Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

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.

1

Modding / Re: Is it time to reconsider the stance on reflection?

« on: March 31, 2023, 02:36:23 AM »

working around the api is more fun than the sledgehammer approach

2

Modding / Re: Misc modding questions that are too minor to warrant their own thread

« on: February 20, 2023, 09:53:25 PM »

What is the correct usage of CombatEngineAPI.spawnProjectile(ShipAPI ship, WeaponAPI weapon, String weaponId, String projSpecId, Vector2f point, float angle, Vector2f shipVelocity);?

Every time I have tried to use it, it crashes with a nullpointerexception in the constructor of either MovingRay or BallisticProjectile. For example calling this method with non-null variables, and with the strings "lightdualac" and "lightdualac_shot" will cause a crash. This makes it impossible to spawn projectiles that are indirectly spawned via MIRV missiles, e.g. the "sabot_warhead2" projectile. Can this be clarified please?

Hmm - it's used a bunch of times in the API for things like mines, some Omega weapons, etc. Also, data.scripts.plugins.TestCombatPlugin calls this to spray a bunch of lightmg shots, and I recall this working.

Yeah the problem is that there are two spawnProjectile methods defined, and TestCombatPlugin only uses the one that takes a weaponID (which works flawlessly). The problem is that the second overload that takes a weaponID and a projectileID is always crashing whenever i try to use it, and I can't get it to not crash with a lot of different input combinations.

3

Modding / Re: Misc modding questions that are too minor to warrant their own thread

« on: February 20, 2023, 12:53:13 AM »

What is the correct usage of CombatEngineAPI.spawnProjectile(ShipAPI ship, WeaponAPI weapon, String weaponId, String projSpecId, Vector2f point, float angle, Vector2f shipVelocity);?

Every time I have tried to use it, it crashes with a nullpointerexception in the constructor of either MovingRay or BallisticProjectile. For example calling this method with non-null variables, and with the strings "lightdualac" and "lightdualac_shot" will cause a crash. This makes it impossible to spawn projectiles that are indirectly spawned via MIRV missiles, e.g. the "sabot_warhead2" projectile. Can this be clarified please?

4

Suggestions / Re: API request thread (please read OP before posting!)

« on: February 10, 2023, 08:18:14 PM »

Hi, SettingsAPI getAllWeaponSpecs() does not return a complete list of specs because it ignores weapons with the ai hint AIHints.SYSTEM and the type WeaponType.SYSTEM. Can this be made to include all weapon specs please? My current workaround is calling the obfuscated method "o00O.Object()" to obtain a complete list of spec ids.

5

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes

« on: February 02, 2023, 04:01:05 AM »

 ShipEngineControllerAPI.ShipEngineAPI.repair() please, since .disable() already exists in the API

6

Mods / Re: [0.95.1a-RC6] HexShields - Shield Reskin v1.2.0

« on: January 09, 2023, 06:09:56 PM »

I dont know what to change in the config so the shield looks like the Paragon in the OP post.
I am pretty sure i had it like this on the old version but i havent played for some month and i cant remember and i downloaded the latest version yesterday so i cant check the old config.
The 2 Options in the settings.json:
   "HexShields_HexFill":true,
   "HexShields_UseDefaultRing":false,
didn´t help.

Spoiler

[close]

with the
"HexShields_HexFill":false,
it just loops like this.

Spoiler

[close]

i just installed the old 1.1.0 version again and it works as it should:

Spoiler

[close]

is it a bug with the new version or a mod incompatibility?

That's my bad, i thought i had made it so that the new system works with empty hexagons but i must have broken something while working on it. If you aren't having performance issues with 1.1.0 i recommend using that until I get around to updating hexshields. Cheers

7

Suggestions / Re: Make SMODS a post-battle upgrade only option

« on: January 06, 2023, 04:51:29 AM »

You are still missing the entire point of the post. SMODS should not be "hullmods but free" like you are assuming. They should be a scarce resource that can be desired during a playthrough, much like finding an officer with many skills. The idea is to make them more of a story element rather than another aspect of outfitting a new ship.

My brother in Christ they are literally a replacement for old Loadout Design 3. Your head canon of game elements doesn't mean the game should work like that.

no clue what you're smoking.

8

Suggestions / Re: Make SMODS a post-battle upgrade only option

« on: January 06, 2023, 04:45:18 AM »

I never even picked up the skill to have 3 s-mods...

And I play exclusively vanilla so no clue what you're smoking.

EDIT: My point was it reduces fleet experimentation. Why would I replace a ship with 2 s-mods with a brand new one which will have to get used in many battles just so it can reach the power level of the previous one and ONLY THEN can I tell was it worth the change.

You are still missing the entire point of the post. SMODS should not be "hullmods but free" like you are assuming. They should be a scarce resource that can be desired during a playthrough, much like finding an officer with many skills. The idea is to make them more of a story element rather than another aspect of outfitting a new ship.

9

Suggestions / Re: Make SMODS a post-battle upgrade only option

« on: January 06, 2023, 04:36:47 AM »

Please no more mod ideas for base game, it already went too far. I don't want a newly bought or salvaged ship to be gimped for 10 battles or so. Only thing this does is increase save scumming even more for a bit more flavour. Not to mention the boring grind.

This is a joke right

No.

How did we went from extra OP to a system where you need to spend semi limited currency on every combat ship just to keep up, now introducing various bonuses and penalties depending on OP cost (which seems like a nightmare to balance, and is inherently screwing some hullmods), and now you asked if I was joking to your suggestion of adding a grind layer to this onion.

There really is a point where enough is enough, I don't mind complexity and depth. But this is turning out to be a clown fiesta of needless mechanics. By 1.0 we're going to be playing 15 different minigames just to get into a fight and modify our fleet.

If you think I'm overreacting, look at the new Graviton Beam and Missile Autoloader hullmod - where I wasn't negative. This is just too much now for a simple job of outfitting a ship. May god have mercy on new players.

If you think that ships need 3 smods to be automatically combat viable then you are sadly mistaken. Modded opinions don't matter in this post, this is in regard to the vanilla game only.

Another important point to make is that this makes late game battles more interesting for the player since they exist as an opportunity to gain SMODS, instead of spending hardly a thought to put heavy armour, expanded missile racks and integrated targeting unit on 3 new cruisers.

10

Suggestions / Re: Make SMODS a post-battle upgrade only option

« on: January 06, 2023, 04:05:38 AM »

Please no more mod ideas for base game, it already went too far. I don't want a newly bought or salvaged ship to be gimped for 10 battles or so. Only thing this does is increase save scumming even more for a bit more flavour. Not to mention the boring grind.

This is a joke right

11

Mods / Re: [0.95.1a-RC6] Pearson Exotronics

« on: January 06, 2023, 02:00:13 AM »

thanks for the reports, working on it

12

Suggestions / Make SMODS a post-battle upgrade only option

« on: January 06, 2023, 01:45:01 AM »

The current SMOD implementation of building in mods with an arbitrary token is not very interesting. Why should a brand new ship printed off the production line be able to install hullmods for no cost? "Story point" hullmods should be reserved for ships that have distinguished themselves in battle and have the battle scars necessary to allow the extensive conversion and intrusive maintenance to justify the installation of SMODS, where enterprising engineers can find an opportunity to make an aftermarket modification an intrinsic part of the ship's identity.

Hence my idea is to add an additional dialog to post-battle salvage where ships have a chance to be eligible for removing the OP cost of one of their installed hullmods and making it a permanent SMOD on the ship hull. Commanding officers can increase the chance significantly. I think this will go a long way to making SMODS feel a lot more like the player writing their own story instead of being a generic premium currency for making ships more powerful.

13

Suggestions / Re: Give the pulse laser a bonus vs shields

« on: December 22, 2022, 10:37:46 PM »

The Pulse Laser is the definition of a do-it-all generalist weapon. It does precisely half the damage of a Medium Ballistic or Kinetic, at less range, for 50% more flux, but with perfect accuracy, little overkill/decent rate of fire, in one mount and only 10 OP. It doesn't do anything remarkable for good or ill, but that's kind of the point. In a sea of specialization, it does look bad by comparison but truly, it's the ideal generalist weapon.

I suppose if you really wanted to modify it slightly, increase its damage to 150 and only fire twice a second. It would be the same shield DPS but have greater armor penetration. The trade-off is that it wouldn't deal with fighters quite as well and be slightly inferior as a pressure weapon. However, I think the Pulse Laser is overall fine for what it is.

That's exactly why it needs changing. While it may be the most generalist, the nature of high tech ships is such that they have no use for it, since specialised weapons are virtually always the better option for effective loadouts. The pulse laser is certainly not worth 10 OP in its current state.

The new kinetic blaster will probably replace the pulse laser in the few places I use it like on wolf loadouts, which is why the pulse laser needs some kind of edge, since it currently does not have a niche. There are far better missile options for cracking armour especially now that the breach is available.

14

Suggestions / Give the pulse laser a bonus vs shields

« on: December 19, 2022, 10:39:20 PM »

The pulse laser is easily the least useful medium energy weapon in my experience because it lacks any specialised role and just isn't worth the slot when weapons like the ion pulser exist. Giving the pulse laser a ~25% bonus vs shields would go a long way to making it have any effective use in high tech loadouts.

15

Modding / Re: [0.95.1a-RC6] Combat Misc Utilities v0.3.2

« on: December 16, 2022, 09:35:12 AM »

Question: does this library supersede the DroneUtils lib?

yeah more or less