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); Blog post: Personal Contacts (08/13/20)

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 34

Author Topic: [0.9.1a] Kadur Remnant 3.1.2 - un-invincible 2020-02-11  (Read 327091 times)

Excalibur Bane

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 52
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: [0.6a] Kadur Theocracy v1.1.4 (new version 9/24/2013) Exerelin compatible!
« Reply #105 on: September 26, 2013, 09:34:03 AM »

Posted a random video featuring your cruiser in it. Not sure if it's any good to anyone. It was more of a test to see how things came out and they didn't exactly come out as intended. Plus, the battle sorta sucked. I'm a terrible player. :\

That battleship can take alot of punishment, boy. :D
Logged

Sidie Hawkton

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Re: [0.6a] Kadur Theocracy v1.1.4 (new version 9/24/2013) Exerelin compatible!
« Reply #106 on: September 26, 2013, 04:49:12 PM »

I'm not able to get this mod to work with Exerelin...  I've narrowed it down from the mods I'm using and only get the below error/crash when adding yours.  Help please?
Spoiler
I might just be missing an update or in topic post but I'm not able to load any saves...  I'm running (having made the changes needed per download post):
Exerelin 0.6
Lazylib 1.5
Bushi 1
Hiigarian 1
Junk Pirates 1.61b
Kadur Theocracy 1.1.4
Neutrino 1.7
Shadowyards 0.4.2
Gedune 1

I've been trying to play 4 systems, small max, 12 planets, 4 asteroids, 15 stations, omnifactory, all factions, respawn all every 2 months, starting as Neutrino Singularity (at least this faction has major fleet control issues right off the bat due to the big ships logistic cost unless you use all 3&3 points to up it).  Upon any load, after having taken first station, I'm no longer able to load the save.

I'm not sure what I'm looking for in the log, but I notice:
419726 [Thread-6] ERROR com.fs.starfarer.campaign.save.CampaignGameManager  - Could not call com.fs.starfarer.campaign.accidents.AccidentManager.readResolve() : null : Could not call com.fs.starfarer.campaign.accidents.AccidentManager.readResolve() : null
---- Debugging information ----
message             : Could not call com.fs.starfarer.campaign.accidents.AccidentManager.readResolve() : null
cause-exception     : com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.reflection.ObjectAccessException
cause-message       : Could not call com.fs.starfarer.campaign.accidents.AccidentManager.readResolve() : null
class               : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.accidents.AccidentManager
required-type       : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.accidents.AccidentManager
converter-type      : com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.reflection.ReflectionConverter
path                : /CampaignEngine/modAndPluginData/persistentData/entry/map/entry[5]/FleetMember/fleetData/fleet/accidentManager
line number         : 123853
class[1]            : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.fleet.CampaignFleet
class[2]            : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.fleet.FleetData
class[3]            : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.fleet.FleetMember
class[4]            : java.util.HashMap
converter-type[1]   : com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.collections.MapConverter
class[5]            : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.ModAndPluginData
class[6]            : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.CampaignEngine
converter-type[2]   : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.save.void
version             : null

[close]
Logged

dmaiski

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
  • resistance is futile
    • View Profile
Re: [0.6a] Kadur Theocracy v1.1.4 (new version 9/24/2013) Exerelin compatible!
« Reply #107 on: September 26, 2013, 07:02:57 PM »

i have to say this is probably my favorite mod at this moment, its the only one i have where there are "good" balistic weapons, almost all other mods are exclusively made for their energy weaponry...
Logged
BISO
(WIP) lots of shiny new weapons ( :-[ i have more weapons then sprites :-[ )

i got a cat pad
its like a mouse pad but better!

t13link

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: [0.6a] Kadur Theocracy v1.1.4 (new version 9/24/2013) Exerelin compatible!
« Reply #108 on: September 26, 2013, 07:12:48 PM »

I have some problems with Exerelin and Kadur too, cant load any saved game..

starsector log file:
Spoiler
4373575 [Thread-6] INFO  com.fs.starfarer.campaign.save.CampaignGameManager  - Loading D:\Games\Starsector\starsector-core\..\saves\save_TorsenThorn_8738280633773853604...
4378086 [Thread-6] INFO  com.fs.starfarer.campaign.save.CampaignGameManager  - Error loading
4378087 [Thread-6] ERROR com.fs.starfarer.campaign.save.CampaignGameManager  - Could not call com.fs.starfarer.campaign.accidents.AccidentManager.readResolve() : null : Could not call com.fs.starfarer.campaign.accidents.AccidentManager.readResolve() : null
---- Debugging information ----
message             : Could not call com.fs.starfarer.campaign.accidents.AccidentManager.readResolve() : null
cause-exception     : com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.reflection.ObjectAccessException
cause-message       : Could not call com.fs.starfarer.campaign.accidents.AccidentManager.readResolve() : null
class               : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.accidents.AccidentManager
required-type       : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.accidents.AccidentManager
converter-type      : com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.reflection.ReflectionConverter
path                : /CampaignEngine/modAndPluginData/persistentData/entry/map/entry/FleetMember/fleetData/fleet/accidentManager
line number         : 281776
class[1]            : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.fleet.CampaignFleet
class[2]            : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.fleet.FleetData
class[3]            : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.fleet.FleetMember
class[4]            : java.util.HashMap
converter-type[1]   : com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.collections.MapConverter
class[5]            : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.ModAndPluginData
class[6]            : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.CampaignEngine
converter-type[2]   : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.save.void
version             : null
-------------------------------
com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.ConversionException: Could not call com.fs.starfarer.campaign.accidents.AccidentManager.readResolve() : null : Could not call com.fs.starfarer.campaign.accidents.AccidentManager.readResolve() : null
---- Debugging information ----
message             : Could not call com.fs.starfarer.campaign.accidents.AccidentManager.readResolve() : null
cause-exception     : com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.reflection.ObjectAccessException
cause-message       : Could not call com.fs.starfarer.campaign.accidents.AccidentManager.readResolve() : null
class               : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.accidents.AccidentManager
required-type       : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.accidents.AccidentManager
converter-type      : com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.reflection.ReflectionConverter
path                : /CampaignEngine/modAndPluginData/persistentData/entry/map/entry/FleetMember/fleetData/fleet/accidentManager
line number         : 281776
class[1]            : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.fleet.CampaignFleet
class[2]            : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.fleet.FleetData
class[3]            : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.fleet.FleetMember
class[4]            : java.util.HashMap
converter-type[1]   : com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.collections.MapConverter
class[5]            : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.ModAndPluginData
class[6]            : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.CampaignEngine
converter-type[2]   : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.save.void
version             : null
-------------------------------
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.TreeUnmarshaller.convert(TreeUnmarshaller.java:79)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.AbstractReferenceUnmarshaller.convert(AbstractReferenceUnmarshaller.java:65)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.TreeUnmarshaller.convertAnother(TreeUnmarshaller.java:66)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.reflection.AbstractReflectionConverter.unma rshallField(AbstractReflectionConverter.java:355)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.reflection.AbstractReflectionConverter.doUn marshal(AbstractReflectionConverter.java:306)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.reflection.AbstractReflectionConverter.unma rshal(AbstractReflectionConverter.java:234)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.TreeUnmarshaller.convert(TreeUnmarshaller.java:72)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.AbstractReferenceUnmarshaller.convert(AbstractReferenceUnmarshaller.java:65)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.TreeUnmarshaller.convertAnother(TreeUnmarshaller.java:66)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.reflection.AbstractReflectionConverter.unma rshallField(AbstractReflectionConverter.java:355)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.reflection.AbstractReflectionConverter.doUn marshal(AbstractReflectionConverter.java:306)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.reflection.AbstractReflectionConverter.unma rshal(AbstractReflectionConverter.java:234)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.TreeUnmarshaller.convert(TreeUnmarshaller.java:72)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.AbstractReferenceUnmarshaller.convert(AbstractReferenceUnmarshaller.java:65)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.TreeUnmarshaller.convertAnother(TreeUnmarshaller.java:66)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.reflection.AbstractReflectionConverter.unma rshallField(AbstractReflectionConverter.java:355)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.reflection.AbstractReflectionConverter.doUn marshal(AbstractReflectionConverter.java:306)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.reflection.AbstractReflectionConverter.unma rshal(AbstractReflectionConverter.java:234)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.TreeUnmarshaller.convert(TreeUnmarshaller.java:72)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.AbstractReferenceUnmarshaller.convert(AbstractReferenceUnmarshaller.java:65)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.TreeUnmarshaller.convertAnother(TreeUnmarshaller.java:66)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.TreeUnmarshaller.convertAnother(TreeUnmarshaller.java:50)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.collections.AbstractCollectionConverter.rea dItem(AbstractCollectionConverter.java:71)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.collections.MapConverter.putCurrentEntryInt oMap(MapConverter.java:85)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.collections.MapConverter.populateMap(MapConverter.java:77)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.collections.MapConverter.populateMap(MapConverter.java:71)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.collections.MapConverter.unmarshal(MapConverter.java:66)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.TreeUnmarshaller.convert(TreeUnmarshaller.java:72)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.AbstractReferenceUnmarshaller.convert(AbstractReferenceUnmarshaller.java:65)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.TreeUnmarshaller.convertAnother(TreeUnmarshaller.java:66)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.TreeUnmarshaller.convertAnother(TreeUnmarshaller.java:50)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.collections.AbstractCollectionConverter.rea dItem(AbstractCollectionConverter.java:71)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.collections.MapConverter.putCurrentEntryInt oMap(MapConverter.java:89)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.collections.MapConverter.populateMap(MapConverter.java:77)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.collections.MapConverter.populateMap(MapConverter.java:71)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.collections.MapConverter.unmarshal(MapConverter.java:66)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.TreeUnmarshaller.convert(TreeUnmarshaller.java:72)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.AbstractReferenceUnmarshaller.convert(AbstractReferenceUnmarshaller.java:65)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.TreeUnmarshaller.convertAnother(TreeUnmarshaller.java:66)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.reflection.AbstractReflectionConverter.unma rshallField(AbstractReflectionConverter.java:355)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.reflection.AbstractReflectionConverter.doUn marshal(AbstractReflectionConverter.java:306)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.reflection.AbstractReflectionConverter.unma rshal(AbstractReflectionConverter.java:234)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.TreeUnmarshaller.convert(TreeUnmarshaller.java:72)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.AbstractReferenceUnmarshaller.convert(AbstractReferenceUnmarshaller.java:65)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.TreeUnmarshaller.convertAnother(TreeUnmarshaller.java:66)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.reflection.AbstractReflectionConverter.unma rshallField(AbstractReflectionConverter.java:355)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.reflection.AbstractReflectionConverter.doUn marshal(AbstractReflectionConverter.java:306)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.reflection.AbstractReflectionConverter.unma rshal(AbstractReflectionConverter.java:234)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.TreeUnmarshaller.convert(TreeUnmarshaller.java:72)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.AbstractReferenceUnmarshaller.convert(AbstractReferenceUnmarshaller.java:65)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.TreeUnmarshaller.convertAnother(TreeUnmarshaller.java:66)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.TreeUnmarshaller.convertAnother(TreeUnmarshaller.java:50)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.TreeUnmarshaller.start(TreeUnmarshaller.java:134)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.AbstractTreeMarshallingStrategy.unmarshal(AbstractTreeMarshallingStrategy.java:32)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.XStream.unmarshal(XStream.java:1052)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.XStream.unmarshal(XStream.java:1036)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.XStream.fromXML(XStream.java:921)
   at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.save.CampaignGameManager.super(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.A.dialogDismissed(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.K.dismiss(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.impl.oooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.dismiss(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.save.LoadGameDialog.actionPerformed(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.O00o.super(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.F.processInput(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.O00o.processInputImpl(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.oo0O.processInput(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.b$Oo.processInputImpl(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.oo0O.processInput(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.oOo0.dispatchEventsToChildren(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.oOo0.processInputImpl(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.b.processInputImpl(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.oo0O.processInput(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.oOo0.dispatchEventsToChildren(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.oOo0.processInputImpl(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.oo0O.processInput(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.oOo0.dispatchEventsToChildren(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.oOo0.processInputImpl(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.oo0O.processInput(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.D.I.processInputImpl(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.oo0O.processInput(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.oOo0.dispatchEventsToChildren(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.oOo0.processInputImpl(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.K.processInputImpl(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.oo0O.processInput(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.oOo0.dispatchEventsToChildren(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.oOo0.processInputImpl(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.oo0O.processInput(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.A.super(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.new.???000(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.oOOO.super.new(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.combat.D.o00000(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.StarfarerLauncher$2.run(Unknown Source)
   at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:619)
Caused by: com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.reflection.ObjectAccessException: Could not call com.fs.starfarer.campaign.accidents.AccidentManager.readResolve() : null
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.reflection.SerializationMethodInvoker.callR eadResolve(SerializationMethodInvoker.java:71)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.reflection.AbstractReflectionConverter.unma rshal(AbstractReflectionConverter.java:235)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.TreeUnmarshaller.convert(TreeUnmarshaller.java:72)
   ... 92 more
Caused by: java.lang.NullPointerException
   at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.fleet.FleetMember.getFleetPointCost(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.fleet.FleetData.do.float$Object(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.fleet.FleetData.syncIfNeeded(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.fleet.FleetData.getCargo(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.fleet.CampaignFleet.getCargo(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.accidents.AccidentManager.readResolve(Unknown Source)
   at sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor25.invoke(Unknown Source)
   at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
   at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)
   at com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.reflection.SerializationMethodInvoker.callR eadResolve(SerializationMethodInvoker.java:65)
   ... 94 more
[close]
Logged

Zaphide

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 799
    • View Profile
Re: [0.6a] Kadur Theocracy v1.1.4 (new version 9/24/2013) Exerelin compatible!
« Reply #109 on: September 26, 2013, 07:41:56 PM »

RE Exerelin+Kadur Theocracy errors
Yeah sorry no fix yet :(

I actually have no idea what is wrong either. It's only an issue once either of the sides get a station, and given the error is thrown in FleetMemberAPI.getFleetPointCost, I assume it happens once a fleet (other than the players) is built for the faction.

So, possibly, the fleet point (or deployment point now?) cost is missing from a FleetMember, or more likely Exerelin is adding a FleetMember to a fleet it is not meant to, or in a way that doesn't work. There are actually a few transforms done when a fleet is built in Exerelin to convert from ship_id/wing_id -> hull_id, as some mods implement it in different ways. I'll have a look through that and see if something needs to be done (or not done for Kadur Theocracy) :)

Logged

Vayra

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
  • jangala delenda est
    • View Profile
Re: [0.6a] Kadur Theocracy v1.1.4 (new version 9/24/2013) Exerelin compatible!
« Reply #110 on: September 27, 2013, 01:44:46 AM »

Hoo boy, lots of replies. Lets see if I can address all of them :)

I'm not really too concerned about the coilguns; I suppose that's not a big issue.  But, compared to the heavy mauler, the Coilguns have a much faster projectile speed.  This is a problem with the Railguns vs. Hypervelocity Driver.  This does affect balance, and I feel it makes them too good as enemies can't dodge the shots like they can with their vanilla counterparts.  It's also worth noting that I generally perceive the heavy mauler as a little too powerful (it's almost always better than the Assault Chaingun, but it might also be that way by design, by virtue of being higher tech).

A turn rate nerf would be fine, but I also feeling slowing projectile speeds by 20% or more would also bring them in line with vanilla weapons.

That said, I hope you're going to have a harsh talk with the Small Ballistics, because I feel those are the most ridiculously overpowered weapons.  At that projectile speed, range, damage, and efficiency, they're just far too good, even for 9 OP (only 1 more than a light needler, which isn't nearly as effective).

The biggest thing I can tell you is that, as a player who wants to do well, I can use railguns (any size) to chop through armor, even against heavier vessels.  One small railgun (not an array) can demolish the armor of a Lasher, much less several.  For a kinetic weapon, this just isn't right.  This may actually have to do with how armor absorbs damage; it seems like simply having more damage lets you get through armor better than if you had equal DPS with several smaller projectiles.  This also relates back to the heavy mauler seeming better than the assault chaingun even up close, though this could very well be me being off my rocker.

Point is, the 9OP railgun is just too good.  I think projectile speed might not be accounted for in balancesuite, or not accounted heavily enough, because it's a big deal.  It's why (I believe) beam weapons deal soft flux to shields; instant transmission.  Given a choice between a Heavy Autocannon (vanilla) or the 9OP railgun, I'd choose the latter, every time.  And it can be put on a small mount.  That's a huge deal.

I don't think I want to lower projectile speeds -- for one thing, the Kadur's 'official' military doctrine calls for long-range engagement and reducing projectile speed would render the weapons nearly ineffective against anything more agile than a Prometheus at long range. For another thing, it's just unrealistic -- I mean we're talking about a game where spaceships shoot plasma cannons into the engines of other spaceships which disables them for ten seconds, sure, but I still think electromagnetic projectile accelerators should rightly propel projectiles far faster than explosive propellants do. What I am doing, though, is lowering kinetic damage across the board, lowering kinetic range slightly, and lowering all the non-PD ballistic turn rates to ensure that the weapons are far less useful against agile frigates and fighters that get in your face, while still very powerful if you can orient your ship's batteries towards the enemy at long ranges.

Fair enough.  A slight nerf is all I wanted; ammo ought to be fine.  Though I still think the small LRMs should get even fewer missiles (note that at 1 OP more, the Javelins have far more ammo than a harpoon; with only a slightly lower projectile speed and damage these are a far better option even for close-range HE damage).
The thing about Kadur LRMs is not their power. It's that they are very easy to boat. Civilians ships can be fitted with a bucketload of those and you can field a bucketload of civilians ships... I played with a fleet integrally made of Siroccos and Djinns class. The Mistral is just far too squishy to be effective, i always lost one or two of them because they are bumping with my own ships during the deployment phase, and Djinn is better as a tanker and missile boat in every aspect.

With my "Itano circus" style fleet, i was able to stomp everything in the game, save for the Kadur judgement fleet. I also always have a Hauberk class staying behind to provide the radar bonus, i'm not sure however if the range bonus apply to missiles. Also i wonder, i know their bonus don't stack, but are they nullified when your Hauberk is against another Hauberk?

So yeah, nerfing the small LRM would be good to avoid boating your entire fleet with them.

I haven't played much (yet) a ballistic oriented fleet. But as NikolaiLev said they seems very strong now, nerfing a bit the turning speed of the guns as well as the projectile speed would be good.

Yeah, I've reduced the VLRMS-2's ammo to provide only five volleys, which means that while a savvy Kadur freighter captain can still abandon all pretense of having an effective PD system in exchange for providing VLRM support to a fleet it is much less efficient and he'll have a lot less longevity in battle. If you think they're better than a Harpoon rack for close-in HE damage finishers, though, I don't really know what to say about that. ;)

As for the Hauberks, one on either side should cancel each other out for a net change of 0% to sensor and weapon ranges for ships that are inside the effect range of both, yeah.

Not bad!  But as much as I hate tearing your mod up, I feel this could take some looking at as well.  It's powerful, and that's cool (the Hauberk is a destroyer with mediocre hardpoints, railguns notwithstanding) but it should have a larger drawback than merely disabling its shields; the fact it increases your range and decreases theirs is a huge swing in power.  The enemy AI isn't smart enough to focus it down, so I feel it should also have a relatively high flux generation, and/or make it disable weapons as well.  Problem with that being allowing the Hauberk AI know when to use it and when not to.  But I'm sure you can think of something.

P.S. If it makes you feel any better, the only other mod I've "abused" to this extent was keptin's IFed, and that's because I loved it.  It's just a form of affection, you know?   :D

It is only a 15% bonus and a 15% debuff -- less than an ITU on anything bigger than a Frigate, and therefore effectively countered by one. That said, I'm actually in the process of implementing a bigger drawback in the form of slow flux generation and no flux dissipation while the system is on -- the hard part is getting the AI to use it intelligently, heh. A large part of why it is the way it is right now is that the AI script currently amounts to "if it's off, turn it on" and I'm not very good with Java. Rest assured, it will be fixed eventually. I might actually make the system a little more effective, while I'm at it -- only once it has a substantial drawback and a functional AI script, of course. The Hauberk might catch a little bit of a combat stats nerf to make sure it's a dedicated support ship, too.

And as for your postscript, I love the abuse... Or rather, I love getting in-depth feedback. It shows that people care, and it's the only way I'm ever going to achieve vanilla parity. ;D

P.P.S. The mod's interceptors seem to be really poor at being interceptors.  This is a fair tradeoff given they have kinetic weapons (which makes them amazing support craft) but I think this could use some looking at.  A weapon that had decent range, high burst damage but low DPS would suit the faction quite well.  Problem is, it'd be balanced for fighters but it'd be stupidly good as PD.  So, maybe give it short range ala the Vulcan Cannon, with its damage frontloaded in a long, potent burst which an equally long cooldown between bursts.

I've actually found them quite effective at intercepting enemy fighters! Could you go a little more in-depth as to what they're failing at?

P.P.P.S. (Darn, keep forgetting!)  Martyr drones just seem far too ineffective.  It's a dangerous thing to ask, but buffing martyr cannons just a liiiiittle bit would be nice.  They are basically energy mortars, which are ineffective in every other way (but the concept is cool!)

They are energy mortars, heh. I've lowered the range significantly and increased the damage a fair bit for the next update -- this should make the martyr drones act a little more like, well, martyrs. Hopefully it will also make them a little more useful.

OH MY GOD I KEEP THINKING OF THINGS (This actually happened with IFed too, now that I think about it!)  The Jackal deserves a buff to its peak performance time!  While it fits with what it is, it just renders it far too ineffective and deserves to be able to stick around and contribute what little it can.  It's a cute little guy and I'd like to use it more, but I just can't justify it; my other frigates (especially Hyenas and Vultures) are about as fast and are just as good for capping points.

Also I should've gushed about how much I love you for adding carrier frigates because I love carrier frigates and they need to be more common!  Alright, hopefully this will be the last edit to this post.

I'm not going to buff the Jackal's peak performance time. :P Remember, it's faster than literally anything else in the sector (unless you're playing with the Nihil, in which case it's faster than anything else in the sector except their ridiculous "anti" fighter wings) and maneuverable to boot, so if you could fly it around with an ITU and a heavy railgun on the front for long enough to kite and kill anything that would be pretty uncool. That's the very thing peak performance times were meant to curtail. It's useful enough for capturing distant points in the start-of-battle scramble or for chasing down fleeing fast frigates/fighters and disabling their engines for long enough that something a little more heavily armed can catch up, and that's all it was built for. What I might do though is reduce its supply usage again, so that it's more viable to bring one or two along with a fleet for those purposes.

That said, if you want to play with a Jackal flagship or something of the like, go ahead and edit the peak performance time in the ship_data.csv for your own copy of the mod! If you manage to do something ridiculous with it like killing an Onslaught, post a screenshot. ;) And I'm glad you like the carrier frigate!

Oh, and One Last Thing: I might make my own faction at some point.  I don't know if there's general policy for this, but I'm wondering if you'd mind if I copied the Sling ABM for it!  I've already expressed my love for it, and I might still end up making my own missile-based anti-missile weapon, but in general I like the idea of mods having non-vanilla weapons in common and I wish it was more common.  You'd get credit, of course!   ;D

Of course! It's actually stated in the description that it's an ancient weapon system, so it would make sense for other factions to have gotten a hold of the blueprints for them too and/or designed their own weapons based on them.

Thanks for interesting mod. Separately pleased integration of original fraction not only with original, but also with other mods in the form of four brisk systems . As pleased division of fraction into two conflicting parties that allows at the same time and to be on friendly terms with the main fraction, and to try the new ships as opponents. From the ships separately I pleased Dolfin. Against appearance of mods with trading I want to suggest to add fast transport of the average size, like clipper. It would seem to me not bad fitted into line of ships this fraction.

Thank you! I'm glad you like the way the mod integrates with others, and the Insurgency faction. I put a lot of work into those, the former especially. I actually have plans for civilian ships that fit the theme of the faction more than the existing ones do, I just haven't really had time to work on them lately -- so those, too, will be coming along in time.

i have to say this is probably my favorite mod at this moment, its the only one i have where there are "good" balistic weapons, almost all other mods are exclusively made for their energy weaponry...

Thanks! I'm a big fan of ballistic weapons -- my favorite ship in vanilla is the Enforcer. Glad you're enjoying it. :D

Quote from: people
exerelin/kadur theocracy bugs

These I have no idea about. :( I'll take a look at the things it's throwing up as errors, but I'm not sure what I can do to be honest. Hopefully it's something easily fixed, but I don't really understand where it's going off so I'm not sure I can fix it with my javascript skills being what they are (i.e. nonexistant). Fingers crossed Zaphide will find it so I don't have to.  :)

EDIT: Hauberk field AI appears functional! Toying with the idea of a bigger range buff/debuff in exchange for lowering the Hauberk itself's armor and hull strength. Thoughts? It would make Hauberks considerably more important on the battlefield -- you'd need to intelligently assign them behind friendly lines, close enough to boost your ranges but not close enough to get blown up. It would also make them into much more of an "objective" where they appear in enemy AI fleets -- you'd want to blow them up (and if you could get a fast frigate behind enemy lines, it would be easy to do so) right away or risk being outranged dramatically, especially given that they'd be backed up by Kadur ships with Kadur weaponry. I think I'm going to do it, but for now the weapon range boost/debuff is only increased by 5% (to 20%), while the hull HP/armor nerf is considerably more severe. Thoughts?

I'm thinking I'll release tomorrow night, after some more testing.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2013, 03:02:37 AM by Vayra »
Logged
Kadur Remnant: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=6649
Vayra's Sector: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=16058
Vayra's Ship Pack: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=16059

im gonna push jangala into the sun i swear to god im gonna do it

Lopunny Zen

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 507
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: [0.6a] Kadur Theocracy v1.1.4 (new version 9/24/2013) Exerelin compatible!
« Reply #111 on: September 27, 2013, 10:31:53 AM »

having trouble with kadar too...why not do what the ZORG mod did...that download works....try that for this mod
Logged

Vayra

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
  • jangala delenda est
    • View Profile
Re: [0.6a] Kadur Theocracy v1.1.4 (new version 9/24/2013) Exerelin compatible!
« Reply #112 on: September 27, 2013, 11:49:17 AM »

having trouble with kadar too...why not do what the ZORG mod did...that download works....try that for this mod

I'll take a look at it tomorrow or tonight, in the meantime I've removed the "Exerelin compatible" from the thread title. If anyone has a working knowledge of javascript, I'd appreciate it if they could take a look at possible solutions too... Pinning down the problem seems to be beyond my ability for the time being. :(
Logged
Kadur Remnant: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=6649
Vayra's Sector: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=16058
Vayra's Ship Pack: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=16059

im gonna push jangala into the sun i swear to god im gonna do it

Excalibur Bane

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 52
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: [0.6a] Kadur Theocracy v1.1.4 (new version 9/24/2013)
« Reply #113 on: September 27, 2013, 11:52:46 AM »

Gotta say man, I love those ship designs. The coloring and the layout is perfect. Good job on them there sprites, sir. Keep up the good work! :D
Logged

Vayra

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
  • jangala delenda est
    • View Profile
Re: [0.6a] Kadur Theocracy v1.1.4 (new version 9/24/2013)
« Reply #114 on: September 28, 2013, 05:18:43 AM »



Image of the new Vulture. Looks much more Kadur now, I think. I might do this to all the civilian ships too, but for now it's quarter past five in the morning and I need to finish this drink and go to bed. :)

I didn't end up testing enough to be comfortable with a release tonight, and if you check the changelog for the coming update that I put in the bottom of the OP, you'll see why -- lots of big hits to Kadur weapon power in various ways, though they should remain very effective for long-range alpha-strike bombardment and support.

Probably safe to expect an update tomorrow though, given that I have no plans except for testing the changes I've made and seeing if I need to make any more.
Logged
Kadur Remnant: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=6649
Vayra's Sector: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=16058
Vayra's Ship Pack: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=16059

im gonna push jangala into the sun i swear to god im gonna do it

t13link

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: [0.6a] Kadur Theocracy v1.1.4 (new version 9/24/2013)
« Reply #115 on: September 28, 2013, 12:27:30 PM »

Sorry for my English in advance, it's not my native language.

I've tried to find a problem with Exerelin and Kadur...

First. Strings from starsector.log file:
Spoiler
---- Debugging information ----
message             : Could not call com.fs.starfarer.campaign.accidents.AccidentManager.readResolve() : null
cause-exception     : com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.reflection.ObjectAccessException
cause-message       : Could not call com.fs.starfarer.campaign.accidents.AccidentManager.readResolve() : null
class               : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.accidents.AccidentManager
required-type       : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.accidents.AccidentManager
converter-type      : com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.reflection.ReflectionConverter
path                : /CampaignEngine/modAndPluginData/persistentData/entry/map/entry[4]/FleetMember/fleetData/fleet/accidentManager
line number         : 259068
class[1]            : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.fleet.CampaignFleet
class[2]            : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.fleet.FleetData
class[3]            : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.fleet.FleetMember
class[4]            : java.util.HashMap
converter-type[1]   : com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.collections.MapConverter
class[5]            : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.ModAndPluginData
class[6]            : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.CampaignEngine
converter-type[2]   : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.save.void
version             : null
-------------------------------
[close]

Second. Let's take a look at path: /CampaignEngine/modAndPluginData/persistentData/entry/map/entry[4]/FleetMember/fleetData/fleet/accidentManager in my "save" file.

Spoiler
<FleetMember>
              <owner>0</owner>
              <specId>khs_dolphin_acehigh</specId>
              <shipName>QMS Traumaturge</shipName>
              <type>SHIP</type>
              <isFlagship>false</isFlagship>

...skipped...

<accidentManager>
                    <randomSeed>6151854791310812160</randomSeed>
                    <tracker>
                      <minInterval>0.5</minInterval>
                      <maxInterval>1.5</maxInterval>
                      <currInterval>0.70108277</currInterval>
                      <elapsed>0.0</elapsed>
                      <intervalElapsed>false</intervalElapsed>
                    </tracker>
                    <fleet reference="../.."></fleet>
                    <currentChance>0.0</currentChance>
                    <context>
                      <daysWithoutSupplies>0.0</daysWithoutSupplies>
                      <daysAtZeroLR>0.0</daysAtZeroLR>
                    </context>
                  </accidentManager>
[close]

I don't know where is problem here, but i think its caused by "khs_dolphin_acehigh" variant in this case. May be im wrong...

UPD: "khs_dolphin_Ramming" have problem too. Path from "log" file lead to "TowCable_PersistentBuffs" section in "save" file.
  
« Last Edit: September 28, 2013, 01:10:24 PM by t13link »
Logged

Vayra

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
  • jangala delenda est
    • View Profile
Re: [0.6a] Kadur Theocracy v1.1.4 (new version 9/24/2013)
« Reply #116 on: September 28, 2013, 01:45:32 PM »

Sorry for my English in advance, it's not my native language.

I've tried to find a problem with Exerelin and Kadur...

First. Strings from starsector.log file:
Spoiler
---- Debugging information ----
message             : Could not call com.fs.starfarer.campaign.accidents.AccidentManager.readResolve() : null
cause-exception     : com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.reflection.ObjectAccessException
cause-message       : Could not call com.fs.starfarer.campaign.accidents.AccidentManager.readResolve() : null
class               : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.accidents.AccidentManager
required-type       : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.accidents.AccidentManager
converter-type      : com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.reflection.ReflectionConverter
path                : /CampaignEngine/modAndPluginData/persistentData/entry/map/entry[4]/FleetMember/fleetData/fleet/accidentManager
line number         : 259068
class[1]            : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.fleet.CampaignFleet
class[2]            : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.fleet.FleetData
class[3]            : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.fleet.FleetMember
class[4]            : java.util.HashMap
converter-type[1]   : com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.collections.MapConverter
class[5]            : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.ModAndPluginData
class[6]            : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.CampaignEngine
converter-type[2]   : com.fs.starfarer.campaign.save.void
version             : null
-------------------------------
[close]

Second. Let's take a look at path: /CampaignEngine/modAndPluginData/persistentData/entry/map/entry[4]/FleetMember/fleetData/fleet/accidentManager in my "save" file.

Spoiler
<FleetMember>
              <owner>0</owner>
              <specId>khs_dolphin_acehigh</specId>
              <shipName>QMS Traumaturge</shipName>
              <type>SHIP</type>
              <isFlagship>false</isFlagship>

...skipped...

<accidentManager>
                    <randomSeed>6151854791310812160</randomSeed>
                    <tracker>
                      <minInterval>0.5</minInterval>
                      <maxInterval>1.5</maxInterval>
                      <currInterval>0.70108277</currInterval>
                      <elapsed>0.0</elapsed>
                      <intervalElapsed>false</intervalElapsed>
                    </tracker>
                    <fleet reference="../.."></fleet>
                    <currentChance>0.0</currentChance>
                    <context>
                      <daysWithoutSupplies>0.0</daysWithoutSupplies>
                      <daysAtZeroLR>0.0</daysAtZeroLR>
                    </context>
                  </accidentManager>
[close]

I don't know where is problem here, but i think its caused by "khs_dolphin_acehigh" variant in this case. May be im wrong...

UPD: "khs_dolphin_Ramming" have problem too. Path from "log" file lead to "TowCable_PersistentBuffs" section in "save" file.
  

This is very interesting. It seems to be caused by having tugs in Exerelin fleets -- weirdly enough, having tugs doesn't cause any save/load problems when not playing Exerelin. Thanks for helping me find this, though!

In the next release I've cut tugs from all the Exerelin fleets and that seems to make saves function properly, though it's certainly not an ideal way of doing things.
Logged
Kadur Remnant: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=6649
Vayra's Sector: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=16058
Vayra's Ship Pack: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=16059

im gonna push jangala into the sun i swear to god im gonna do it

NikolaiLev

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
    • View Profile
Re: [0.6a] Kadur Theocracy v1.1.4 (new version 9/24/2013)
« Reply #117 on: September 28, 2013, 03:17:41 PM »

I don't think I want to lower projectile speeds -- for one thing, the Kadur's 'official' military doctrine calls for long-range engagement and reducing projectile speed would render the weapons nearly ineffective against anything more agile than a Prometheus at long range. For another thing, it's just unrealistic -- I mean we're talking about a game where spaceships shoot plasma cannons into the engines of other spaceships which disables them for ten seconds, sure, but I still think electromagnetic projectile accelerators should rightly propel projectiles far faster than explosive propellants do. What I am doing, though, is lowering kinetic damage across the board, lowering kinetic range slightly, and lowering all the non-PD ballistic turn rates to ensure that the weapons are far less useful against agile frigates and fighters that get in your face, while still very powerful if you can orient your ship's batteries towards the enemy at long ranges.

Fair enough.  It's not irreparably problematic to have high projectile speed, but it needs to be considered as a proper advantage so the weapon is nerfed in other ways.  That's my biggest point.

I've actually found them quite effective at intercepting enemy fighters! Could you go a little more in-depth as to what they're failing at?

Nope, I'm afraid not.  I'll have to test some more, especially if you insist they work well in practice.  But from what I've seen so far their guns have a hard time staying on target due to their seemingly low turn speed/acceleration.  Whenever I assign an interceptor to an enemy wing, it doesn't seem to get the job done, but it could be a fluke.

I'm not going to buff the Jackal's peak performance time. :P Remember, it's faster than literally anything else in the sector (unless you're playing with the Nihil, in which case it's faster than anything else in the sector except their ridiculous "anti" fighter wings) and maneuverable to boot, so if you could fly it around with an ITU and a heavy railgun on the front for long enough to kite and kill anything that would be pretty uncool. That's the very thing peak performance times were meant to curtail. It's useful enough for capturing distant points in the start-of-battle scramble or for chasing down fleeing fast frigates/fighters and disabling their engines for long enough that something a little more heavily armed can catch up, and that's all it was built for. What I might do though is reduce its supply usage again, so that it's more viable to bring one or two along with a fleet for those purposes.

That said, if you want to play with a Jackal flagship or something of the like, go ahead and edit the peak performance time in the ship_data.csv for your own copy of the mod! If you manage to do something ridiculous with it like killing an Onslaught, post a screenshot. ;) And I'm glad you like the carrier frigate!

It was never my intention to play with a Jackal flagship, but you have a decent point.  I exclusively use them as they're supposedly intended, but they just don't seem to last long enough to get the job done.  Even an extra minute could be enough for them to get to the point and keep the enemy frigate busy with some IR pulse laser fire and martyr drone suppression.  Otherwise, they just lose CR and explode instantly.  The low peak performance also makes them a hassle to micromanage (though I should make a suggestion about allowing an option to auto-retreat frigates when their CR goes out.

Of course! It's actually stated in the description that it's an ancient weapon system, so it would make sense for other factions to have gotten a hold of the blueprints for them too and/or designed their own weapons based on them.

 :D I want to hug you now!

EDIT: Hauberk field AI appears functional! Toying with the idea of a bigger range buff/debuff in exchange for lowering the Hauberk itself's armor and hull strength. Thoughts? It would make Hauberks considerably more important on the battlefield -- you'd need to intelligently assign them behind friendly lines, close enough to boost your ranges but not close enough to get blown up. It would also make them into much more of an "objective" where they appear in enemy AI fleets -- you'd want to blow them up (and if you could get a fast frigate behind enemy lines, it would be easy to do so) right away or risk being outranged dramatically, especially given that they'd be backed up by Kadur ships with Kadur weaponry. I think I'm going to do it, but for now the weapon range boost/debuff is only increased by 5% (to 20%), while the hull HP/armor nerf is considerably more severe. Thoughts?

Making the Hauberk a more extreme case is risky.  Do multiple Hauberks in the same fleet stack?  If so, they can become an issue real quick-like.  Also worth considering is the impact of putting a Hauberk in a non-Kadur fleet.  If you make the Hauberk into a more extreme case (by buffing the field and nerfing the Hauberk itself) then it's more and more likely it'll become a huge issue.  I say leave it as is; it's potent enough to make a difference (admittedly, not a terribly obvious one due to the nature of these things) while still being a competent destroyer in itself.  I like that.  I'd like the Hauberk to remain a ship I'd be okay with flagshipping, rather than a boring, fragile thing I need to watch out for in order to make sure my fleet gets that super critical 30% weapon range boost/debuff.  15% seems like a pretty solid number.



Image of the new Vulture. Looks much more Kadur now, I think. I might do this to all the civilian ships too, but for now it's quarter past five in the morning and I need to finish this drink and go to bed. :)

I didn't end up testing enough to be comfortable with a release tonight, and if you check the changelog for the coming update that I put in the bottom of the OP, you'll see why -- lots of big hits to Kadur weapon power in various ways, though they should remain very effective for long-range alpha-strike bombardment and support.

Boy, oh boy, keptin better watch out, 'cause you sure are aiming to be my new favorite mod!   ;D

That Vulture looks like it has more mounts.  Is it going to have more firepower?  I would definitely not mind if it did, so long as it took a hit to its speed and maneuverability.  To be honest, I don't think it should get much of either, as right now it functions both as a carrier and a point capturer.  I'd rather it be a carrier frigate with some decent weaponry but poor speed and maneuverability.  But maybe that's just me.
Logged


Vayra

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
  • jangala delenda est
    • View Profile
Re: [0.6a] Kadur Theocracy v1.1.4 (new version 9/24/2013)
« Reply #118 on: September 28, 2013, 05:32:17 PM »

Fair enough.  It's not irreparably problematic to have high projectile speed, but it needs to be considered as a proper advantage so the weapon is nerfed in other ways.  That's my biggest point.

As it is, I've dropped them to be more in line with the fastest vanilla weapons and nerfed pretty much everything else about them too, heh. The large mounts still fire at higher velocities than anything in the unmodded game, but not by as wide a margin as before. :)

Nope, I'm afraid not.  I'll have to test some more, especially if you insist they work well in practice.  But from what I've seen so far their guns have a hard time staying on target due to their seemingly low turn speed/acceleration.  Whenever I assign an interceptor to an enemy wing, it doesn't seem to get the job done, but it could be a fluke.

Ah, yeah. Fighters other than the dervish suffer from the same lack of maneuverability as most Kadur ships, though not quite to the same extent. They're probably less effective than most other interceptors... I'll consider changing them, or maybe changing their stated role and adding a new dedicated interceptor that's better at its job.

It was never my intention to play with a Jackal flagship, but you have a decent point.  I exclusively use them as they're supposedly intended, but they just don't seem to last long enough to get the job done.  Even an extra minute could be enough for them to get to the point and keep the enemy frigate busy with some IR pulse laser fire and martyr drone suppression.  Otherwise, they just lose CR and explode instantly.  The low peak performance also makes them a hassle to micromanage (though I should make a suggestion about allowing an option to auto-retreat frigates when their CR goes out.

I can see what you mean, but I'm likely going to just leave it as-is due to the next Starsector update making all ships with peak performance times to worry about have a lot more longevity in general.

Making the Hauberk a more extreme case is risky.  Do multiple Hauberks in the same fleet stack?  If so, they can become an issue real quick-like.  Also worth considering is the impact of putting a Hauberk in a non-Kadur fleet.  If you make the Hauberk into a more extreme case (by buffing the field and nerfing the Hauberk itself) then it's more and more likely it'll become a huge issue.  I say leave it as is; it's potent enough to make a difference (admittedly, not a terribly obvious one due to the nature of these things) while still being a competent destroyer in itself.  I like that.  I'd like the Hauberk to remain a ship I'd be okay with flagshipping, rather than a boring, fragile thing I need to watch out for in order to make sure my fleet gets that super critical 30% weapon range boost/debuff.  15% seems like a pretty solid number.

I've only increased the weapons buff/debuff to 20%, and they don't stack. (although it's still useful to have more than one, both because the effect has a long bug still limited range, and in case one blows up) :) Flagshipping it should still be possible, but you'll definitely want to play it careful if you do. As for putting it in non-Kadur fleets, I think that would actually make it less effective rather than more so due to the Kadur having the longest ranged weapons to expand the ranges of, etc.

If it's too fragile now, I might raise its armor again though. I'm thinking I want to make a new sprite for it anyway sometime -- it doesn't quite fit the aesthetic. I'd like it to look more like a weird fat AWACS Falchion than the current skeletal flying wing vibe it has going on.

Boy, oh boy, keptin better watch out, 'cause you sure are aiming to be my new favorite mod!   ;D

That Vulture looks like it has more mounts.  Is it going to have more firepower?  I would definitely not mind if it did, so long as it took a hit to its speed and maneuverability.  To be honest, I don't think it should get much of either, as right now it functions both as a carrier and a point capturer.  I'd rather it be a carrier frigate with some decent weaponry but poor speed and maneuverability.  But maybe that's just me.

It's slow for a Kadur frigate! :v Slower than Tempests, Hounds, Seskis, Thunders, Talons, Wasps, Echos one IFed exists again, etc... It's perfectly suited to capturing and holding near points, especially with a fighter wing to back it up, but it's not ideal for grabbing distant ones -- unless you're slapping an injector and/or augmented engines on it, but that applies to pretty much any frigate and like I said, there are faster hulls to slap them on.

There's room in the game for a heavily armed, slow carrier frigate, but it's not very Kadur in my opinion. Perhaps something to write down as a ship idea for the mod you want to make one day?

As it exists in my dev version right now, it's just got an extra front-facing small ballistic turret and a little more armor, while the rear universal turret is changed to only face behind the ship and cover the engines. It's certainly not a combat powerhouse, but it is a little better at holding its own than it was -- the Martyr drone changes also help with that a bit.

I'd release now, but I think I need to add blinking lights to something so I can be taken seriously as a modder.  ;)
Logged
Kadur Remnant: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=6649
Vayra's Sector: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=16058
Vayra's Ship Pack: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=16059

im gonna push jangala into the sun i swear to god im gonna do it

Gotcha!

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1110
    • View Profile
    • Welcome to New Hiigara
Re: [0.6a] Kadur Theocracy v1.1.4 (new version 9/24/2013)
« Reply #119 on: September 28, 2013, 06:00:58 PM »

I'd release now, but I think I need to add blinking lights to something so I can be taken seriously as a modder.  ;)

Aw, so no one's going to take me seriously then. ;_;
Logged
  
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 34