Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

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 - Lycaeon

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7
31
Is there a setting or mod that allows the adjustment of the damage modifiers for kinetic and high explosive damage against armor/shields? What I want to do is make the damage bonus a flat 33% increase or decrease compared to the current modifiers such as kinetic dealing 200% damage to shields but 50% damage to armor.

32
Mods / Re: [0.96a] Industrial.Evolution 3.3.c - Campaign content expansion
« on: September 18, 2023, 12:04:20 PM »
1) You don't get to hear how each and every of your lost crew died in a very unpleasant way;

Not hearing about it doesn't change the fact that it happens. I make an effort of protecting my crew for immersion reasons - that means blast doors and recovery shuttles even when they're quite terrible hullmods. But I agree not seeing how they die sanitizes the whole situation.

Quote
2) You don't pick any specific crewmate into the specific ship; The closest parallel to this is officers, but they - what do you know - don't die.

Unless you have officer deaths enabled using Nexerelin. :P

Quote
3) There's a difference between crew and pets. Crew, at the end of the day, in-universe are people who choose this life, knowing all the dangers. Pets can't do that. And even we disregard it, while i would mourn a death of a soldier on the battlefield, it would be quite worse if the same soldier got back after the war to be blown up by some gas leak or any other nonsense that he would never see coming.

This is a valid point, and while it's a video game, I respect your view on the subject. In the end there's a line between immersion/realism and escapism, and every person's preference lies on a different point of that spectrum. That's a major reason why good mods are customizable, and even why mods exist in the first place.

Quote
If i read the source code correctly, this can only occur on ship destroyed in battle (doesn't matter recoverable or not), so such hullmod won't do anything.
But either way it would require to write completely new code that takes this into account.

I meant it as a joke. :-X

33
Mods / Re: [0.96a] Industrial.Evolution 3.3.c - Campaign content expansion
« on: September 18, 2023, 11:28:28 AM »
was caught in an EMP and melted
was reduced to atoms by a stray projectile
was caught in an explosion
was sucked into space through a breach
was caught by a sudden decompression
burned to death in a trapped room
burned to death after hit by a laser
imploded due to a sudden pressure spike
was removed from existence by a missile
was vaporized by a plasma burst
was dismembered by falling debris
was incinerated by damaged machinery
was eviscerated by a shattering bulkhead
suffocated in a breached room
died of acute radiation poisoning
died of sudden atmospheric deficiency
died of poisoning after exposure to damaged research materials
was shot by a crewman after blocking the way
was electrocuted by a failing flux conduit
was caught in a flux stream and burned to death
was caught by an emergency shutter suddenly descending
died of blunt force trauma
was hit by shrapnel from an explosion
was electrocuted by a dangling power conduit
was trapped in a malfunctioning escape pod and died
was fatally wounded by a falling beam
was emergency ejected along with burning ammunition
was vaporized by tachyon rays
imploded in a weaponized strange matter event
was vented into space by an explosion

Not to disparage your point here...but given that dozens of your crew can die horrible, but undescribed and unmourned, deaths in battle, I find it kind of hilarious pets are dedicated their own mini-eulogies.

Also, I strongly advocate that the blast doors hullmod reduces chance of pet death in addition to crew.

34
Mods / Re: [0.96.a] Realistic Combat 1.31.0
« on: September 16, 2023, 11:34:29 PM »
As much as would like to love the mod, it seems that balance is completely off. From some few hours of playing i noticed that shields were beyond useless because for some reason any source of kinetic damage just insta pops them, and shield is the only defence of high tech shields, so they are beyond useless. And armor seems to be way too good, on somethung not made of paper it basically just laughs at the face of anything short of reaper or hellbore. And enemy ai doesnt really know what its doing, it just eats kinetic damage, gets overfluxes and dies horribly. The fact that vanila layouts arent the best in the mod doesnt help it.

The current version is unbalanced because a recent change to armor didn't mesh properly with the current damage values. I spent some time adjusting the values available in the settings, but nothing I did could fix the problem from my end. Unfortunately, this means the mod is kind of in limbo until another patch is released, and we don't know when that will happen.

As an aside, after boosting the armor damage multipliers (by reducing armorthicknessfactor to 0.1 for both HE and kinetic damage and armorovermatchfactor to 2, and increasing both compartment damage factors to 0.9), it seems low to mid level damage of all types is capable of destroying the compartments surrounding the core, but once those compartments are destroyed, the core seems immune to damage (Without the boost even compartments were difficult to destroy). This resulted in a scenario where I was able to bring a destroyer down to almost half health using assault chainguns by circling it and destroying all off its compartments, until in the end only the center of the destroyer remained intact but was unable to be damaged. This suggests there is an issue with the citadel armor being excessively strong compared to the surface armor, as it took no damage even with the boosted armor damage multipliers.

Edit: After fine-tuning the values and an hour of testing I've figured out the settings that allow the mod to use the vanilla damage model and player skills. Essentially this keeps all aspects of the mod except for the damage and armor systems (As well as their associated player skills) which (mostly) revert to their vanilla behavior. This should be enough to tide things over until the next patch (Unless you prefer vanilla damage over the mod's damage system in which case you're good to go!). To adapt the mod follow these directions:

In mod_info.json delete:
    "replace":[
   "data/characters/skills/ballistic_mastery.skill",
   "data/characters/skills/energy_weapon_mastery.skill",
   "data/characters/skills/impact_mitigation.skill",
   "data/characters/skills/missile_specialization.skill",
   "data/characters/skills/tactical_drills.skill",
   "data/characters/skills/target_analysis.skill",
   ] <= Make sure you delete this last bracket.

Navigate to 'RealisticCombat/data' and delete the characters and strings folders. Then open the config folder and open the Toggles.json and WeaponSpecs.json files using Notepad++.

In Toggles.json set "replaceDamageModel" to false. If you want to also disable the mod's restrictive aim lock set "threeDimensionalTargeting" to false (I haven't tested this though).

In WeaponSpecs.json change the following values: (To Liral, I recommend making it so that these changes happen automatically when replaceDamageModel is set to false)

At the top of the file:
"damageFactor" => 1

At the bottom of the file:
"directedEnergyMunition" => 0.2
"burst" => 0.2
"continuous" => 0.2
"pointDefenseBeamMinimumFluxEfficiency" => 0.001
"antiShipBeamMinimumFluxEfficiency" => 0.001

35
Suggestions / Player-Buildable Station Markets
« on: September 14, 2023, 10:03:20 PM »
It should be possible to build player-owned station markets in any system, subject to certain conditions, similar to existing NPC station markets such as Nova Maxios and Tigra City. The base rationale is as follows:
  • Player-owned colonies are already allowed to construct orbital stations that can be upgraded to star fortresses. Constructing a standalone mining colony in a system's asteroid belt, or a siphon station around a gas/ice giant (Thus avoiding the need to colonize the hazardous giant itself), seems like a logical extension.
  • The colonization meta currently favors systems with multiple viable planets due to the advantages of stacking system patrol fleets and defenses. Unfortunately, this means players will often skip systems with only one planet, even if the planet is particularly valuable. Allowing the construction of additional station markets in system with their stacking defenses would do much towards making these systems viable for colonization, thus improving overall gameplay.
  • Pirates and the Luddic Path, as any colonizing player can attest to with annoyance, are able to build stations wherever and whenever they want to harass your colonies. These are full on station markets functionally identical to faction station markets with the only difference being they're destructible. If these resource limited and technologically destitute factions can build independent stations the player sure as heck should be able to as well.
  • There are many abandoned stations in the game. Notable examples include the siphon station in Yma, the abandoned astropolis orbiting Mairaath, and the various mining/research stations scattered throughout the sector. Right now these stations are only useful for storage or salvaging, which from a gameplay perspective is rather uninspiring. It would be much more exciting if the player was allowed to, with sufficient resource investment, reclaim these stations and rebuild them into markets.
Like with any feature, there should be reasonable limitations placed on station construction/reclamation to avoid abuse by players. Examples include:
  • Only one standalone mining station can be built in each system, the rationale being a single mining station is enough to exploit the entire system and additional ones would only interfere. If an NPC faction owns a standalone mining station in system, an additional one cannot be constructed.
  • Standalone mining stations can only be built within a viable asteroid belt, and the quality of ores they provide should be proportionate to the total number and/or size of asteroid belts in the system.
  • No stations can be built near or in an intersecting orbit with a jump-point.
  • Only a single siphon station can be constructed per gas/ice giant, and the construction of one prevents the giant from being colonizable. Likewise, an already colonized giant cannot have a siphon station built.
  • Siphon stations will provide the same amount of volatiles as the giant they're orbiting. They can build the tech-mining industry if the giant has ruins.
  • Mining stations, if allowed to be built orbiting planets, will have the same limitations as siphon stations in addition to being only able to exploit metallic ores and ruins on the planet.
  • Player-owned stations in general should have growth penalties imposed in exchange for always having a 100% hazard rating.
  • Station industries are not allowed to use certain special items such as mantle bores and plasma dynamos as those are intended to be built planetside and be subject to planetary hazards.
  • Similar to player colonies, major factions will attempt to destroy player-owned stations in their systems.
  • Constructing a station costs more than founding a regular colony, and takes time similar to that of an orbital station, the rationale being you're literally building a floating metal planetoid in space instead of colonizing a planet like a reasonable person.
In conclusion, I feel these arguments provide sufficient reason for this feature to be implemented in the game. While this has probably been suggested before, I couldn't find a thread that explored the subject and its reasoning in detail. Most of these concepts were derived from the well-known Terraforming and Station Construction Mod, and so any credit for this idea should go to that mod's author.

36
Mods / Re: [0.96a] Terraforming and Station Construction (v8.4.5)
« on: September 14, 2023, 04:39:59 PM »
Given that the feature would not work for the plasma dynamo, and that it could cause incompatibilities with other mods, I think it's best not to make changes to allow disabling special items on stations, especially since the player can simply not install them if they don't want to.

That makes sense; it’s tough to handle inconsistencies that are hard-baked into the game. Still, what you’ve accomplished with this mod is very impressive, and I don’t understand why station market construction/reclamation isn’t part of the base game. It seems like a natural extension given abandoned mining stations are sitting around all over the sector and our colonies can already build orbital star fortresses. From a gameplay perspective it’s an excellent means of making systems with only one or two planets more viable for colonization.

Like, if the damn pirates can build hidden station markets to harass us whenever they want will we sure as heck should be able to build our own.

Edit: Having the option remove the 'no atmosphere' condition alone might work. I have no issues with using plasma dynamos on siphon stations, as they're extensions of the gas giant they orbit. Mantle bores on the other hand are intended to drill deep into planets and seem out of place on mining stations.

37
Mods / Re: [0.96a] Terraforming and Station Construction (v8.4.5)
« on: September 13, 2023, 06:01:00 PM »
Appreciate the answers!  :)

What mod allows for disabling special items on non-TASC stations? I didn't provide this option for technical reasons but if someone else found a good solution perhaps I could implement it in TASC.

   # Applies Cramped Quarters (if enabled), applies hazard and accessibility modifiers, and
   # enables "no atmosphere" special items on all stations sector-wide.
   # If set to false, only stations created using Terraforming & Station Construction will have the above features applied to them.
   "boggledApplyStationSettingsToAllStationsInSector":true,

It's a boolean in the TASC's settings.json and LunaLib settings files. It'd be an improvement if it applied to TASC stations too, as it doesn't make much sense (from both a logic and gameplay perspective) for it to only apply to non-TASC stations. From what I've read earlier in the thread it would entail the removal of the hidden 'no atmosphere' condition described here:

By default, stations cannot slot the "no atmosphere" special items, but I fixed this by overwriting the no atmosphere condition, putting it on all stations, and having it hide and suppress itself on stations so visually the player won't see it. This will break compatibility with any other mod which overwrites no atmosphere, but to my knowledge there are none at this time that do so.

38
Mods / Re: [0.96a] Terraforming and Station Construction (v8.4.5)
« on: September 13, 2023, 11:26:03 AM »
Is there a way to disable condition-based special items such as mantle bores and catalytic cores from being used on all stations? So far the only setting I've found allows the disabling of their use on non-TASC stations. As the item conditions were meant to restrict their use to otherwise non-viable planets, being allowed to use them on 100% hazard stations doesn't seem appropriate. So far this is the only issue I have with picking up this mod, as everything else is readily customizable.

Also, if you recolonize abandoned astropoli or siphon stations (Such as the ones in Mairaath and Yma) do they regain their original functionality (eg. the siphon station will now siphon volatiles from its gas giant)? I'm curious as to whether this will still work even if I have construction of astropoli and siphon stations disabled.

Lastly, I feel existing faction mining stations such as Nova Maxios, Tigra City, and the various pirate belt stations should count against the mining station limit. Not a major issue, but it'd be nice for consistency.

39
Mods / Re: [0.96.a] Realistic Combat 1.31.0
« on: September 12, 2023, 08:58:13 PM »
HE & Energy projectile damage seems very extreme.  Everything you put on your ship should be slow heavy punches.  100 damage or 200 damage or 400 damage projectiles seem to do next to nothing versus even durable frigates.  Nothing in the small HE ballistic / small energy projectile class will deal more than a bee sting to a frigate, except the antimatter blaster.  In the medium class, bring a heavy blaster, a heavy mauler, or don't bother.  And same with large class, bring a hellbore, a mjolnir, gigacannon, plasma cannon, or you're just wasting flux.

Other than your initial wording I mostly agree with you on this point. High explosive and energy projectile damage from small to midsized weapons is ineffective against even frigate level armor. Only once the weapon size/damage is scaled up with large class weapons does it deal more than bee sting levels of damage. This doesn't make much sense - small HE/projectile weapons should be able to destroy frigates and mid-sized HE/projectile weapons destroyers.

Quote
Energy beam damage is the most deadly, the most variable, and only really works fighting up ship classes.  If you put beams on a capital ship and try to take on a cruiser, the enemy can stay far enough away to allow the beam to diffract to nothingness.  And this pairing works on pretty much every class size difference; if it can out-speed you, you can't get your beams close enough to do anything.  Reverse this, and you can wreck the enemy.  Fly a sunder with a HIL into an onslaught's butt, open fire, and it will explode in less than a minute.  Create a fleet of carriers slotted with wasps, and watch as the enemy dies off in seconds unless they've got a large amount of PD cruisers/capitals.  Because of this, energy beam also works great as a dual-purpose PD / "keep the f away from me" deterrent.  Most all small beams have excellent/perfect tracking and fast rotation, so they can instantly lock onto threats.  And as missiles or strike craft get closer to the ship, the damage increases by up to 6x its stated value, meaning more durable strike craft that fragmentation projectiles couldn't take out will die off from beam damage when they hang around your ship for an extended period of time.  Harassers will also hate this, the closer you fly in to try and fire off missiles from point blank range and minimize the time the target's PD has to react, the worse you're getting hit with beam damage, and the quicker the PD beams can knock out your missile; it might take a mining laser 3 seconds to knock out a missile from 2000 sus, but maybe only 1/5 of a second to take it out from 200 sus, so you're screwed either way whether you fire from max range or try to suicide bomb.

I suspect energy beam weapons seem overpowered due to the mod increasing combat range. Since they have instant travel time and 100% accuracy they can consistently deal their full damage to targets at long ranges. On the other hand, projectile weapons have travel time, less range, and need to lead their targets, making them far less consistent in terms of damage until the distance is closed. I recommend decreasing either beam ranges or their damage slightly to make them more in line with projectiles.

Quote
Missiles rule, then run away or die a fool.  If you aren't going to try for a carrier beam swarm, the best fighting you can do is a mix of ships that will kinetic hard flux and distract the enemy, and then launch nuclear weapons into the enemy once it cannot block or destroy the wave of hammerheads / atroposes, or that singular reaper that will end its life.  Of course, missiles aren't infinite, so you can pilot your kite into your bombing run to destroy that cruiser, then run for your life to the edge of the map and wait for the next battle.

While true for larger missiles, smaller missiles such as harpoons have the same issues facing small to midsized HE weapons in that they're ineffective against destroyer grade armor.

Quote
Carrier swarm dominates.  75% wasps to deal damage, 15% claws or thunders to short out the enemy's weapons and engines, maybe a broadsword wing or 2 to chew up the enemy's flux in shield damage and divert their PD away from the wasps and claws and onto decoy flares, and a cobra or dagger/trident or 2 to take out cruisers and capitals faster than the wasps.  Have your carriers stay at extreme range, and watch as enemy frigates blow up as soon as the engagement starts, and heavier ships curse you staying out of their range while your bombers slam them with missiles.

Similar to beam weapons, fighter/bomber swarms dominate battles as once in range of the enemy they can consistently apply 100% of their damage. Wasps especially, as they're just a beam packed into a fighter. However, unlike beams, they can be countered somewhat by opposing fighter swarms/heavy point defense.

40
Mods / Re: [0.96a] Adjusted Sector
« on: September 11, 2023, 05:02:04 PM »
I believe a 1.25x size preset with proportional increases in systems/spawns/etc. would be the best default option for the mod. It provides more than enough additional space for exploration and modded factions without impacting performance on the average PC, while simultaneously keeping in line with existing gameplay mechanics such as mission travel distance.

As of now people who download the mod have to get somewhat technical, both with the mod's settings as well as external files such as the hyperspace_map.png, in order to get a good result. A 1.25x default preset should satisfy a majority of players, giving the mod greater accessibility and increasing its popularity.

On the previous page Kadatherion provided an in-depth discussion of the issue for reference.

41
Mods / Re: [0.96.a] Realistic Combat 1.31.0
« on: September 09, 2023, 08:05:38 AM »
Considering that kinetic weapons are dedicated to that damage type, it makes sense that that they fire specialized rounds. Kinetic energy is more difficult to stop with even modern armor. Chemical/explosive energy, even when made into an anti-armor tool, is more easily defeated by composite protection. Kinetic rounds are thus generally better at penetrating the hardest targets, but deal less post-penetration damage. Explosive anti-armor rounds are inferior at dealing with the hardest targets, but cause lethal damage to anything they can actually penetrate. Only exception is very heavy explosive ordnance (i.e large anti-ship or air-to-ground missiles, bombs) which just obliterate part or all of the target

RC currently appears to follow these points, which feels sensical. Some vanilla weapons are left to the wayside in the face of realistic armor/damage mechanics, but that's expected - I faced similar issues when giving missiles realistic speeds and having to rework vanilla PD weapons in my own old mod.

I suppose that works, though I feel Starsector shouldn't adhere to reality over good gameplay mechanics when it comes down to the finer details.

Quote
On the subject of said mod I said I'd post when done updating it, I think I'll write up an explanation of how I've reworked certain weapons and my reasonings.

Looking forward to it! :D

42
Mods / Re: [0.96.a] Realistic Combat 1.31.0
« on: September 08, 2023, 09:24:12 PM »
You don't have to go to all this trouble--I'm on top of it!  That said, I'm glad you're so interested as to investigate the settings, which I put for just this purpose.  Yes, small-damage weapons will struggle against thick armor, but high-damage weapons will penetrate and destroy ships.  I am dismayed to see my documentation did not make the working of these numbers obvious to you!  I will extend the documentation to help.

Again, appreciate the effort and explanation! Since I was holding out for the next patch I had plenty of time to go through the settings. My main concerns are with how ineffective the mid-damage weapons such as the assault chaingun and harpoon missiles were against the armor of the tutorial enforcers/venture, seeing as the latter are mid-sized ships the chaingun and harpoons should've been able to destroy (And could do so both in vanilla and prior versions of the mod).

Quote
Penetrate it at all angles!  "angles" on its own was not an empty field.

Whoops, I completely misinterpreted this number then. :o

Quote
The mod does increase all projectile damage by two.  See WeaponSpecs.json.

Hmm...this still doesn't explain why explosive damage deals less damage to shields in the mod than in vanilla. Still, the difference isn't significant enough to matter.

Quote
It's not about resistance but effective thickness, which must be penetrated to deal substantial damage.

That makes sense, though I'm still curious as to why explosive damage is less effective than kinetic damage against armor according to the values. In many games (And vanilla Starsector itself) high explosive damage is intended to deal increased damage to armor, with the logic that the blast wave better penetrates armor to deal damage to the internals. On the other hand, plain kinetic damage should have issues penetrating armor unless highly specialized (Like sabot rounds in real life). From a gameplay perspective, this means that high explosive damage is less effective than kinetic against both armor and shields, which seems counterintuitive.

Quote
Toggles.json has just that toggle.

Sweet, I'll check it out!  ;D

Edit: After checking it out....it's clear I've gotten so used to the mod's damage model that vanilla damage doesn't make sense to me anymore.  :P

43
Mods / Re: [0.96.a] Realistic Combat 1.31.0
« on: September 08, 2023, 06:21:26 PM »
Trying to isolate the settings for damage leads to the DamageModel.json and WeaponSpecs.json files. I'll list the relevant values here and attempt to determine how they're affecting the damage results. As I'm not the mod author and have a limited understanding of how it works, take all this with a grain of salt and let me know if I'm missing anything. The main issue I'm finding with the current version is that, in the tutorials, explosive damage (Namely from the assault chaingun and harpoon missiles) deal only small amounts of damage through ship armor, and armor in general seems to be excessively resistant to all damage types (Be it explosive, kinetic, or beam). This can be easily tested in all three tutorial missions.

Oddly, this changes in large scale battles (Tested using the random battles mission), wherein ships die much more rapidly than in the tutorials, at a rate similar to vanilla. These large battles have a higher proportion of cruiser/capital ships with high damage weapons/missiles. From this I believe that while the tutorial weapons have issues dealing damage through armor, larger weapons/missiles and/or mass firepower aren't as affected.

DamageModel.json Values

"armorOvermatchFactor": 10
How many times greater the base damage of a projectile/missile/beam must be than the base thickness of a ship's armor layer (After adjusting for damage type) to penetrate it at all. The current value means the base damage must exceed the base thickness by 10x before any damage is dealt through the armor. Personally, I feel this value may be a bit too high, seeing as assault chainguns/harpoons (high explosive), arbalests/sabots (kinetic), and even tactical beams (energy) are having difficulty penetrating armor in the tutorials. However this may explain why ships die much faster in larger battles, as larger weapons with higher base damage wouldn't have an issue exceeding this number.

"compartmentDamageFactor": 0.33
Factor of projectile/missile/beam damage that becomes additional potential damage to compartments. I believe the current value means that after damage penetrates armor, only a third is actually applied to damaging compartments. It's unclear whether the damage has been reduced previously by the armor or not, but this value appears reasonable to me.

"compartmentDamageOverflowFactor": 0.1
After the compartments absorb damage, excess damage is multiplied by this value to determine actual hull damage. The current value is 0.1, meaning only 10% of the damage that exceeds compartment integrity actually damages the hull (Ship HP). This number seems a bit low to me given the damage at this point has already been reduced by the previous factors, but according to the mod most of the ship killing damage would be applied to the citadel (Which takes damage in full).

"shieldDamageFactors": Kinetic: 1.333, High Explosive: 0.667, Fragmentation: 0.125, Energy/Other: 1
These values seemed reasonable to me, though in testing I noticed shields appeared to take more damage from kinetic and less damage from high explosive than they do in vanilla. This is unusual as vanilla supposedly increases kinetic damage by 50% and reduces explosive damage by 50% against shields, while the mod only increases/decreases each by 33%, so kinetic damage taken by shields using the mod should be less than in vanilla, and explosive damage more. Of course this isn't accounting for whether base weapon damage has been increased/decreased by the mod, in addition to other factors, so I can't make much of a conclusion here.

"armorThicknessFactors": Kinetic: 0.667, High Explosive: 1.333, Fragmentation: 8, Energy/Other: 1
Unlike shieldDamageFactors, this isn't a plain damage multiplier. Instead it seems that armor has 67% resistance to Kinetic damage, 133% resistance to High Explosive Damage, and 800% resistance against Fragmentation damage. These values were odd to me, given that in vanilla high explosive does 50% more damage to armor and kinetic damage 50% less, but in the mod these numbers are reversed. I'm assuming the mod works off the idea that armor should be more resistant to high explosive damage than kinetic damage. Otherwise they seem reasonable and probably aren't contributing to the above problems.

"damageFactors": Kinetic: 0.5, High Explosive: 1.5, Fragmentation: 2, Energy/Other: 1
Damage multiple of each damage type against presumably the ship's compartments/citadel/hull. Again, no issues with the numbers here.

WeaponSpecs.json Values

Many of the values here relate to weapon speed/range/spread and so can be ignored, though I'm supportive of an option that allows using the vanilla damage system while retaining the mod's changes to weapon ranges/missile behavior.

"damageFactor": 2
This supposedly multiples weapon damage by 2 (It's unclear whether it applies only to projectiles or all types of damage) and was added with the latest patch. If the values from DamageModel.json above were sufficiently modified this factor may not be needed.

"intensityFactors": directedEnergyMunition: 0.1, burst: 5, continuous: 6.
These values relate to energy weapons, specifically beams. I haven't used DEM's ingame, but I'm curious as to why they have such a low intensity factor compared to burst/continuous beams.

44
Mods / Re: [0.96.a] Realistic Combat 1.31.0
« on: September 07, 2023, 09:36:26 PM »
Once again did some testing in the tutorials. While kinetic and explosive damage against shields seemed relatively fine, it was still nearly impossible to deal damage to the tutorial enforcer through armor, not just with explosive damage but kinetic damage as well. In the third tutorial, spamming of multiple harpoon missiles (explosive damage) and tactical beams failed to significantly damage either the tutorial venture or enforcer, leaving the battle to take far longer than it should.  More fine tuning of the damage model is needed; I'll see what I can do with the numbers on my end.

45
Mods / Re: [0.96.a] Realistic Combat 1.30.0
« on: September 07, 2023, 08:33:27 PM »
Version 1.31.0 is out!  Fixed the damage model and added a multiplier for projectile weapon damage in data/config/WeaponSpecs.json.  Damage seems balanced to me, but please post any suggestions you have about the numbers.

I don't know if it's been said before, but we really appreciate all the effort you've put into the mod. Going through multiple updates and improvements in the span of a few weeks for the sake of a bunch of internet strangers is no small feat, but it's worth it for a mod as game-changing as this one.  :D

@Helldiver it would still be worth it to post your revised values for reference once you've finished with them.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7