reason lost interest in SR a while go and only recently I am coming back. How is the progress on 2.0 going? Also, anyone here who would like to play GA with me please leave your steam tag below so I can add you. Alternatively you could add the DarkyPwnz with an avatar, as I have two other accounts that don't have avatars.

13
Galactic Armory / Re: GA 2.0 Dev Update #2 - Exploration Concept
« on: November 09, 2012, 01:58:15 AM »
I did get your point, hence:
Then again I don't know what you guys have in store for us so I can only hope for the best and wish you good luck.

I like the direction you are taking, your reading comprehension, not so much. Also I rarely ever win games, I just get bored of steamrollering seemingly infinite amounts of defenseless and worthless planets so I just call it a win and quit out of boredom.

Once again I like the direction you're taking and I am glad lower tech combat will actually be viable now. This game was great at combat but got too boring before large and effective fleets could be built, and I like how GA finally tackles that aspect of the game as well.

14
Galactic Armory / Re: GA 2.0 Dev Update #2 - Exploration Concept
« on: November 08, 2012, 03:19:37 PM »
Like Azalrion said, please re-read the entire text carefully. tl;dr won't get you much out of this (or anything at all), and it's really nicely explained. Now even *I* finally know what've been talking about recently! ;D

Have you also read our update on research yet? If not, I highly recommend it - it should give you an idea that the whole gameplay and feeling of 2.0 won't be anywhere near vanilla or current GA.

That aside, planet slot count is not an indicator for planet quality and usefulness. Increasing the slots just makes it more of a clickfest. Keep in mind we can go other routes as well - increase structure effectiveness while decreasing their number... or we could even remove planet slots completely from the game and do something else entirely.

Think outside the box and have a little faith in us, will ya? :D I can promise that we are definitely trying to avoid adding features to the game that are ultimately worthless. After all, that would mean more work for us! ;)

I do have faith in you, but not a big enough phone screen or a comfortable enough life to read articles in peace.

On the other hand, it is good to know that there are others who see what's wrong with the game and work to fix it. I trust your judgement, I just wanted to point things out.

Oh and it would be awesome if we could right click systems and pick which governor all their planets will have. I mostly do Research Worlds once I get a stable economy so that would be great.

Then again I don't know what you guys have in store for us so I can only hope for the best and wish you good luck.

15
Galactic Armory / Re: GA 2.0 Dev Update #2 - Exploration Concept
« on: November 08, 2012, 03:30:59 AM »
This sounds nice but it isn't worth it because planets are mostly worthless they need a lot more slots and durability, make planets worth more and SR becomes a good game and not a colony ship spamfest. Increased planet quality and decreased planet count, that would make GA 2.0 truly awesome and you should consider it.

16
Galactic Armory / Re: Two Questions
« on: October 30, 2012, 10:53:12 AM »
It's nice that you could destroy the Fenrir, but it is only the tip of the iceberg, as far as a 1v1 is concerned, it is still a solid fighter and there are ships for other roles. I don't ha time to check your design out so some details would be nice.

17
Galactic Armory / Re: Two Questions
« on: October 29, 2012, 05:05:45 AM »
I have ran some tests just now. It seems we could be both right and wrong. As you said, the size of the armor doesn't actually affect the damage reduction. It only affects the HP,  so whether you use 1 or 10 small armors is all the same. But they also seem to damage before any components. I have just send 20 ships to death by attacking a remnant outpost. Regardless of how the ship was turned, only after all the armor plates were destroyed, of all types, did the damage leaked into the interior of the ship. I specially made lots of designs with lots of different armor configurations all over the design. Even if the ship was turned engines toward the outpost, and all the armor plates were at the front, they still vaporized first.
At least now I can start making designs nicely plated around with small armors, instead of just one huge armor plate  :).
More analysis:
in configuration ablative > reactive > interior, the reactive still correctly engaged and the ablative was left more or less intact. I guess when hit by strong enough force the ablative just leaks all damage onto the lower plates. This is useful, since if you have ablative on top, it provides excellent small fire resistance, but if hit by strong salvo the reactive takes over, and still leaves ablative to continue shielding against weak fire. Not sure if t makes sense, really tired and sleepy. More testing is required I think.

It should be the opposite, reactive makes big hits much smaller which is easier load for the powered armor.

18
Galactic Armory / Re: Two Questions
« on: October 29, 2012, 05:00:57 AM »
I always knew that the armor got damaged before internal subsystems, if I made a big one it just wouldn't move on to the powered armor. I wasn't wrong and now you know better.

19
Galactic Armory / Re: Two Questions
« on: October 28, 2012, 06:57:08 PM »
That is utterly wrong, because damage reduction doesn't change with armor size. Reactive Armor works in a different way, if the damage is above the listed Impact Level is which is the same regardless of the armor size (only depends on ship size and maybe the armor tech level, I don't know for sure), only 20% of it will be taken by the armor. If that part is destroyed, the remaining 20% of the damage transfers to the next layer of armor in that direction, so it is not just aesthetic, after the damage, if above the impact level, is reduced by the reactive armor, it is soaked even further by the powered armor right behind it,which has a flat reduction, armor is directional as well so this design is effective and not just aesthetic.

Had it been one big Reactive Plate instead of multiple smaller ones, the damage would be reduced by reactive but still taken, and since the reactive plate wouldn't get destroyed, it would be a waste of HP since you wouldn't get the reduction from the powered armor beneath it. The key is to get the Reactive armor destroyed after dealing its reduction, transfer it to the powered armor which sucks it up even further. The armor is repaired faster with a Nanite Repair Unit which is connected to a Bulkhead because it covers all the other system.

I hope I've made you happy now. :)

I worked a lot on the design, it is perfectly optimized to take on anything its size and above in sufficient numbers. I play games that are limited to scale 600 anyway, but wouldn't have any problem making this larger.

It boasts the ability to keep firing even when the generator and one of the cores are down, I am considering giving the Mass Driver a Quantum Computer Core of its own so that together with its collector it can last alone with the quantum battery for about 20 minutes before the help comes, seeing as how this ship never travels without a repair ship, it basically will never be floating dead in space. It's either die or keep fighting.

Also, would be better if you could elaborate on the mentioned changes, I'm pretty sure this is the best possible armor layout for my tactics, and any more suggestions would be welcome. There are 6 more ships to accompany this one, so while I am aware it lacks ammo and isn't great at long range combat, there are many support weapons that go along with it. As a main battle ship, I am pretty proud of it and I don't think it could be improved much, but go ahead.

20
Galactic Armory / Re: Two Questions
« on: October 28, 2012, 04:31:19 PM »
Yes, and you should see it in combat before reaching conclusions.

21
Galactic Armory / Re: Two Questions
« on: October 28, 2012, 03:04:58 PM »
It's there, anyway, can you add DarkyVX so we can talk about Galactic Armory? It's kinda lonely when you play an awesome yet needs-more-love kind of game, further exasperated when an even more awesome injection by the means of a mod seperates the community even further.

22
Galactic Armory / Re: Two Questions
« on: October 28, 2012, 01:44:09 PM »
I understand that but I have solved all these problems and they still wouldn't fire, I understand that you're trying to be helpful but refer to above where I've said I could shoot the asteroid but not the ship right next to it, meaning citerus parabus.

23
Galactic Armory / Re: Terraforming
« on: October 28, 2012, 11:51:01 AM »
Sometimes terraforming doesn't work, sometimes, when it works, you can't construct buildings manually but the governor can. This has only happened to me on Multiplayer so far.

24
Galactic Armory / Re: Two Questions
« on: October 28, 2012, 11:50:13 AM »
Really? I've been having this issue even at Star Ruler, at first I thought it was because Hold Fire AI setting caused the issue, but then I turned it off and it still wouldn't fire.

So you're telling me you can get galaxy-wide artillery to work properly? That's interesting, by the way I play on Windows 7-64 bit.

Also is there a community for GA or something? Because I'd really like to have some people to play with.

Also is there a way to get Happiness to 1, because I've done Short Work Week, Tax Break and Luxury/Goods spam, yet it won't go above .76

25
Galactic Armory / Re: Two Questions
« on: October 28, 2012, 09:39:38 AM »
I am aware of that, but I don't think you got what I meant. Let me put it this way.

An asteroid is at X distance, and right next to it is an enemy ship. If I target the enemy ship, it will say "Attacking Enemy Ship" but won't fire. If I force fire it on the asteroid that is right next to it, it will ask if I want to fire at an object that is neutral or belongs to me, and when I say yes, it will fire and destroy the asteroid, and if the area of effect damage is high enough, the ship itself. But I can't target ships or inhabited planets, when I do, the weapon won't fire.

26
Galactic Armory / Re: Two Questions
« on: October 28, 2012, 02:50:44 AM »
No, it says it can only be mounted on a station hull or a ship with spinal mount hull, read the description.

However that is not the matter, this issue persisted with Mass Drivers and Fusion Torpedoes as well.

27
Galactic Armory / Two Questions
« on: October 27, 2012, 04:01:30 AM »
1. Most of the time artillery on a big station won't fire at targets even if they are in range. If it is a neutral object like an asteroid and I force-fire it, it will fire, but if it is an enemy target it won't fire. Are there any workarounds? Because I build big artillery only to have them only firing in their home system, this also happened with a Spinal Mounted artillery ship I've made before. I've changed the AI settings between Hold Fire and Fire at Will, yet the cannon still won't fire. However, even more awkwardly, the gun will fire nearby, it doesn't have to be the home system, but it can fire at nearby vacuum of space outside any of the systems.

Are there any workarounds? Because of this I can't really make reliable siege cannons, and I totally would like to.

2. I have some designs I am really proud of, I think the AI ships are really weak and is there a way you guys would accept my design so that the AI has a ship that challenges us?

28
Galactic Armory / Re: He3 Usage
« on: October 25, 2012, 05:26:58 AM »
Back to the main topic, I think He3 mining is really useful. The fuel rate is insane and basically there is no need to waste spots for fuel planets. The entire fuel economy can be done by ships, and you have so much excess fuel that you can afford to sell it to the AI for normally stupid ratios like 10 for 1 metal.

I must say though, that I have also experienced the exploding harvester problem, it happens when you collect faster than you can refine and export, so just make a smaller harvester or bigger refinery and export dock.

They also tend to take fuel from their parent planets to export, so make sure you manually tell them to harvest stars.

The Helliocide hull is just amazing, very powerful, and if you ask me, a bit overpowered since harvesting and shooting are very fast, you can dock at a star and it will go down in seconds. I am not sure but if it can be used on ships, I'll definetely have one of those awesome cannons around should the enemy build something too big for my taste.

I think there should be other weapons that use He3. Also, I think that Metastable Metallic Hydrogen, extracted from gas giants could be used as fuel instead of He3 which could be used for something else, maybe an He3 Fusion Reactor with the added bonus of importable energy source from the galactic bank? Just food for thought.

Pages: [1]