Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.9.1a is out! (05/10/19); Updated the Forum Rules and Guidelines (02/29/20); Blog post: GIF Roundup (04/11/20)

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22

Author Topic: [0.9.1a] Disassemble Reassemble v1.6.9 - Another lovingly kitbashed ship pack!  (Read 232770 times)

AxleMC131

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1696
  • Amateur World-Builder
    • View Profile

So I've been looking into how various mods interact with Nexerelin's mining mechanic, and it seems like you've manually assigned mining strength to ships that have mining beam nodes, rather than giving the beam nodes themselves a mining strength. All well and good, but currently the Sturmovik (S) doesn't have any mining strength when it seems very much like the sort of vessel that would have some.

Mining Beam Nodes have been removed for the next version, so this is a non-issue. Regardless...

The Sturmovik (S) wasn't given a mining strength because it wasn't designed as a mining ship, but rather a post-battle salvage vessel (unusually specific, I know, but that's its lore). Admittedly the choice of Mining Nodes on it was a bit silly. It still makes a good mining ship since it can field a wing of Mining Pod drones and a Mining Laser or Hammer Torpedo rack, but it isn't able to function as one inherently - I have no intentions of changing that at this point.

Also, considering its name and surrounding fluff, have you considered asking King Alfonzo if you could use his "Junker" mechanic from Hazard Mining (wherein ships gain OP the more d-mods they have) for the Junker-class gunboat? :V

With previous versions of the Junker, I may have considered this, but much as I enjoy the concept of "junk ships" I agree with the philosophy that they don't make a great deal of sense in Starsector, as far as "how are ships built" goes in the lore and therefore how they show up in the campaign.

The current version of the Junker is named affectionately more than practically - it's built to code, not from scrap, it just happens that the assembly process uses cheap, readily-available and low quality materials to make a ship that costs about two cents and only barely holds together... Kinda like certain Soviet vehicles in WWII. 8) (Hint: Build them in bulk, and treat them like slow Hounds with bigger guns.)
Logged

Captain Trek

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile

Fair enough. Well in that case I hope the base mining strength of the ships that did have the nodes comes down accordingly, since these ships would now logically be more reliant on player-installed equipment.

Logged

AxleMC131

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1696
  • Amateur World-Builder
    • View Profile

Fair enough. Well in that case I hope the base mining strength of the ships that did have the nodes comes down accordingly, since these ships would now logically be more reliant on player-installed equipment.

Depends how much of an effect you think they play. The Sturm' (S) and the Starlifter are both losing their nodes and not getting anything in return; the Triton's nodes have been replaced by built-in Mining Lasers (I'll change this one), and the Katrina is being removed outright.
Logged

Captain Trek

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile

Seems reasonable. So the lifter, for instance, should be losing 40 mining strength, correct?
Logged

AxleMC131

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1696
  • Amateur World-Builder
    • View Profile

Seems reasonable. So the lifter, for instance, should be losing 40 mining strength, correct?

... No? The Starlifter is losing the Mining Beam Nodes and the mounts they sit in. It's getting no other changes, so there's no reason to reduce its mining strength.



[Hindsight] The Starlifter only has 10 Mining Beam Node emplacements. What would make removing those worth a reduction of 40 mining strength? Common Mining Lasers are only 1.5 each, and the nodes are much weaker. Even if you assumed an increase in modular weapon slots, 40 is a huge reduction.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2019, 11:31:43 PM by AxleMC131 »
Logged

Captain Trek

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile

Well the Triton has 24 with 6 nodes and nothing really else to lend it strength. Given that they're even worse weapons than mining lasers it kind of made sense to me that you'd have balanced them with 4 strength per node in mind. And I figured that since the Lifter was losing these with no compensation, a corresponding reduction in mining strength was warranted. I've stated elsewhere that a capital-size salvage gantry should probably provide no more than 16 strength given the destroyer-sized one on the salvage rig only provides 4, the borers have 9 and even if the Starbreaker has 40 (double a 'normal' large-size weapon that provides mining strength like hammer barrage) that's still just 65 total. Thing is that people can quite easily pile on more mining equipment themselves (especially if they also have HMI), so I'm generally of the opinion that being conservative with how much in-built mining strength ships have is a good idea. I've proposed similar nerfs to the Fishkill (HMI), Chamois (DME), Reaper (JP), and Caravan (Maya), among others.

Fair play to you if you disagree and decide to keep the Lifter at 109 anyway, but hopefully we'll be on the same page now either way. ^^;
« Last Edit: December 15, 2019, 12:09:13 AM by Captain Trek »
Logged

AxleMC131

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1696
  • Amateur World-Builder
    • View Profile

I think I see where you're coming from. Let's see if I can't clarify some things here...

"Number of Mining Beam Nodes" has never had any influence on the ships' mining strengths. The weapon was purely designed for flavour and to make those ships a bit more unique. They would always have had the same values whether they had the nodes or not.

I think the Salvage Rig is a pretty poor comparison for balancing mining strength since it's not intended to be a mining ship. The Shepherd is better, since it's more accurately a "mining ship" with the Borer Drones. However, that's a tenuous argument because mining strength is purely mod content, and since the mining strengths for vanilla content were decided on by another (admittedly prolific) modder - and there's only like two vanilla ships that have a strength - there isn't really much to base your values on besides other mods. A lot of my mining strengths start as pretty hand-wavy values and don't get much change before I'm satisfied with them, though I do use said other mods as indicators.

Regardless, that also overlooks a potentially more important argument: you can hum and hah about the face values as much as you like, but in reality mining strength is just one more value to keep in mind alongside everything else. Balancing "in a vacuum" as it is known is strongly discouraged; you should always keep the big picture in mind.

Take the Starlifter for instance: Huge, slow and seriously easy to kill. (Have you played the "Trainwreck" mission?) Plus the ship's designed primarily for mining. It has big weaknesses and big strengths - mining is one of those strengths. I think it's allowed a large base mining strength, and if a player wants to splurge on mining weapons to push it even higher, they pay the price in a lack of defensive weaponry.

Logged

Captain Trek

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile

Well I'd argue that having capital-sized gantry and surveying equipment, and relatively beefy cargo and fuel capacity is already a fantastic amount of utility for a non-combat/semi-combat capital to have, and even 50-70 mining strength would still mark it as one of the premiere mining ships across the modiverse even before player-installed equipment, especially if my proposed Fishkill nerf goes through (which indications Alfonzo's been giving me are that it very well might).

Still, like I said, if you decide not to reduce the Lifter and Trion's mining strength, I'll respect that.
Logged

AxleMC131

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1696
  • Amateur World-Builder
    • View Profile

I suppose it all depends what your reference frame is for a "high" value. Me, I'm looking at the mod ship ratings defined in Nex's own config file (may not be the most recent version, but not very old), and 100 for a dedicated mining capital ship seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Logged

Deageon

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile

Does the Black Arrow stealth corvette actually have any sneaky abilities somehow or is it just a shuttle-less version of the red arrow?
Logged

AxleMC131

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1696
  • Amateur World-Builder
    • View Profile

Does the Black Arrow stealth corvette actually have any sneaky abilities somehow or is it just a shuttle-less version of the red arrow?

Indeed it does have sneaky abilities. It has the same Phase Field hullmod that phase ships have, which reduces its sensor profile to zero, and also carries a Phase Skimmer for its active system.
Logged

McMuster

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile

Hey, I'm trying to set up a lighter version of this mod for my games, is it possible to disable ships im not interested in from spawning?
Logged

AxleMC131

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1696
  • Amateur World-Builder
    • View Profile

It is indeed possible.

Those ships that are part of blueprint packages - ie. "common" ships - you can disable by removing them from the blueprints they're attached to. Navigate in DaRa's files to [ data > hulls > ship_data.csv ] and open that file with a spreadsheet editor - Excel or LibreOffice is recommended. Then scroll sideways to the "tags" column and delete the "_bp" tags for the ships you don't want.

Take note though! If a ship has the "rare_bp" tag I'm fairly sure you'll need to perform a separate step. You need to navigate further to [data > world > factions ] and find each of the .faction files for factions that use that ship. (Open these in a raw text editor like Notepad++.) Then you have to find each entry for the ship in their "knownHulls" and delete it. (If it turns out this isn't necessary, then awesome, the game's current faction/ships known/blueprint system is even more cool than I thought!)

With a little trial and error you should be able to do this pretty smoothly. Be sure to make backups before you change any files though!
« Last Edit: February 22, 2020, 12:56:35 PM by AxleMC131 »
Logged

McMuster

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile

Thanks boss, I take it other mods work this way too? Also, looks like weapon _bp and Wing _bp tags can be removed from the Weapon_Data and Wing_Data .csv files
Logged

AxleMC131

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1696
  • Amateur World-Builder
    • View Profile

Thanks boss, I take it other mods work this way too? Also, looks like weapon _bp and Wing _bp tags can be removed from the Weapon_Data and Wing_Data .csv files

Pretty much, and pretty much. Some mods DO have scripted methods for spawning ships/items/whatevers, but such things are rare, and let's be honest, you shouldn't need or want to disable those anyway. ;)
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22