Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.95a is out! (03/26/21); Blog post: Skill Changes, Part 2 (07/15/21)

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - jlrperkins

Pages: [1] 2
1
Mods / Re: [0.95a] Kadur Remnant 3.2.3 - life support 2021-03-27
« on: July 23, 2021, 10:39:27 AM »
soooo, about the Spoiler Ship Supercapital, there seems to be an issue with it, the rotating shield is now ridiculously weak, as in, half a dozen TPC shots from an Onslaught is enough to overload it. Tested it on the Mission where you can play it, using the default loadout. Anyone else care to check and see if they can reproduce it?

2
Oh man, at last! This mod (together with its utility weapons companion mod) and Vayra's Sector are all that's missing from my "Mandatory Mods List"

really looking forward to some beautiful missile spam

3
Mods / Re: [0.95a] [Hullmod] Modern Carriers 1.4.2a "Operation Tango"
« on: June 04, 2021, 11:39:20 AM »
Agree, there's a good deal of functionality overlap between my idea and load balancer. My thought is that load balancer caters to fighter complements that lean towards versatility (fighters, bombers, supports, etc) while my idea would cater to mono-hull complements that sacrifice versatility in exchange for super fast replacements. Maybe make them mutually exclusive?

That sounds like combining the functionality of load balancer and advanced fighter command.
However, advanced fighter command do work on a one-wing setup, so I’m not entirely convinced to retire one and merge the functionality.
It also kind of overlaps with DA’s wanzer service hullmod where all wanzer wings get doubled replacement speed if the carrier is loaded with only wanzer wings.

4
Mods / Re: [0.95a] [Hullmod] Modern Carriers 1.4.1a "Operation Tango"
« on: June 04, 2021, 10:39:05 AM »
I was actually thinking of suggesting an idea that would play somewhat similar to the Manufactory Load Balance hullmod, something like "Streamlined Manufactory". The rough idea is: if you had an intact wing and a damaged wing, the intact wing would apply a reduction to the replacement time of the damaged wing, but only if they were the same fighter model. For example, in a carrier with three Broadsword wings, with two intact wings and a damaged wing, the damaged wing would have its replacement time cut by around two thirds. If there were two damaged wings and one intact, the damaged wings would have their replacement time cut by around one third.

The in-game rationale would be that, if you have several forge vats set to produce the same fighter model, why not pool their production to accelerate the assemby of replacements?

Replacement rate may not go above 100 percent, but, can a hullmod apply a modifier to a fighter's replacement time (example, if a fighter's replacement time is 10 seconds, is it possible to cut it to half through a hullmod?)

Edit: another question, is it possible to use a hullmod to "fix" a fighter LPC to the ship? I am thinking of something like "Specialized Forge Vats", a hullmomd that sharply cuts a wing's replacement rate, at the cost of turning the wing into a "built-in" wing as long as the hullmod remains in place.

As of replacement boost, the revamped hullmod Advanced Fighter Command should fulfill your need

Built in wing would require making a hullspec on the run which I haven’t find a way to do it. There was an attempt to remove wings from built in but did not succeed. However you may be asking for Ace carrier core? The interceptor and support wing bonus do have huge replacement speed boost.

5
Mods / Re: [0.95a] [Hullmod] Modern Carriers 1.4.1a "Operation Tango"
« on: June 04, 2021, 09:48:11 AM »
Replacement rate may not go above 100 percent, but, can a hullmod apply a modifier to a fighter's replacement time (example, if a fighter's replacement time is 10 seconds, is it possible to cut it to half through a hullmod?)

Edit: another question, is it possible to use a hullmod to "fix" a fighter LPC to the ship? I am thinking of something like "Specialized Forge Vats", a hullmomd that sharply cuts a wing's replacement rate, at the cost of turning the wing into a "built-in" wing as long as the hullmod remains in place.

ohh, so fighter wing replacement rate is boosted for every wing at 100% replacement?

Not quite like that.

So for example you have a wing at 1/3 and another at 3/3. Your replacement rate shows 80%, it means the replacement clock for the first wing is ticking at only 80% speed.
However if you install the Load Balance, it shifts the rate from the second wing, the new replacement rate distribution will be 99% / 61%. Your damaged wing will be replacing at a much better speed but it cannot surpass the full speed (game limit).

6
Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Vayra's Sector 3.2.1 - D&DSECTOR 2021-03-25
« on: May 26, 2021, 08:11:56 AM »
Shame on you, you just pushed the release date back for another two weeks  ;D ;D ;D

You're the coolest Vayra, please update for the new version <3

7
Mods / Re: [0.95a] [Hullmod] Modern Carriers 1.12
« on: May 14, 2021, 01:20:08 PM »
Xyphos wings are supports done (mostly) right: they zip around close to their carrier and shoot anyone that comes close. The behavior I reported was the whole wings staying huddled together without moving at all, at about 300 hundred units directly behind their carrier, exactly like bombers on Regroup. Also, I don't recall them moving forward when the carrier was venting.

If the mod also applied an override to all wings' AI so they acted a bit like Xyphos, I think it would be a great improvement.



I noticed a bug/issue with the Bastion Core hullmod

When using a wing from the Arma Armatura mod, the wing was locked on the "hide behind carrier" behavior, just like bombers on "Regroup", regardless of engage/regroup status. Is this a hardcoded behavior? I seem to remember that wings with zero engagement ignore the engage/regroup setting. Can a hullmod modify the behavior of the wings to fix this? Ideally, a carrier with this hullmod would have all its wings spread to the sides/front, acting as guards for the carrier, instead of hiding behind it.
Just FYI that's standard Support Fighter behavior - they stay behind the carrier to, well, provide support. However, if the parent ship decides to Vent, they will move up to in front to actually take some hits for the carrier, which is nice.

Support Fighters in general are like herding cats though, they don't listen to Engage orders at all, and more often than not will shoot the wrong thing.

8
Mods / Re: [0.95a] [Hullmod] Modern Carriers 1.12
« on: May 14, 2021, 09:02:40 AM »
I noticed a bug/issue with the Bastion Core hullmod

When using a wing from the Arma Armatura mod, the wing was locked on the "hide behind carrier" behavior, just like bombers on "Regroup", regardless of engage/regroup status. Is this a hardcoded behavior? I seem to remember that wings with zero engagement ignore the engage/regroup setting. Can a hullmod modify the behavior of the wings to fix this? Ideally, a carrier with this hullmod would have all its wings spread to the sides/front, acting as guards for the carrier, instead of hiding behind it.

9
Mods / Re: [0.95a] [Hullmod] Modern Carriers 1.12
« on: May 14, 2021, 08:33:28 AM »
Interesting.

Regarding point 2: Is there a way to define a hullmod so its effects are changed if the hullmod is made permanent using a story point? Then you could have a hullmod that provides a bonus when it's not permanent, and a different/enhanced bonus when it's made permanent. This may be a way to implement #2 without stepping on the "hullmods that modify OP cost must be built-in"

I have some ideas I want to suggest, but as I only played a bit of the mod some of these might not work as well as they do in my head.

1. A hullmod that increases the fighter wing size (and replacement rate to compensate) at the cost of firepower/damage done, basically the idea is to trade crew casualties to spread out the damage, so losing one fighter would mean losing a smaller amount of firepower. Or alternatively, this is probably harder to make, but have extra weaponless decoys added to the wing to soak up damage.

2. A cheap/free hullmod that reduces fighter cost (well, cheap enough to not make it cost more in total), but the fighters will be severely weakened, the idea is to mount sub par versions of high cost fighters on weaker carriers.

3. probably some endurance core for the carriers that give them better replacement rate recovery at the cost of the carrier stats, like slowed speed or cut down flux to use for the replacement recovery.
The first two are hard no.

First one as hard as I tried it requires extremely janky implementation involving juggling and tracking every fighter of a wing per frame and add extra fighter to wing accordingly which is glitchy at best.
Second one is against general modding regarding OP manipulation, any hullmod modifying OP cost should be built in.

Third one I did have a draft about Enduring Core but not what you’re thinking here. Increment of replacement speed recovery is likely not noticed by AI algorithm if at all.
Current design of Enduring Core is healing (remote repair) fighters within certain radius of the carrier, or something like that. Non-bombers never try to dock to repair afaik so I think this would be nice for player to ensure they’re not sending planes that’s gonna explode with the slightest touch. However it doesn’t seem strong enough for a standalone core and I need some other effects in the same bucket to make the core happen.
Increasing recovery rate is likely not an option due to overlap with expanded deck crew.

10
Any idea as to when this mod will be made compatible with 0.95?

11
The unique aesthetic and playstyle of this faction really speaks to me. I know you've mentioned previously that YRXP is sort of on the backburner and that's completely understandable with all the effort you've put into it and your other mods. I never knew about the hullmod slowdown, I guess my games haven't gone on long enough for it to affect it to a noticeable degree. I'm still running the old starsector version with YRXP 2.1.2 while I wait for issues with the new starsector update to be smoothed out.

Just wanted to chime in that I am also looking forward to the fixed/updated version. Thanks for all your hard work.
Thank you very much! I'm glad you enjoyed it! But I'd also like to say that YRXP is not on the backburner anymore! In fact, it'll be the first of my mods that will be compatible with the new version!

...that said, this coming update is much, much more comprehensive than any I've released before. You could probably even call it a remake at this point! But also owing to that, it'll be a good while before it's ready, so I hope you can patiently look forward to it!  ;D

As long as the update comes up around the same time as Nexerelin and Vayra's Sector, I'll be happy. I'm delaying my new run of the 0.95 version because those two mods (especially Nexerelin) are so central to my enjoyment of the game.

12
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« on: March 22, 2021, 08:06:24 AM »
Alex, please make logistical hullmods built-in with story points not count towards the nominal two logistical hullmods limit.

I get what you mean, but at least this is super easy to change with a minimal edit to a config file.

13
Modding / Re: So, these bladebreaker chappies........
« on: March 10, 2021, 07:44:53 AM »

Dealing with these bastards requires a specific fleet theme. Ballistic-oriented fleets with medium-high armor and either fast speed or sprint get-in-your-face capability are just the ticket. Do NOT attempt to get in a flux war with them; they will outflux you handily. Instead, charge them and pin them down; once you get the shield out of the way, they will go down surprisingly fast.

This is only my second Starsector game, first with the nex mod and few others I installed to go with it. I am still somewhat overwhelmed by the number and complexity of the weapons systems and loadout choices so I'm not sure I fully understand your comment. Seems likee a good time to learn more a bout it. Do you mean something like I need a fleet with:

* a preponderance of anti-shield weapons (of which kinetics are usually good examples)
* fast ships or ones with "charge capability" (meaning many cruisers/destroyers are favoured over fewer slow battle ships and carriers)

I have 70m Cr in the bank and 750k production per month in my colonies and a fair few ship blueprints the "best" of which appear to be:

Capitals: Astral, Zenelograd, conquest
Cruisers: Baikal, Apogee, Knight, Dominator
Destroyers: Tereshkova, Medusa, Tunguska, Scorpion

I can buy any number of premium Blackrock ships too, I already own several including four each of their main battleships and carriers. I have several high end 200% armour ballistic blueprints (Ferrocannon, Gauss cannon, Gale battery, whistler jetfire, dual shard cannon etc) which I can mass produce.

I am unsure what do about carriers/fighters. Should I:

* leave carriers out of it altogether and rely on on PD against these blighter's fighter swarms
* go for anti-shield bombers
* or go for anti-fighter fighters.

 :-\

You pretty much got it. Blade Breakers fight by engaging, doing a good deal of alpha damage, disengage, rinse and repeat. They unique hullmod allows them to effectively laugh at slow/steady strategies, because they can dissipate hard flux without dropping their shields, their shields are quite efficient, they have medium-to-high base flux dissipation, they have high base speed and maneuverability, and their ship systems are mostly movement enhancers that allow them to easily disengage. And then, their unique hullmod gives them a bonus to active vent speed. So yes, the strategy here is to charge them with fast, tanky ships and hit them hard with kinetics. Preferably kinetics with large single shot damage rather that steady damage, and with fast projectiles. And forget about using any kind of unguided missile, they are too maneuverable to get hit. Any fighters you use in this case should be support fighters for PD and anti-bomber duties.

If you go for a carrier stragety, make sure you go for overkill. Blade Breakers have excellent anti-fighter interceptors and PD, so you need LARGE numbers. And make sure all the carriers have the hullmod to increase fighter readiness recovery, because you WILL take losses.

14
Modding / Re: So, these bladebreaker chappies........
« on: March 09, 2021, 05:29:16 PM »
These bladebreakers buggers are another ball game altogether however. I've got a whole bunch of top of the line battleships and carriers etc but 300 pts worth of any combination of them appears insufficient to easily pacify these blighters.

Dealing with these bastards requires a specific fleet theme. Ballistic-oriented fleets with medium-high armor and either fast speed or sprint get-in-your-face capability are just the ticket. Do NOT attempt to get in a flux war with them; they will outflux you handily. Instead, charge them and pin them down; once you get the shield out of the way, they will go down surprisingly fast.

15
Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Ship/Weapon Pack 1.12.2
« on: January 11, 2021, 01:32:53 PM »
Is there a way to reacquire IBB ships in case one lost them?

Prism Freeport. Once you defeat a bounty, its unique ships can randomly appear at the High End Seller.

Pages: [1] 2