Note: these do not reflect a lot of design and prototyping work that's been going on behind the scenes, as those aren't ready to be discussed quite yet, and won't be in 0.54.1a at any rate.
I take it the changes to the Guardian makes it better?
Altho they will still suck uneless they stop shooting several times at already destroyed targets.
I love you... in a friendly way :-[
Me like ;D
Reading these comments, there must be some fun stuff in the modding section (which I don't read). Everything I read was mostly AI and bug fixes (and a buff that hopefully makes the Guardian PD useful).Not mine. Mine is for AI ;D I'm especially happy for this one:
Will set unguided missiles in turrets to autofire if the ammo count is high enough
Man, now if only I could put two Guardians on an Astral... :)
Note: these do not reflect a lot of design and prototyping work that's been going on behind the scenes, as those aren't ready to be discussed quite yet, and won't be in 0.54.1a at any rate.
Oh you know how to tease your fanbase sir. Almost too well ;D
Totally awesome changelog. Great work!
Said it before and will repeat. Make Guardians built in weapons on the Astral!
However what do you think about the 'Built-In' hull mods Alex?
They wouldn't be "hull modifications" anymore, though, so some conceptual weirdness remains.
They wouldn't be "hull modifications" anymore, though, so some conceptual weirdness remains.
This is easily fixed by changing the term "hull modifications" to "hull enhancements".
Edit: For clarity, this fixes the lore problem because some ships would be pre-equipped with certain built-in hull enhancements, while other ships could be equipped with any number of hull enhancements at the captain's behest.
Oh come on, it just words. If you want you can just understand Hull Modification to mean "modification the hull applies to x".
- Added ShipVariantAPI.getDisplayName(), some other methods
Guys, let's not turn this into a "suggestions, but with more chance of me reading it" thread.
Probably not the place to ask this, but can we expect the ability to have other commanders have more than one line for a situation any time soon? Seems pretty simplistic.
Is quoting myself some kind of faux pas? ... at any rate:Guys, let's not turn this into a "suggestions, but with more chance of me reading it" thread.
There's a whole subforum for that. Aside from being off-topic in the first place, suggestions or feature requests oftentimes need discussion, and mixing them in a single thread is a bad idea.Probably not the place to ask this, but can we expect the ability to have other commanders have more than one line for a situation any time soon? Seems pretty simplistic.
Like much of the current campaign, those are placeholders.
Turning away from an enemy frigate will no longer automatically cause it to close in
NOOOO!!! Now how am I supposed to kill hounds with my onslaught? :P
Turning away from an enemy frigate will no longer automatically cause it to close in
YAY :)
Turning away from an enemy frigate will no longer automatically cause it to close in
YAY :)
It's been forever since you've added a new ship...He added the Mule, like, last patch. :p
just saying...
And there's also the tanker thingie (can't remember the name, I think it starts with a P?), whenever that was added :P
Phateon i believesAnd there's also the tanker thingie (can't remember the name, I think it starts with a P?), whenever that was added :P
Phanteon or something. I only see it once in a while.
Is quoting myself some kind of faux pas? ... at any rate:
Turning away from an enemy frigate will no longer automatically cause it to close in
Turning away from an enemy frigate will no longer automatically cause it to close in
out of curiosity what is the general gist of the calculation (guess something time rotation vs time withdraw to safety)
Is the AI still (regularly) fooled (or will it try to fool) by a ship turning away?
He added the Mule, like, last patch. :p
1. Does testing ship configurations in the simulator account for piloted-ship and fleet-wide perks from the skill tree?
2. When resolving battles automatically, does the algorithm somehow account for the increased power of the piloted ship as well as increased flux capacity and venting in the entire player fleet?
Autoresolve is something I'm planning to take another look at in... well, not sure when, but at some point. For one, I don't think you'll be able to autoresolve battles that are anywhere near even - it just doesn't work out well.
Autoresolve is a tricky issue. If it were to correctly predict the results of a battle if the player played it out, then it would become preferable to playing the battle out manually (after all, it can't mess up - and if it could, it would be decried as "random"), and that's not a desired outcome. My current thinking is to simplify it a bit overall, in favor of more predictable (if perhaps less accurate) outcomes, and to either limit how much the player can actually use it, or to make it significantly less effective than playing out the battle - and to make that clear upfront.It doesn't completely solve it but how about showing the percentage to win?
Personally, I'd like to see an auto-resolve where's almost no margin between certain victory and serous risks. If your fleet is clearly stronger, you should win a commanding victory, without losses, every time. If your fleet is not clearly stronger, auto-resolve should always involve losses; I don't like a huge range of save-scum-able possible outcomes.
Of course, that's coming from the perspective of seeing auto-resolve as just a time-saving device, which isn't necessarily everybody else's (or Alex's) vision of it.
We've run out of things to talk about. ;D
Any progress since then? We've run out of things to talk about. ;D
We've run out of things to talk about. ;D
Later on I'd love to talk about how much Mount & Blade influenced Starfarer. I bought it only yesterday (or the day before oO? lost track of time with this new year party stuff going on) and already found so much that feels familiar. There are so many little details, like the reset button being the only option to take back given skill points (those devs had obviously no community to suggest right click for single revert :) ).
Have to try it some more before I could add anything to a discussion, though.
@Okim: Very good, sir :)Please add a planned features list
This one (http://fractalsoftworks.com/) is about as detailed as I'm willing to go. There's just no sense in delving into finer-grained details now, when I can almost promise they'll change as dev moves along.
Now, down to picking apart that screenshot to see if there's any hidden stuff that may or may not be there. ;D
Oh...well, that looks a helluva lot better. :D
Now, down to picking apart that screenshot to see if there's any hidden stuff that may or may not be there. ;D
Vertical scrolling for more aptitudes, yeah. But, it is limited to 10 skills per - at least for the moment. Kind of have to draw the line somewhere, though - it seems like "nice looking" and "flexible" frequently end up at odds with each other.Well, Officers and Outposts are both still grayed out...Now, down to picking apart that screenshot to see if there's any hidden stuff that may or may not be there. ;D
Oh, now I'm really glad I [REDACTED BY THE FRACTAL SOFTWORKS PR TEAM] prior to taking the screenshot.
Vertical scrolling for more aptitudes, yeah. But, it is limited to 10 skills per - at least for the moment. Kind of have to draw the line somewhere, though - it seems like "nice looking" and "flexible" frequently end up at odds with each other.What about two small arrows to the right of the skills pointing left and right to scroll left and right or something similar?
A peek at the new character/skills UI, redesigned by David:Spoiler(https://s3.amazonaws.com/fractalsoftworks/screenshots/new_skill_ui.jpg) (https://s3.amazonaws.com/fractalsoftworks/screenshots/new_skill_ui.jpg)
(click for full-size)[close]
Did you consider the mouse-over explanation for the hullmods? Now that right-click-reverse is there I see no reason to not have it.
C'mon Alex! Polish this sucker up and release it! Then in 6 months we want 1.0 release! YEAHHH! :o
I think this will forever be known as the Modding Update. :D
I was literally just now writing a suggestion for something like ViewportAPI and EveryFrameWeaponEffectPlugin when I got the tweet notification about new patch notes. Are you psychic? :P
What's the behavior of EveryFrameWeaponEffectPlugin, by the way?
I think this will forever be known as the Modding Update. :D
I was literally just now writing a suggestion for something like ViewportAPI and EveryFrameWeaponEffectPlugin when I got the tweet notification about new patch notes. Are you psychic? :P
What's the behavior of EveryFrameWeaponEffectPlugin, by the way?
package com.fs.starfarer.api.impl.combat;
import com.fs.starfarer.api.combat.CombatEngineAPI;
import com.fs.starfarer.api.combat.EveryFrameWeaponEffectPlugin;
import com.fs.starfarer.api.combat.WeaponAPI;
public class SensorDishRotationEffect implements EveryFrameWeaponEffectPlugin {
private float currDir = Math.signum((float) Math.random() - 0.5f);
public void advance(float amount, CombatEngineAPI engine, WeaponAPI weapon) {
if (engine.isPaused()) return;
float curr = weapon.getCurrAngle();
curr += currDir * amount * 10f;
float arc = weapon.getArc();
float facing = weapon.getArcFacing() + (weapon.getShip() != null ? weapon.getShip().getFacing() : 0);
if (!isBetween(facing - arc/2, facing + arc/2, curr)) {
currDir = -currDir;
}
weapon.setCurrAngle(curr);
}
public static boolean isBetween(float one, float two, float check) {
one = normalizeAngle(one);
two = normalizeAngle(two);
check = normalizeAngle(check);
//System.out.println(one + "," + two + "," + check);
if (check >= one && check <= two) return true;
if (one > two) {
if (check <= two) return true;
if (check >= one) return true;
}
return false;
}
public static float normalizeAngle(float angleDeg) {
return (angleDeg % 360f + 360f) % 360f;
}
}
If this is a modding update, check out my deplorable turret suggestion :)
Will weapons marked as "decorative" show up in the weapon codex, ship codex, on the ship info panel in campaign, or any other place? I see no reason for the DECORATIVE weapon to show up since they don't fire.
Greebles! Yay, greebles! ...Don't have the various APIs in front of me, so, question on that EveryFrameWeaponEffectPlugin - can we make a sensor dish that tracks the targeted ship (if any) or the player's mouse (if on a player ship)?
with regards to turrets, it would open more than just turrets, even mines, deplorable outposts, etc
Can we see a sneaky screenshot of the new Needler designs?
Maybe you should take a vacation or something after the update, that sure is a lot of work over the holidays...
Will weapons marked as "decorative" show up in the weapon codex, ship codex, on the ship info panel in campaign, or any other place? I see no reason for the DECORATIVE weapon to show up since they don't fire.
They won't show up anywhere at all, except visually on the hull. If they somehow *do* show up elsewhere, that's a bug.
with regards to turrets, it would open more than just turrets, even mines, deplorable outposts, etc
Yeah, I know what you mean. It'd be a fairly major feature. And making outposts deplorable is a lot more work than you'd think :P
Will they show up if given the SHOW_IN_CODEX tag? I can think of a few potential greeble objects that it would be nice to have lore articles on.
How difficult would it be to implement a property in the projectile file that makes non-PD weapons fire at it? I believe we could fake turrets right now using custom projectiles and a combat plugin, but only PD weapons would try to take them out.
And major features are what makes this game fun. I say it's worth the time and effort :D
I think there's a simpler way to go for deployable turrets/mines. You could try adding to/modifying the drone file (I think it's core files, so it'll have to be in a patch for it to be, er, legal) so that the drone doesn't disapear when the mother ship is destroyed. From there, we can work things out. :)
EDIT:
God, I got ninj'd twice in about 2 seonds. LOL
Also, I'm intrigued in the new Needler sprites. Mind showing them?
Can we see a sneaky screenshot of the new Needler designs?
Sorry, not just now. You'll see them soon(tm) enough, though!
now I gotta wait 5 seconds before I can turn it back on. :'(
Bold added to quote from Alex.
- High Energy Focus: changed to increase damage by 50%, increase weapon and engine damage taken by 100%, can keep shields on, 5 seconds active/5 second cooldown, no flux cost
Added to SectorAPI:
List<StarSystemAPI> getStarSystems() // returns just the one atm
New tach lance, i think i am in love :-*
EDIT: with the lance mind you
I don't know if I like the Ion Cannon changes, I don't really like 'Chance' mechanics muddling the gameplay experience.
But since its not a weapon, how would you make it?
I just need some clarification. Can the weapon-induced EMP emission penetrate shield ie. shield blocked shot, but EMP effect occur behind the shield?
does the system nockout hapen with the EMP shipsystem as well?As Captain Piccard would say,
now that spacebug just needs a fancy blood splash upon death and blood strains instead of flashing cracks on hull. Can we have at some point custom tech eras to make own shields, explosions and other tech related stuf? and a flag 'non-salvagable' in hulls file in hints would be great to have.
Just an "S" on the icons :)
@Faiter119: If you could possibly update at least some of your 20 million or so videos with the new name in the title/keywords, that would really rock.
but that prometheus, 1.2k armor, durp =D
Il get started on that, even though I have about 90-100 videos of Starsectorfarer
I have to say, I've grown very attached to the name Starfarer. :(Me to! I loved that name, made you seem more like the adventurer :/
Is the new name final or is there any point in discussing it?
www.starsector.com can be still purchased btw.
If the name isnt final now Il be pisseed, changing the name of 100 videos takes a long time.
There you go, I have changed all my titles and stuff to Starsector now. Haven t changed the tags though, but that doesn't matter as long as Starsector is in the title.
Search engine optimizations woop!
Is the new name final or is there any point in discussing it?
Quick question...
My Norton AV is not allowing me to download starsector_install-0.54.1a.exe
Norton identifies the threat: Suspicious.Mystic
Any idea?
I downloaded 0.54a with no problem on 1/1.
Thanks
Is the download link supposed to link to SS RC2? Or is Rc2 the correct version?
RC2. Why, is it showing up as "Rc2" somewhere?
Not sure I like the new name quite so much. For one, the name just doesn't roll off the tongue the same for me, and it just seems a bit too "Stock Sci-Fi Name #377" to me. Of course, at the end of the day it's Alex's choice but it'll still be there at the back of my mindAgreed. We're all kind of nostalgic (already) over the name change, I'm sure it'll wear into us in no time. Aside from that, the new content is nice. :)
This just wrecked my mod, i can't transfer it for some reason.What do you mean by can't transfer it?
QuoteRC2. Why, is it showing up as "Rc2" somewhere?
Yeah, when I downloaded from Here! (http://fractalsoftworks.com/2013/01/04/starsector-0-54-1a-release/) it gives me "Starsector Release Candidate 2"
I can't transfer it because apparently my mod is open somewhere.Have you tried restarting your computer?
Ok, I have overcome the name-shock :) Now some small things I noticed about the actual content:
- There's no right clicking to deselect for aptitudes. Would be nice.
- I like the new UI sound scheme, it has more *rumble* than the old one. But there's one exception: Right click on a skill makes a spitting sound. Seriously. I can't unhear it.
BTW, did you see the new skill UI tooltip suggestion Alex? I think it's better than the other one.
- Very small: maybe for HEF "+100% engine/weapon damage taken" is better than "weapon/engine damage", because reading "weapon damage" instantly triggers a false assoziation
P.S. - Any decorative weapons in the base game? I'd like something to base the code for it off of.
@Alex Heads up, the main webpage, top banner still says 'Starfarer'.
Sensor dish? Is it actually mounted on any ships? If not, I can manage. ;D
Wait, I'm confused. You're saying the false association would be a good thing?
Wait, I'm confused. You're saying the false association would be a good thing?
Ah, I was afraid that was not clear, sry. If I read "Alpha/Beta Object" the first thing that reaches my consciousness is Alpha -Object, followed by Beta-Object (provided I'm a proficient reader). This first thing is automatically interpreted/associated before the overall context. So if the resulting first association dissents from the real/overall meaning that leads to a short confusion.
To avoid that I would place "engine" in front, because nobody will jump to "damage caused by engines" while some may spontaneously associate weapon damage as "damage caused by weapons".
That's too much text for so small an issue, though.
Is there an example for the "alwaysAnimate" piece of code? I tried plugging it in as-is, the green coder I am, and obviously got an error.
hmmm v.4 was released back in May 2012 so at this rate, Starfarer should finish a week before StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void...right? ;D
Seriously now, any idea when the trading, exploring aspect of the game will be available?
@Alex Heads up, the main webpage, top banner still says 'Starfarer'.
Not after you've cleared your cache.
Wait, I'm confused. You're saying the false association would be a good thing?
Ah, I was afraid that was not clear, sry. If I read "Alpha/Beta Object" the first thing that reaches my consciousness is Alpha -Object, followed by Beta-Object (provided I'm a proficient reader). This first thing is automatically interpreted/associated before the overall context. So if the resulting first association dissents from the real/overall meaning that leads to a short confusion.
To avoid that I would place "engine" in front, because nobody will jump to "damage caused by engines" while some may spontaneously associate weapon damage as "damage caused by weapons".
That's too much text for so small an issue, though.
Ah, hmm. But then "weapon damage" go next to each other, which seems about as bad, for a slightly different reason. Seems like 6 of one, half dozen of the other.Is there an example for the "alwaysAnimate" piece of code? I tried plugging it in as-is, the green coder I am, and obviously got an error.
Just put "alwaysAnimate":"true", somewhere in the .wpn file.hmmm v.4 was released back in May 2012 so at this rate, Starfarer should finish a week before StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void...right? ;D
Seriously now, any idea when the trading, exploring aspect of the game will be available?
I hate to do this, but soon(tm). About as much detail I can go into is to say is we're working on it - but that could mean design work, prototyping, or actual implementation, for all you know :)
Pfff, just a name.
Though it'll take ages for me to get use to.
Thanks for the info on "alwaysAnimate" piece!
Now, timed for me to go buckwild on it. ;D
EDIT:
Hmm. Doesn't seem to be working. Added that bit of code and even with the proper animation code, it doesn't work.
Also: argh, the Onslaught has a sensor dish in this release. It's not supposed to!
Also: argh, the Onslaught has a sensor dish in this release. It's not supposed to!Lies. You just added it and wanted to see if anyone would notice.
I losted my saves and the mission rankings so i don't think it is. Doesn't bother me i make a new game every patch
Excited for update, miss old name, and wondering if save compatible because I didn't read anything to the contrary.
Hmm, with the lights that I made, the animation ONLY works when it's in a weapon group. Hm. Bug?
Is the onslaught meant to have a satellite dish?
Also: argh, the Onslaught has a sensor dish in this release. It's not supposed to!
This is an unauthorized hull modification and the Hegenomy High Command will hear of this! Everyone from the logistics officer to the captain will be facing a court martial, count on it.
Holy freaking *** it is Starfarer to Starsector, the old name was not a glorious master piece and the new name is not a steaming pile of crap. Jesus you people will think anything is horrible.
Am I the only one not really liking the new UI sounds? Too "clicky", IMHO. I prefer the old sounds: more smooth/flowing for lack of better terms. The new ones are starting to grate on my nerves already and I only play for about 10 minutes.
I think the fact they CLICK when you hover over the buttons and click differently when you actually press the button is a bit much. That's 2 clicks. Considering how menu-driven the game is on the sector map, that's really overdoing it. I think the SFX for hover should be removed or made something less "intrusive" on the ears. Actually, why the UI SFX change to begin with...????
The in-combat sounds... well, I suppose it depends on how high tech the equipment being used is supposed to be. Because the new waypoint sounds have a noticeable crackle and a slightly over-serious 'appearance' noise. Same goes with the cancel-waypoint noise.
But that's just me. There's a decent chance that there's some bias towards the old sounds. The old sounds, admittedly, were a little soft, but the new sounds to me seem a little too rough/serious. Then again, I have no idea of the level of equipment the player is supposed to be using.
Where can i but the tachyon lance. i read at the notes and want to try.
Not everyone on this forum thinks that way you know.
Not everyone on this forum thinks that way you know.
No ***, the name isn't changing again, deal with it.
Not everyone on this forum thinks that way you know.
No ***, the name isn't changing again, deal with it.
@Gabrybbo:
Re: Guardian - right. Hmm. That's a tough one because you can manually turn off autofire when there's a danger of that, but it's awkward, and not always practical - especially if it's in a group with other PD that you still want firing. But I don't think making it only target missiles would work well, either - there are cases when you *do* want beam PD to fire at shields.
AVG, I don't know... I'd take it off that list - I remember how at one point, it decided to randomly delete a system file, causing the OS to stop booting at all. Fun times were had booting off a CD and using "extract" from the command line to get a workable copy of that file from the innards of the XP installation CD :)
*chokes*Aside from AVG those are all good, but there is really nothing wrong with MSSE unless you really, really hate Microsoft.
Would you mind to never mention that again? :P
Seriously though, MSSE is kinda cool, but really bad!
Things like Avast, AVG, NOD64, stuff like that is really nice and cuddly.
*chokes*Aside from AVG those are all good, but there is really nothing wrong with MSSE unless you really, really hate Microsoft.
Would you mind to never mention that again? :P
Seriously though, MSSE is kinda cool, but really bad!
Things like Avast, AVG, NOD64, stuff like that is really nice and cuddly.
Does the name change also mean a (minor) change in design? I don't remember reading anything about that (But I could be wrong)
The game is also less punishingly difficult, which I'm not sure how I feel about, but hey, I'm still having fun, so whatever.I have to say, that there really aren't that many high tech fleets around and one could argue that the skill that gives you after combat repair is OP. Although i have to say, i have yet to face "effective" Phase Ships, the idea is interesting but i just ignore all ships of that type currently.
"starsector" to me sounds kind of generic, it lacks imagery.
starfarer had a nice ring to it
oh well maybe a better name might come up in the future
since this is a game where you can out fox your opponent to win maybe we can call it "starfox"
That works out perfectly you wont even need to change the original desktop icon
Erm... Last time I checked the Omen has an emp not phase shift. Do you mean Hyperion? Or wolf class frigate? Maybe the medusa destroyer?
Lastly, just saw an Omen for the first time in a while last night, the phase shift range on that thing is insane! I LOVE IT :D
Erm... Last time I checked the Omen has an emp not phase shift. Do you mean Hyperion? Or wolf class frigate? Maybe the medusa destroyer?
Lastly, just saw an Omen for the first time in a while last night, the phase shift range on that thing is insane! I LOVE IT :D
Valhalla.. Might you be...THAT person? ;D
Valhalla.. Might you be...THAT person? ;DRobbaz? :S
I don't know if it was just added this release but for weapon grouping it seems that the game automatically moves a weapon group to the lowest number unfilled. I like to have my point defense in group 5 and my missiles group 3 for consistency across all ships, but now if I have less than five weapon groups I don't have that option.
Is there a reason for this?
One that note, could we have the option for a few more weapon groups? There seems to be plenty of room on the refit UI for them, and there are several cruisers and capitals that would really benefit from a couple extra groups.This, so much.
One that note, could we have the option for a few more weapon groups? There seems to be plenty of room on the refit UI for them, and there are several cruisers and capitals that would really benefit from a couple extra groups.+1
@ zakastra and StahnAileron
This is not the suggestion forum and you are both here long enough to know. If you have a suggestion that is worth being read it will also be worth opening a thead in the right sub-forum.
Hullmods that enable an animated item\decal on a ship to show an actual improvement. Now that's INTERESTING.Or conversely, items that take up weapon slots and have code attached to them.
Hullmods that enable an animated item\decal on a ship to show an actual improvement. Now that's INTERESTING.Or conversely, items that take up weapon slots and have code attached to them.
So instead of putting something in a Universal slot, you could put a Sensor Dish in there which gives you +25% sight range or something. And you get a little spinning dish on that spot. :D
or just give some ships slots for this kind of special equipment that would boost their own or the FLEETS stats.....that could be nice thing for carriers because their combat value isnt all that great i mean sure they refit bombers and fighters but thats mostly it......but carriers are usually command ships as well so you could tailor your flagship to suit your ship best....You can already do this with ship systems (fleet-wide bonuses), actually. But yeah, you can't make them swappable or cost OP.
sensor dish to have bigger weapons range or and maybe more CP, CIC to give your ships some bonus to dmg or more FP to throw into a battle, Fighter command center to give your fighters and bombers some advantages.....
only some ships would have that kind of slot mostly support ships or some ships intended to be flagships....it would give some kind of combat utility to ships that arent usually taken into combat like the carriers and maybe the Buffalo II....
that said these modules should cost some OP and be quite expensive
Alex it's been a month :(
I need my Starfar...sector fix!
If you hear nothing than stuff is happening!
Guys be patient. If there is a long time of silence - await something global to be released. Starsector has lots of global stuff to be added - outposts, new star systems, trade, admirals etc (those are the ones that Alex either mentioned here on forums or directly taken from the 'features not yet implemented' on the main page).I concur with Okim, people need to get their knickers untwisted and stop moaning about "y no update", we have enough information to digest as it is, so why keep being greedy and kill the cow (sorry for referring to Alex as a cow :))
My bet is on simple trade and ability to build outposts (remember - we already have an 'industry' affinity option that says that its for outpost and trade. It was released empty probably as a hint of stuff getting to be released soon).