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.

676

Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] TC: Archean Order: Rebalanced Combat/Lore RPG - Update preview 6/24/20

« on: October 14, 2020, 07:01:21 AM »

I really like the mod. The idea of smaller weapons and more wings makes nice and cinematic combats.
I think the new factions are a bit too high tech-heavy with both the anime vampire lords and the tech-priests being mega tri tachyon.
Playing with nexrelin these 2 factions also dominate everybody else. So I think they are a bit too strong.

Lol anime vampire lords. That tickled me.

Not all of their portraits are anime but yeah I would say free-use portraits of vampires aren't exactly flourishing haha. Honestly I love anime and don't mind anime portraits, but I get that it's not exactly the intended immersion Starsector is going for. I do have plans for optional portrait packs in the future to better cater to different tastes in that regard. But, you know, priorities.

As far as the high tech nature of the Adamantine Consortium and Archean Order breaking Nex, that is a fair point if true. It was definitely not intended and not something I anticipated when designing the factions. The factions were designed from a lore perspective and not a 4X perspective since that didn't exist when I started modding. That being said, I think it would be accurate to say that Nex has some amount of randomness to how events/invasions go based upon prior feedback. Unless you are speaking from the perspective of multiple campaign run-throughs where these factions dominated every time, it could just be coincidence. To play devil's advocate, I could simply have the settings wrong - though I remember spending a fair amount of time considering each faction when setting up the Nex config and I've done a second pass since then. The only other possible consideration I can think of is that higher FP fleets have an innate advantage in Nex (and vanilla but not as noticeable) - which, while understandable, limits the design space in a way that Tri-Tachyon-esque factions are just going to be strong. That seems unlikely though since the FP difference between a Megalith Dreadnought and a Paragon in the current dev build is a measly 2 FP (33 to 31 respectively). So, if the fleets are built with the same number of ships in mind irregardless of each ship having a FP or two greater... well not much I can do about that. If the lore is that their ships are tech-wise better (but realistically in combat through DP they can deploy less of them and so not really) but the campaign layer does not reflect this, my hands are tied. I'm not sure if this is the case and I would assume "numShips" would handle this situation in the faction config, but I'm no expert there and I haven't deep dived that aspect in any way. (Details for reference: Archean Order is 3, Adamantine Consortium is 1 and Tri-Tachyon is 5)

To clarify lore related stuff:
The Adamantine Consortium is an insidious "boss faction" that I also wanted to be playable in order to create more replay-ability and challenge and provide a unique experience from roleplaying an evil faction (story-wise it gets more complicated than that but no spoilers! From the perspective of 4X/Nex that is the best way to put it). The Archean Order acts as a counter-balance/antagonist of the Tri-Tachyon corporation that from a design perspective just adds flavor and additional options to the high tech arsenal and additional player choice/replay-ability each playthrough.

Still working out the details there and there is a lot to do as far as limiting accessibility, etc, etc.

Trader Guilds, while certainly not as fleshed out since they were the last faction I conceptualized years ago, are actually more mid-tech with higher tier weapons/wings. They aren't really high tech at all, but they suffer from less colonies than they need - which is something I'm hoping to address very soon.

Sci-Corps are a high tech underdog with a somewhat romanticized moral compass that acts as the grounding force to the other warring factions, so once again a fair point into the high tech nature of the mod's new factions. They have actually had a buff to autoresolve and in-combat strength which should make them more of a presence when running the mod with Nex assuming my assumptions hold true.

When looking at the playable vanilla faction roster that participates in Nex, how many of them are high tech? My count is 1, maybe 2 when you consider Lion's Guard. So in that sense, I am more evening the scales for player options for each tech level than I am intending to create high tech factions to dominate the sector, if that makes sense.

A suggestion. Make wing replacement cost flux. Replacing high tech wings should cost huge amounts of flux, low tech less.

I am trying to address this disparity through OP in the next update rather than flux generation because I'm not sure I can do that with the API. So high tech wings are far more OP costly to equip and typically only high tech carriers can equip them comfortably. This will make the high/low tech carriers truer to their DP in regards to combat performance with the added intent of making weapons more relevant on these vessels.

For an example, it will be impossible for a light carrier like the Osprey to equip a wing like the Wasp or Spectre even should it completely shirk all weapons and hullmods. It will mostly be limited to low tech and pirate wings. An Anchorage carrier might be able to equip one, but only at the cost of any weapon upgrades, hullmods, or additional wings that aren't starter tier. I'm hoping that evens things out a bit.

Anyway sorry for the wall post, and thank you for trying out the mod and giving feedback! I always appreciate it and I will try and keep this in mind as I continue attempting to balance things. My only request is to remember that I am one person and so true balanced quality will take time and multiple passes considering the scope of this mod. I rely on anyone playing it to help me understand all the nuances that I cannot realistically account for without actually stopping development to play the campaign a bunch of times to endgame.

677

Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] TC: Archean Order: Rebalanced Combat/Lore RPG - Update preview 6/24/20

« on: October 14, 2020, 02:46:27 AM »

What do you mean with 100% effiency? If my ship has 300 amor and I put another 300 amor on it via modul, halve the amor is gone after 3 hits from a small weapon ( 200 damage a hit) a random frigate fires.

I was speaking with regards to the Onslaught (XIV) effectiveness at combat with, say, a Paragon with anti-armor strike beams. Onslaught (XIV) has 4500 base armor. The 500 armor made a noticeable difference probably because of the 5% minimum against numerous small weapons going up enough to mitigate a lot of damage in a close range cap vs cap fight.

To your experience though, did this happen to you in game while fighting a high tech ship with Pulse Cannons with a Hound or something? If so, that's not advisable without additional support to either joint attack or, if a shield is available on the escorts, a hit and run trade off kind of attack. high Tech ships cost more to deploy, but their weapons and defense are, for the most part, better than lower tech ships. So a one-on-one low tech vs high tech is going to be harder to win.

Or are you looking at the numbers, specifically? (Either way is completely fine, I'm just trying to get a better grasp of your opinion.)

I'm also not necessarily against a global frigate/destroyer armor buff, honestly - at least for armor reliant hulls. Cruisers maybe too but they seem ok in that department from what I've seen. I just have to be careful to not make a more difficult time for high tech ships at those sizes by making armor too good. It might not be as much of an issue after the beam changes/new weapons though since more anti-armor options will exist for energy weapon reliant ships. That probably is what fueled some of the lower armor values in the first place. If Pulse Cannons can't deal with armor well, then there was little that the High Tech frigate had to deal with ships like the Lasher effectively when considering its increased DP.

678

Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] TC: Archean Order: Rebalanced Combat/Lore RPG - Update preview 6/24/20

« on: October 14, 2020, 02:10:22 AM »

I also want you to nerf the Helmsmanship zero flux speed boost threshold to 25% from 34%

That's me, I guess, but I want one for medium mount slot more. Also for the Terminator Beam, can it be tweak some how for AI to not waste it on the shield when the only large weapon it has is Terminator Beam. I don't think the Onslaught waste it too much, only occasionally. Mostly it was used as it intends purpose.

The beam point defense weapons also defeat the fighter buff this mod provides a bit, not sure how can it be deal with. It's already expensive to field in.

I am making some medium weapons too, yes.

Re: Terminator Beam AI
It recharges faster now so hopefully that will help make wasted shots less painful. Custom AI for it would be significantly more complex. It's not that I have ruled that option out as much as it would be kind of far down the list compared to other easier things. I'll keep it in mind for the future though. The Onslaught definitely makes good use of it overall. It snipes through moments of shield drops against the Paragon with ruthless efficiency that makes the fight actually tilt in its favor more times than not. Definitely an opportunistic kind of weapon. The AI isn't perfect with it, but it's honestly not bad either imo.

Re: Helmsmanship
I'll look into whether or not I can use the Skill API to differentiate between hull sizes. It is that high so that it gives a bonus to frigates (and soon destroyers) since they already have that boost. The reduction of the 0-flux boost for capitals should help make this skill at least a little less must-have.

It may be invalidated by the eventual skill update though.

Re: Burst PD Beam line of weapons
True, but they are not great against mass missiles in comparison to other PD so that is kind of their drawback alongside high OP costs. They don't really delete fighters more than interceptors do though - especially with the coming update. To help impact the brief engagement time interceptors typically have to perform their role, most now have, err how to put it? - Burst impacting weapons like homing missiles, mines, or (ironically) burst beam pd to take out large numbers of opposing craft quickly alongside any lucky primary weapon hits. The Wasp mine in particular really makes that wing shine over prior updates. I came to this conclusion because Broadsword and Hydra wings seemed to really outpace more OP expensive wings in dealing with strike craft during the fly-by.

Armor values are at the same reach as normal damage values of single hits. Doesn't this make armor completely useless?

Not in my experience, at least if I'm understanding the question correctly. Funnily enough, I'm actually having trouble balancing the Onslaught because of its high armor value atm (adding 500 made it beat every capital I'm testing with by 100% extra efficiency)- granted that's an extreme. It's more that armor breaking weapons are more necessary for high armor vessels but their impact is stronger - especially in the case of strike weapons. Hull/weapon size also has starker comparisons there - so even a heavily armor ship taking a hit from a weapon size higher than it can typically field will be felt a little more. If anything, armor is more important in that sense from what I can tell. One thing that makes this possible is the 5% minimum value. This means that even armor stripped ships with high base armor take a lot less damage from small hit weapons like kinetic weapons or fighter weapons.

Armor is a little useless for high tech vessels that rely on their shields - at least in comparison. Once a Paragon's shields go down... it's bad news for the Paragon if it can't retreat. If you are fielding a lot of those, I'd answer that it isn't useless but definitely shouldn't be relied upon for any length of time.

If you have any changes in mind, can you give examples or comparisons vs vanilla that gave you this impression? I'm certainly open to ideas. Changing armor values is relatively easy - and armor damage mitigation scales on the value comparisons as you say - so only one value would actually have to be changed to make an impact.

679

Suggestions / Re: Achievements ideas for starsector

« on: October 13, 2020, 03:23:59 PM »

I'd prefer achievements to be save specific and not game/account specific, and be more about how did a given run play like. With a timeline, it would be like tracking your progress.

I think a log of how you used your story points throughout a campaign run would be pretty neat. Especially if they had a little descriptive blurb/fluff etc. I think someone suggested that already somewhere but I can't remember where.

680

Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] TC: Archean Order: Rebalanced Combat/Lore RPG - Update preview 6/24/20

« on: October 13, 2020, 02:41:08 PM »

I don't think it would even be possible to optimize all the stock variants - there are just too many and the number is growing lol. And part of the reason I'm adding more is to more explicitly demonstrate roles such as Strike, Assault, Fire Support, etc to the player. In that sense, there are definitely some variants that are worse than others and will likely be worse than player builds. That is intentional in order to create variance (I personally roleplay it as officer/commander ability variance). That is on top of the variance that comes with any particular fight between two otherwise equally matched variants. If the Elite Executor or the Strike Paragon overloads, for instance, the battle is pretty much over for the one who did.

I've also learned that I need to be very, very careful about some hullmod synergies. I made Front Shield Emitter unequip-able with Concentrated Shield Emitter OR Stabilized Shields and I made Concentrated Shield Emitter unequip-able with Front Shield Emitter OR Hardened Shields. This was after I stacked the later combo on a flux-free Paragon and it became an unstoppable deity of death on the battlefield...

In general flux free assault weapons are a mod feature, but I'm starting to come around to the idea that large weapons either need to generate some flux or have significant damage/range drawbacks to not make capital ships too strong. It doesn't seem to be as big an issue on ships smaller than capitals though maybe I just haven't tested it enough. However I noticed that simply replacing the Onslaught's Devastator for a Mark IX made it perform considerably better because it could always fire an armor breaking weapon alongside its railguns.

Both the Mark IX and the Razor Tri-Beam have had a healthy whack with the nerf bat as a result. I am also adding minor flux costs to longer ranged assault weapons like the Excaliber Cannon and Photon Cannon line of weapons like I did with the Railgun line of weapons.

Finally, to further solidify the idea of designations as a balancing mechanism, I've been tossing around the idea of giving destroyers the same benefits that frigates get against missiles, fighters and the same speed mechanics. I felt that this really gave frigates new life in the later stages of the game and I think it could help destroyers too. In that same vein of thinking, I will probably reduce the 0-flux speed boost of capitals to 40 down from 80. Why? To prevent non-flux builds from maintaining the speed to chase down and eliminate targets far too quickly. The 0-flux Paragon took down three Eagles without its flux getting above the threshold to loose its boost because the Eagles could not leverage their positioning to pressure the unshielded portion that is supposed to be the weakness of Concentrated Shield Emitter.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Those weapons sound really cool! They certainly sound unique and interesting, but they also probably come with a fair amount of custom script work that I'm probably not quite ready to dedicate the time to learning right now - well, at least for this update.

I'm going to have to keep things relatively simple right now due to time constraints. So, for example, I can't remember if it was you or basileus who commented on the lack of a true armor breaking energy weapon. That is one of the gaps that I intend to tackle. The Phase Beam/Atronarch Beam/Terminator Beam already do this very well due to duration changes and a dps buff to the Terminator Beam specifically, but I'd like to make a projectile-based weapon an option as well.

Another gap would be the Fire Support role for energy weapons. There currently are such weapons when combining beams with Advanced Optics, but it would be nice to have more lower tier projectile siege weapons outside of the Apocalypse Cannon - which is rare and expensive.

681

Suggestions / Re: Achievements ideas for starsector

« on: October 13, 2020, 04:02:30 AM »

Alex actually mentioned achievements on Steam in an interview yesterday (link on his twittter) and I share his thoughts. Either you have A) achievements that force players to grind something, use weird strats, risk everything and frustrate themselves or B) things you just get along the way for doing the most basic stuff in game. The former way drives some people to complete the game 100% which may impact their view on the game in the end (I hate this in team based MP games where it hurts to have a player who's completing achievements and ruining the game), and the latter thing is pointless, it's just virtual pats on the back.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind them when they're not ridiculous, but the thing that'll always be a negative for me is their impact on gameplay.

Agreed. I think they are more of a badge of "I played this game more than you" at best and an outright content lock for no particular reason at worst. While I like the feeling of completing achievements as a whole, the downside is that they kind of force you into this mindset of having to get all the achievements to feel relevant. While that may have a place in a competitive multiplayer game, it only serves to add frustration or a feeling of inadequacy in a game where the focus is a fun experience. That, to me, is Starsector's draw.

A good example is some achievements from Command and Conquer. Build 500 Tanks or w.e shouldn't be something I do for the achievement, but rather something I want to do because it makes sense from a gameplay perspective. If I feel forced to do it in order to earn the achievement, it doesn't result in me having fun it results in me min/maxing my experience in a competitive way that has no relevance in a non-competitive format.

682

Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] TC: Archean Order: Rebalanced Combat/Lore RPG - Update preview 6/24/20

« on: October 12, 2020, 04:31:10 PM »

Well, after applying the bonuses the OP of a lot of stock variants are, much to my surprise, typically within 5-10% of what it was before. That is promising I must be doing something right here! After optimizing (the best I can anyway) several builds for the Onslaught (XIV), Executor, and Paragon and running ~ 50 or so tests in a 1v1 unskilled AI duel scenario - no one capital always wins and more often than not the winner has under 50% hull. 4 times between the Onslaught (XIV) and Executor and 2 times between the Executor and Paragon they killed each other simultaneously with their final salvos haha. That was funny to watch. The only matchup that needs a bit of work is the Executor vs Onslaught (XIV). The Onslaught can win, but there were too many times that the Executor had over 60% hull after the fight and I want it to be a bit lower so the fight is closer. I'm doing this to create a baseline for high armor/high shields/midline battlecarrier comparisons to create a spectrum for balancing the rest of the builds. Not every variant is equal to the others, either, with some being dedicated anti-armor (the Strike Executor practically deletes and Onslaught but is garbage against a Paragon) so experiences in the campaign will still vary and depend upon fleet composition elements.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, now down to business.

I'm adding a few new weapons alongside the new wings in order to fill in a few more roles (mostly for energy weapons) but I also wanted to add some Remnant-only weapons - including a legendary. I wanted to post this so that if anyone has any requests on the theme/functionality of these weapons they can post their ideas here.

If not, I'll come up with them myself no worries. (I'm also obviously going to be adding even more once I get access to these new effects. I'm very excited to delve more deeply into those at a later date!)

683

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

« on: October 11, 2020, 01:30:37 PM »

Any idea what would cause this? On the surface is seems like a hullmod issue with the variant or the hull... but I wasn't editing much before this happened and I cannot for the life of me figure out what I did to cause it.

20424 [Thread-4] ERROR com.fs.starfarer.combat.CombatMain  - java.lang.NullPointerException
java.lang.NullPointerException
   at com.fs.starfarer.loading.specs.HullVariantSpec.isDHull(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.codex.CodexData.Object(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.codex.CodexData.<init>(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.codex.super.<init>(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.codex.super.Ô00000(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.loading.ResourceLoaderState.init(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.state.AppDriver.begin(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.combat.CombatMain.main(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.StarfarerLauncher$1.run(Unknown Source)
   at java.lang.Thread.run(Unknown Source)

*EDIT* Nvm I just had to perform the ancient spell of posting here after hours of searching in order for the issue to immediately present itself to me... lol I added a prefix to a hullmod definition that did not need it because I don't override it. So it was searching for a hullmod that didn't exist. That's why I wasn't finding any JSON typos - because their weren't any! And the hullmods all looked good since most require the prefix so that was far outside of my mind of being a potential problem.

684

Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] TC: Archean Order: Rebalanced Combat/Lore RPG - Update preview 6/24/20

« on: October 10, 2020, 05:20:24 PM »

@The PG 13 Priest

Thanks I'm glad you are having a lot of fun! Still working on variant adjustments but getting closer to an update day by day! 

685

General Discussion / Re: Starsector has ruined Mount & Blade games for me

« on: October 08, 2020, 05:21:10 PM »

Relax, you were not the target of anyone's anathema.  This is just a gentle discourse on M&B-type-games.

Ok sorry yeah probably just being overly defensive. Carry on!

686

General Discussion / Re: Starsector has ruined Mount & Blade games for me

« on: October 08, 2020, 04:39:46 PM »

Oh for the love of.... if the perceived implication of my post was that Alex doesn't or shouldn't take breaks, that was not my intention! It's good that he does for all the reasons stated. I was complimenting his ability to manage his time regardless and create really good things...

687

Suggestions / Re: Fighter rework

« on: October 08, 2020, 03:37:38 PM »

Important related point:

It seems like the AI keeps its wings on "Engage" even when the housing carrier is under attack by other fighters/bombers and even when the carrier in question is equipped with mostly interceptors. So the interceptors die to enemy PD while the carrier dies from the enemy wing strike.

If the carrier would regroup to defend itself using the interceptors it would probably live. Or at least live a lot longer.

*Edit* It's kind of what SaberCherry is referring to, and I agree with the idea of an "Eliminate Enemy Strike Craft" like order, but with the added idea that AI should be aware of when a Fighter Strike order has been issued on it and respond if it has the appropriate wings to do so. Ideally, it would have never issued the Engage toggle in the first place once the enemy Fighter Strike order was given. It would only issue an Engage toggle on allied ships under enemy Fighter Strike orders.

The AI needs to be aware of what type of strike craft it is carrying and how to use them in regards to their role.

How-To-Reproduce:

Equip a Heron with 2 Wasp and a Lux and have it fight an Astral Strike stock variant. The Heron only Regroups when the wings are mostly dead from the Astral's PD instead of when an incoming bomber wave is upon it. It is also reproducible with a Strike Heron stock variant instead of an Astral - but it's not as obvious because the Strike Herons PD isn't powerful enough to defeat the Wasps quickly. Still, you can clearly see the Wasps prioritize the Heron over protecting their carrier from the incoming Daggers unless the bombers are literally right next to the Heron.

(The Heron also charges towards the Astral at first which is a little weird considering the strength/speed difference between the two ships.)

688

General Discussion / Re: Starsector has ruined Mount & Blade games for me

« on: October 08, 2020, 02:37:51 PM »

That said, Mount and Blade is kind of special in that it is the only game I have ever played that did horseback riding OR archery well, regardless of the lack of polish in other areas.

Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. But I agree that was a particularly good thing that M&B does very well. The satisfaction of swinging a massive two-handed sword to the side of your horse as you charge into the battle line cutting down enemies left and right only to emerge behind the enemy advance and crashing into his now undefended archers was a masterpiece of visceral fun. That small detail also gets a 10/10 from me.

As another solo "dev" trying to tackle a big project, I honestly don't know how Alex has time to play practically anything. I mean, I know I'm an amateur and all, but his output of internal code, API, and well designed systems makes me feel like a 2 year old stacking blocks - not that I mind haha.

689

Suggestions / Re: Fighter rework

« on: October 08, 2020, 02:18:31 PM »

@Megas

I'm not going to derail the thread with an itemized rebuttal war that noone wants to read, but suffice it to say I don't agree with your opinion of what is fun. All of the things that you see as good things I see as major detriments or abusable gimmicks. Not every carrier has to be a battlestar imo. Some are actually designed to be similar.

I don't like weaponless carriers or Drover Spark spam, sure, but as I already posted above I think there are other ways to do that. See: Hangar Space idea.

690

Suggestions / Re: Fighter rework

« on: October 08, 2020, 02:05:28 PM »

What about bringing hangar space back on the refit screen and having wings cost that instead of OP? It solves the weaponless/dedicated carrier issue and could be used to prevent over-spamming expensive wings like the Spark because something like the Drover wouldn't have the necessary space to equip it in both bays, for instance, without impacting weapons or hullmods.

Very rough mock-up: (Please ignore the crazy OP values and pretend the bar says "Hangar Space" etc. I am in the middle of doing things and didn't want to revert everything. )