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 - Mondaymonkey

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 52
16
Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Terraforming and Station Construction (v5.4.5)
« on: September 21, 2020, 11:36:11 AM »
I predict someone would want to kill me for that suggestion, but I would make it anyway.

It is not a secret, that extensive station spam slightly change ruins beyond recognition a game balance because of market concentration in a single system. So suggestion is to have "soft" cap for same type of stations in a same system, but a "hard" cap for overall station quantity per system.

For the "soft" cap, I mean if player wish to build two (or three, or four...) mining stations, he could, but each next would decrease ore/rare ore potential for all mining stations in a system. Same to siphons, player could build up to three of them around each gas giant, but second and third will decrease amount of volatiles on all of them. Before you say that this is "opposite to balancing" thing, read "hard" cap section.

For the "hard" cap, I mean total amount of stations player able to support in a system. I suggest it be number of colonized planets in system (not stations) +2, but no more, than 8 (or so. It better be adjustable). Inside that "hard" cup player able to build any type of stations in a system (in a proper conditions, off course), he need (with respective penalties to production if "soft" cap exceeded). So player able to build more stations of a same type if he can't/don't want construct other type of stations. Also, that would force player to colonize planets if he want to support more than two stations and make prioritizing decisions what he need more: mining stations, siphons or astropolises. Also applied to recolonizing abandoned stations. If mod ever would have other station types this will apply to them too.

With a single exception to that rule: gate station. So if player already have maximum of stations in a system, and only then achieve gates tech, it is still possible to construct one.

Now hit me with tomatoes! ©

17
General Discussion / Re: Requesting Planetary Survey Data!
« on: September 21, 2020, 10:27:41 AM »
:-\ but but..... that's cheating!  ;D

Cheating it is indeed.  ;D

18
General Discussion / Re: Requesting Planetary Survey Data!
« on: September 21, 2020, 10:25:17 AM »
Quote
more important to have your colonies in the same system than for them to all have low hazard.

You are correct. Once I colonized nebula system with 10 hight-hazard, but resource-reach planets. Gold mine by itself. Together with TASC stations, 32 player controlled markets with hight command on each is enormous power concentration.

And here I go again, derailing a thread.
Spoiler
[close]

Give me a day or so and I can collect a report on the worlds in my sector by type, to show potential differences.

Just gotta survay the rest!

Well, you do not need a day, being honest. CC mod allows "survey all" command. Just create a new game -> survey all -> make some notes -> repeat. BTW you can bind that command to be launched with a single key. Once I made that over 100 times per night. Unfortunately my notes are lost.

19
General Discussion / Re: Requesting Planetary Survey Data!
« on: September 21, 2020, 08:54:59 AM »
But colonizing them gives you the bragging rights for having a water-planet, I gues?!

Well... no. They are rare and I suspect you just unlucky. I remember having a water planet with 125% hazard, abundant both ore and rare ore, moderate organics and the water-covered surface is equivalent to adequate farmland, plus extensive ruins, so... yeah they could be decent candidates for colonizing.

Also, TASC mod allows lobster seeding...

BTW to be not entirely offtopic, some barren world from reason unknown (bug?) can have inimical biosphere, despise not having any atmosphere or "habitable" condition.

20
Suggestions / Re: Autopulse Laser flux generation mechanic.
« on: September 21, 2020, 04:09:11 AM »
As stated in the very first line, I don't mind just changing the description.

21
There are more reasons to let them live:

1. They won't hurt your colonies. At least they shouldn't. Very biggest problem they cause - trade convoy disruptions.
2. AI core farming is never that easy, than in your own colonized system, as patrols and star fortresses would help you in battles and it's always a place to repair/refit/resupply/store loot.

Just make sure your patrols overcome in strength [REDACTED] patrols and try evading personal battles near the Nexus (not to destroy it accidentally).

22
Suggestions / Re: Autopulse Laser flux generation mechanic.
« on: September 20, 2020, 09:34:21 PM »
It has electric capacitors, not flux capacitors. Discharging them produces flux.

Does your smartphone produce any flux, when battery discharged? Or fridge forced to vent itself twice a day? ;D Electricity does not produce any flux, so even it is electrical (or other non-flux kind of energy) caps, flux will not be generated on discharging. IIRC flux produced with not invented yet generator type with virtually unlimited power outcome (read it somewhere here, please don't ask for link, also not sure if it was canonical), so flux would be generated during recharging an electrical battery with speed determined by battery's max recharge rate, which bring as the same delayed flux mechanic, as mentioned in original suggestion.

23
Suggestions / Autopulse Laser flux generation mechanic.
« on: September 20, 2020, 02:09:47 PM »
First to be said: I like Autopulse Laser as it is now. Perhaps, changing the description would be wiser than changing a flux mechanic.

However, current description says:

Numerous built-in capacitors are at the core of this extremely efficient, yet potent energy weapon.

Which probably means it should have (and rely on) it's own caps. So, firing causes it fill it's own caps, not the ship caps, while reloading process obviously conjugated with transferring flux from built-in caps to hull's caps (to be vented after). That even give sense to it's reloading nature.

That also means, it shouldn't generate any flux from firing, but do it while recharging instead. On the one hand, this would make it even better alpha-strike weapon, on the other hand this may causes problems, as player can not turn off reloading process (and flux generation) in critical situation or/and close to overflux. So, not sure would it be buff or nerf, especially in AI hands.

24
Bug Reports & Support / Re: auto fit fonction don't work anymore
« on: September 19, 2020, 07:56:04 AM »
Make sure "Strip before autofitting" flag is enabled.
Spoiler
[close]

25
@Farya, that is actually, a decent point. Not sure if balanced, but yeah, sounds interesting.

26
Modding / Re: Weird wing spawn animation
« on: September 18, 2020, 11:32:35 AM »
Hmm... Then probably you should share a files. Truth is somewhere there.©

27
This post was rewritten several times, as my fantasy flies faster, than I able to crystallize it in a words. In a current state this suggestion is barely belong to ind.evo domain, but I already started to write it here... so... I'm to lazy to move it elsewhere. You can ignore it completely, tho'.

I am a lazy ass!
The suggestion is to add a structure, that will be able to spawn a support fleet, that follows a player. If player uses ability (sustain burn, go dark, transponder, etc), it will try to use it too. Player skills bonuses does not applied to support fleet, tho'. Fleet composition is entirely player-defined, as each ship used should be manually added to a custom storage. Not to be too OP, support fleet should be capped in fleet size or overall DP cost (not sure what would be better), so exceeded ships from storage wouldn't spawn in a fleet. Fleet composition refreshes only when player interact with home market. Support fleet depend on resources such as supplies, crew and fuel, player should manually add them to a custom storage. It can not store more than a maximal capacity of that resources of spawned ships or store any other commodity. If support fleet running low on that resources it returns home. If fleet loses some ships in battle, they are removed from custom storage (and opposite, if ship is removed from storage, it disappear from the fleet). Player can "dock" to that fleet in space to refresh support fleet supplies/fuel/crew, but can not take those back (to prevent abusing). Additionally, player able to assign up to 4 officers to that fleet (ships they are command of are chosen automatically by "fleet points" and "number" values from ship_data.csv). When player attack (or being attacked by) enemy, support fleet will try to participate fight as ally force (if close enough). Support fleet would not deploy in battle logistic ships, marked as "civilian" (respective hullmod). Also wuld be great, if support fleet (if close enough) would affect to salvage/survey interactions.
[close]

28
Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] DIY Planets - Terraforming and more!
« on: September 18, 2020, 10:30:41 AM »
I did transform a Cyrovolcanic into Water World. But instead of aquatic culture, I can build a farm on it instead.

Oh, that's are well-known issue, that couldn't be directly fixed in current SS version.

However, in TASC mod, Boggled made a script, that change farming industry on a such planets into an aquaculture next day farming construction started. Not sure if DIYP have a same mechanism (It should, IMO).

29
Modding / Re: Weird wing spawn animation
« on: September 18, 2020, 10:07:55 AM »
Quote
Do you have any clues what i have done wrong?

Does it use any custom system/hullmod/fighter/etc? Once I observed weird visual bug (different, tho') because of typo in a hullmod script.

30
General Discussion / Re: Onslaught XIV blueprint?
« on: September 18, 2020, 10:01:49 AM »
Raesvelg is far less defended, raid that instead!

Truth. However in my experience it gives far lesser loot. On the other hand, some save-loading can help to achieve  desirable from the first raid even from Raesvelg.

Also, could be entirely wrong in my statement about Raesvelg, that wouldn't be a first time. ;D

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 52