1
Mods / Re: [0.98a] Terraforming and Station Construction (v9.0.12)
« on: April 22, 2025, 05:35:41 PM »
Seems to have some naming issues within nebulas.
Fractal Softworks Forum
- April 27, 2025, 05:35:28 AM
- Welcome, Guest
News:
Starsector 0.98a is out! (03/27/25)
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.
2
Modding / Portraits for Nerexlin
« on: April 22, 2025, 04:13:44 PM »
So looking at other people's portrait packs, I see that portraits can be faction specific. This is swell, but I was wondering if, when using Nerexlin, it would be possible to have portraits to be specific to agents/operators?
I ask this because I'm currently working on my own personal portrait pack, and all my ship captains look like, well, ship captains. Space ship helmets, flight suits, etc. It then occurred to me that wouldn't look right if they ended up on an agent. So now I'm trying to do agent images, which is fine, but I don't know how to link them to only be used for agents in Nerexlin (or if it's even possible to do so).
Any hints?
I ask this because I'm currently working on my own personal portrait pack, and all my ship captains look like, well, ship captains. Space ship helmets, flight suits, etc. It then occurred to me that wouldn't look right if they ended up on an agent. So now I'm trying to do agent images, which is fine, but I don't know how to link them to only be used for agents in Nerexlin (or if it's even possible to do so).
Any hints?
3
General Discussion / Re: Poof?
« on: April 13, 2025, 08:19:49 PM »
OK, it got moved to line 300 and the text changed a bit. That's why I couldn't find it. Let's see if this works...
4
General Discussion / Re: Poof?
« on: April 13, 2025, 03:02:29 PM »
It used to be in the vanilla game settings.
5
General Discussion / Poof?
« on: April 13, 2025, 03:07:50 AM »
Remote colony management completely removed as an option now?
Why?
Why?
6
General Discussion / Re: Automated ship skill seems backward
« on: April 11, 2025, 12:09:51 PM »
Funny you mention that, because most Remnant units default to non-hostile if you start as TriTechyon.
7
General Discussion / Re: the case against steam
« on: March 04, 2025, 12:44:37 PM »I imagine the real reason Alex is apprehensive about steam is that its a DRM platform.
How does one even put DRM into a Java game? Honest question. I'm sure if it's possible, Steam will do it, but is it even possible?
8
General Discussion / Re: removing D-mods from the automated XIV ships
« on: March 04, 2025, 12:39:49 PM »
There is a skill you can take that gives a chance to free repair one random D-Mod in your fleet per month, and thus far I've yet to find a ship that it excepted from the list. Vanilla, too, I think.
9
General Discussion / Re: everything wrong with carriers
« on: March 04, 2025, 12:34:43 PM »
In my experience, carriers are a situational unit.
Against bases, carriers are almost useless as bases have enough PD to obliterate any number of fighters with ease, along with an infinite supply of their own fighters. It's a losing situation because they'll always be able to out-spam the carriers.
Against certain ships they have the potential to shine because their real strength is that if there is a gap anywhere in a target's shields, fighters will find it. Even if they've got 300 degree coverage, your fighters will be smacking them in the engines no matter which way they face. Only pure 360 degree coverage can truly save a ship from a fighter swarm. They're also really good at eliminating phase ships, because they'll be ready to hit them the moment they come out of phase without any user input required.
My real issue is their limited range. I mean, WW2 aircraft traveled hundreds of miles away from their carriers but these space-age fighters can't go more than 4km away? I get that it's a balance thing, because in game fighters respawn in literally seconds, but I'd honestly be glad to trade longer respawn times in exchange for more range.
This is exacerbated by the lack for fast carriers, because in theory a carrier should be ideal for running down small, fast opponents with their even smaller, even faster fighters. In practice, not so much, because they'll just flit over to outside the absurdly short fighter range in seconds and the carrier itself will never catch up with them.
Against bases, carriers are almost useless as bases have enough PD to obliterate any number of fighters with ease, along with an infinite supply of their own fighters. It's a losing situation because they'll always be able to out-spam the carriers.
Against certain ships they have the potential to shine because their real strength is that if there is a gap anywhere in a target's shields, fighters will find it. Even if they've got 300 degree coverage, your fighters will be smacking them in the engines no matter which way they face. Only pure 360 degree coverage can truly save a ship from a fighter swarm. They're also really good at eliminating phase ships, because they'll be ready to hit them the moment they come out of phase without any user input required.
My real issue is their limited range. I mean, WW2 aircraft traveled hundreds of miles away from their carriers but these space-age fighters can't go more than 4km away? I get that it's a balance thing, because in game fighters respawn in literally seconds, but I'd honestly be glad to trade longer respawn times in exchange for more range.
This is exacerbated by the lack for fast carriers, because in theory a carrier should be ideal for running down small, fast opponents with their even smaller, even faster fighters. In practice, not so much, because they'll just flit over to outside the absurdly short fighter range in seconds and the carrier itself will never catch up with them.
10
General Discussion / Re: Automated ship skill seems backward
« on: March 04, 2025, 12:25:00 PM »
I suppose "balance > logic" is a fair enough argument, as it's got a long history when it comes to games. I can respect that.
Still going to try to find a way to "fix" it of course. Wish I understood Java better.
Still going to try to find a way to "fix" it of course. Wish I understood Java better.
11
General Discussion / Re: Automated ship skill seems backward
« on: March 03, 2025, 09:22:17 PM »
I tired digging thru the API and found this
public static float OMEGA_MULT = 5;
public static float ALPHA_MULT = 4;
public static float BETA_MULT = 3;
public static float GAMMA_MULT = 2;
and changed it to
public static float OMEGA_MULT = 0.2;
public static float ALPHA_MULT = 0.25;
public static float BETA_MULT = 0.33;
public static float GAMMA_MULT = 0.5;
but it doesn't seem to have any effect.
I'll keep looking.
public static float OMEGA_MULT = 5;
public static float ALPHA_MULT = 4;
public static float BETA_MULT = 3;
public static float GAMMA_MULT = 2;
and changed it to
public static float OMEGA_MULT = 0.2;
public static float ALPHA_MULT = 0.25;
public static float BETA_MULT = 0.33;
public static float GAMMA_MULT = 0.5;
but it doesn't seem to have any effect.
I'll keep looking.
12
General Discussion / Automated ship skill seems backward
« on: March 03, 2025, 08:23:54 PM »
You get 120 points and subtract hull size to make a cap on combat readiness.
Then you get a multiplier to that point cost based on AI core size, with better cores resulting in a greater multiplier as a penalty.
In other words, the better the AI core in your automated the ship, the lower you efficiency cap becomes.
That is completely illogical, however. A ship operating without a weaker core, or worse no core at all, should be the more expensive option, not the other way around. Your AI core is there to run the ship, after all. The stronger the core, the better it will be at maintaining the ship and thus it should run more efficiently and thus have a lower cost to your combat readiness cap.
In other words, if a ship cost 60 points with no core, then an Alpha core should be dividing that cost by 4 rather, not multiplying it.
Then you get a multiplier to that point cost based on AI core size, with better cores resulting in a greater multiplier as a penalty.
In other words, the better the AI core in your automated the ship, the lower you efficiency cap becomes.
That is completely illogical, however. A ship operating without a weaker core, or worse no core at all, should be the more expensive option, not the other way around. Your AI core is there to run the ship, after all. The stronger the core, the better it will be at maintaining the ship and thus it should run more efficiently and thus have a lower cost to your combat readiness cap.
In other words, if a ship cost 60 points with no core, then an Alpha core should be dividing that cost by 4 rather, not multiplying it.
13
Mods / Re: [0.95.1a] Nexerelin v0.10.4d "Dissonance" (fixes 2022-04-09)
« on: April 26, 2022, 04:53:55 AM »
Alright I am hoping that this is a bug... (0.10.4d)
I'm about ten years into a campaign. As of three years prior I have managed to completely wipe out two different rival factions. All of their planets and stations are gone. History. El morte. No more.
In the three years since then, I have been attacked by no fewer than fourteen (14) vengeance/assassin fleets from one faction and eleven (11) identical fleets from the other.
Where the $#(*$@ is all this crap coming from?!
*hair pulling*
I'm about ten years into a campaign. As of three years prior I have managed to completely wipe out two different rival factions. All of their planets and stations are gone. History. El morte. No more.
In the three years since then, I have been attacked by no fewer than fourteen (14) vengeance/assassin fleets from one faction and eleven (11) identical fleets from the other.
Where the $#(*$@ is all this crap coming from?!
*hair pulling*
14
Mods / Re: [0.95.1a] Nexerelin v0.10.3i "SpaceLand Battle" (update 2021-12-17)
« on: December 24, 2021, 12:40:48 AM »
Question about Slipstreams: Where's the "OFF" switch?
15
Mods / Re: [0.95a] Terraforming and Station Construction (v8.0.0)
« on: December 21, 2021, 09:46:00 PM »
Yep, that was the problem - I had just copied the new stuff into the old folder instead of deleting the old folder first.
Moving on... Question: Why do planets require solar mirrors to terraform even if the termperature is already ideal?
Example: I have an ocean world with a mild climate. The total hazard rating is 75 (50 perfect + 25 for ocean). The termperature is fine, yet if I want to make it Earth-like I still have to add solar mirrors for some reason.
Which reminds me... if you wanted to add more realism, then changing atmospheric density should affect planet temperature. Thin atmosphere = colder, thick atmosphere = hotter.
Example: You have a barren, extremely cold world with no atmosphere. You terraform it up to a thin atmosphere and the temperature warms to just regular cold. Make the atmosphere Earth-like and the temperature warms up to normal as well. Conversely, a scorching hot planet with a Venusian-thick atmosphere should cool off as your thin the air out.
Moving on... Question: Why do planets require solar mirrors to terraform even if the termperature is already ideal?
Example: I have an ocean world with a mild climate. The total hazard rating is 75 (50 perfect + 25 for ocean). The termperature is fine, yet if I want to make it Earth-like I still have to add solar mirrors for some reason.
Which reminds me... if you wanted to add more realism, then changing atmospheric density should affect planet temperature. Thin atmosphere = colder, thick atmosphere = hotter.
Example: You have a barren, extremely cold world with no atmosphere. You terraform it up to a thin atmosphere and the temperature warms to just regular cold. Make the atmosphere Earth-like and the temperature warms up to normal as well. Conversely, a scorching hot planet with a Venusian-thick atmosphere should cool off as your thin the air out.