Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

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.

Topics - stormbringer951

Pages: [1]
There's a 50k difference; this looks like it would correspond to maybe a 2-4 level difference under the hood, depending on how the random elements of the rewards line up. The game generates one "high-level" bounty most of the time, this looks like it. So, this isn't random, but rather the one intentionally tougher-than-normal bounty.

I checked some modded savegames I imported from 0.9. I queried the bounty levels for the fleets in PersonBountyIntel on a few saves, running Java code in the console commands mod, and there's definitely something weird going on.

Level 9 bounty (282,000), Cycle 208 Month 9 Day 15, Char Level 52, average level Bounty.

9 capital ships, 15 cruisers, 15 destroyers, 15 frigates. Note: this alarmingly strong bounty has more than 30 ships. My player/AI fleet size limit is 30.

Level 9 bounty (283,500), Cycle 208 Month 12 Day 30, Char Level 58, lowest level Bounty: 4 caps, 2 cruisers, 11 destroyers, 13 frigates.

Code: json
{"enabledMods": [
  "Mayasuran Navy",

I also have some other examples of bounty fleets that vastly exceed the 30 ship limit. Checking my modlist, I am fairly confident nothing should be messing with bounty fleet generation, although I haven't checked the codebase of all the mods.

EDIT: It may be related to the same problem that caused that report of a Luddic Path fleet exceeding fleet size limit, and perhaps may be implicated in complaints of uneven bounty fleet strength?

Mods / [0.9.1a] Weapons Group Controls 1.1.0
« on: May 17, 2018, 02:30:54 PM »
Supports Version Checker
View source code

Demonstration Image:

A utility mod that adds some rebindable in-combat hotkeys:

- Deselect All Weapon Groups: Default key [6]. Deselects all weapon groups, even if all 5 weapon groups are defined. Useful if you want to autofire everything and just sit back and pilot.
- Toggle Fire Mode: Default key [7]. Switch selected weapon group between alternating and linked fire type.
- Quick Hold Fire: Default key [8]. Hold down to switch off all weapon groups that do not contain a point defence weapon (or small non-missile weapons when Integrated Point Defence AI is installed) as long as hotkey is held down, re-enabled when key is released.

Inspired by a conversation on Discord with Johnny the Wedge Guy, Avanitia, Snrasha and TheKart.

Lazywizard - permission to use his code from Empty Weapons Group Selector for Deselect all Weapons Groups hotkey.

1.1.0 - 2018-05-24
- Added Unselect all weapons groups button - thanks to LazyWizard for use of the code from his Empty Weapons Selector mod

1.0.0 - 2018-05-17
- Initial Implementation


Allied forces always choose to harass 0 CR enemy fleet, never pursue and actually destroy it. Extensive modlist but I believe the core issue here is related to vanilla battle AI's decision-making about whether to pursue/harass/let go.

Repro steps:

Save folder zip.

I'm playing Nexerelin and a Tyrador Safeguard Coalition invasion fleet is over Chicomotzoc fighting the Hegemony defence station and several small response fleets.

Attempt to join the battle so you can check the status of the fleets. The Coalition fleet should have approximately 0 CR.  The Hegemony's battle station and several small response fleets will repeatedly engage it but not destroy it. Sit and watch for a while as this continues to happen.

Dock at Chicomotzoc, get Hegemony commission.

Attempt to attack enemy fleet. Whenever I joined, the battle was ongoing. The Hegemony forces will choose to harass their opponents as they try to retreat every time, despite the enemy fleet being at 0 CR.

The fleet seemed to try to flee me repeatedly, but kept on being sucked back into battle where the Hegemony would choose to harass them.

The first time, the enemy fleet ended up sitting directly over the planet and being endlessly harassed. On a later attempt to check the repro steps work, after a while I managed to get their fleet to flee me away from the radius of the battle station so I could initiate the fight. All the Coalition ships immediately blew themselves up as they entered battle.

Since a lot of people have had an issue with this in the tutorial and asked about it on Discord, I thought I'd post this here. The tutorial advances when you press the quicksave button (F5). If you run into the Hegemony patrol without saving every time the tutorial prompts you (it does this quite often) then the tutorial won't advance to the stage where you get access to the transponder.

This is a problem I notice in vanilla and modded games fairly often, to a greater and lesser degree. Today while watching the tournament I found a very good example of where I think it goes wrong:

Watch from 1:50:00 ish, you can see the Haze (with supporting escorts) in the bottom left, a cruiser which comprises a very significant element of one fleet's firepower (bonus points for having three wings escorting it), chasing a frigate around while the rest of its fleet faces the larger enemy fleet alone.

I am sure this behaviour isn't caused by the scenario but is just a more prominent version of what I see in vanilla a lot. Ships, sometimes a significant percentage of your force, will chase lone enemies that are faster and hard for them to kill far away from the rest of the battle. When I am using a fast frigate fleet or a fleet with a very powerful capital/cruiser flown by the AI, I feel like I have to often check to make sure that significant elements of my fleet isn't chasing a single irrelevant enemy ship far away from the battle.

On the player's side, this makes ships like a Wolf with graviton beam/tac lasers and speed/range mods very good, since it will usually draw off several time it's own worth in slower enemy frigates which struggle to break its shields. You can see this with any fast ship that can be fit with a lot of beams - the Hecate from the Ship Weapon Pack mod is also a very excellent example if you want to see this behaviour replicated when you fight as an early game player fleet vs a slightly larger pirate frigate fleet. Changing this might make the game harder but it will reduce the micro load on the player by not having to tab out to make sure that important and powerful/lots of ships aren't trying to focus targets that are just fast enough to back away from them indefinitely.

I feel like ship decisionmaking should be more aware of and incentivize ships to stay in proximity to other elements of your fleet/the main concentration of the enemy fleet. Slower more powerful ships should ward off faster enemy ships that are trying to flank, but shouldn't go chasing it very very far away from the rest of its fleet, making it a proxy win for the faster weak ship and a loss for the fleet that has more powerful vessels chasing small ones off into the middle of nowhere.

EDIT: Someone pointed out to me that this is a good behaviour in certain cases like when you need to win by causing a CR rundown to zero on fast kitey ships, but in many cases for player fleets they will be fighting outnumbered and may need the chasing ships to win the main battle like in the example video so this behaviour still seems suboptimal.

E.g. to take SCY's mod_info.json as an example:

"id": "SCY",
"name": "Scy Nation",
"author": "Created by Tartiflette. Music by Fastland. With the help of Debido, Mesotronik, Dark Revenant, Silentstormpt, Histidine, SniZupGun, Deathfly, 19_30 and many others.",
"version": "1.1"
"description": "Blood-thirsty pirates for some, ruthless slavers for others, treacherous spies for the rest... The Sector is a tough place to live in, and like many others the Scyan people have been forced to compromise their principles in order to survive.",
"gameVersion": "0.7.2a",
"jars": ["jars/SCY_code.jar"],
"modPlugin": "data.scripts.SCY_modPlugin",
"prereqs": [{
"id": "lazylib",
"version": "2.1.1"
}, {
"id": "twiglib",
"versionUB": "0.6.11"

Being able to pin a mod to a closed or open-ended range of versions would be a neat extension and prevent issues like having to change your mod_info.json when a lib updates, but would probably require enforcing semantic versioning or something similar to work:

"id": "SCY",
"name": "Scy Nation",
"author": "Created by Tartiflette. Music by Fastland. With the help of Debido, Mesotronik, Dark Revenant, Silentstormpt, Histidine, SniZupGun, Deathfly, 19_30 and many others.",
"version": {
"major": 1,
"minor": 1,
"patch": 0
"description": "Blood-thirsty pirates for some, ruthless slavers for others, treacherous spies for the rest... The Sector is a tough place to live in, and like many others the Scyan people have been forced to compromise their principles in order to survive.",
"gameVersion": "0.7.2a",
"jars": ["jars/SCY_code.jar"],
"modPlugin": "data.scripts.SCY_modPlugin",
"prereqs": [{
"id": "lazylib",
"versionUB": null,
"versionLB": {
"major": 2,
"minor": 1,
"patch": 1
}, {
"id": "twiglib",
"versionUB": {
"major": 0,
"minor": 6,
"patch": 11
"versionLB": {
"major": 0,
"minor": 6,
"patch": 11

Modding / Scripting new AI Fleet Behaviours?
« on: October 03, 2014, 07:44:59 AM »
Is it possible to extend the behaviour of AI fleets? For example, something I want to try coding is, at a certain relation level between factions, to have small patrols below a certain size to be able to fight each other as per current default fleet behaviours but large fleets to mutually avoid each other - as a sort of AI version of border skirmishing/cold war before either side decides to commit to total war.

I'm fairly confident with Java but I've only just started digging through Starsector's code to try and understand it.

Bonus question: would something like this be possible under the provisional upcoming 0.65a API?

Posted an updated version of the javadoc here. It includes most of the API requests, with a few notable exceptions (SettingsAPI changes, EngineSlotAPI, MuzzleFlashAPI, some other stuff). Doesn't mean it won't get added, I'll most likely take another look at it - was just doing a "quick" pass over it today, and it's in good enough shape where I'd like to publish the new API now.

Standard disclaimer: any part of the API could change prior to the actual release.

Pages: [1]