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.

46

Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Nexerelin v0.9.4c "Mambo No. 9" (fixes 2019-09-11)

« on: September 24, 2019, 06:01:58 AM »

On said planet, talk to your administrator - you'll see an option to transfer ownership which will then allow you to select the receiving faction.

47

Modding / Re: [0.9.1a] Langly's Terraforming

« on: September 21, 2019, 05:32:43 PM »

Trying to figure out a possible process map for going through the planet types, and spent some time doing this:


Not quite sure how difficult the branching thing after the first mirror/shade would be to implement though.
If it's going to be to complicated you could just push all types through terran eccentric like now, and have the other cat3s just feed in to that.

I've tried to make it as simple as I can, with each 'tier' of planet feeding into the next. So all the harsh planets merge into the barren. And then into each successive hab tier after that.
The first mirror/shade placement could possibly be moved further back if needed, but the second mirror/shade needs to be after hab3 so it can pick up any hot/cold habitable planets.
All types are accounted for, but this is not stricly nescessary. Would definitely add some polish later on if you could randomise the results of terraforming to cat_barren, and to cat3 (where applicable).

Seeing that chart makes me realize that terraforming everything into Terran worlds is honestly a bit boring. Personally, I'd rather have that second to last column with the 5 habitable worlds be the final (planet) stage, and then further advancement can just add a solar shade/mirror condition to cancel out cold/hot hazards - i.e. your Tundra planet would be cold, but solar mirrors have resulted in a Faroe Islands like climate. Similarly, an Arid or Jungle world would be drier or heavily forested than average, respectively, but solar shades keep them from being hot enough to be hazardous.

48

Modding / Re: Civilian (transportation/airliner) fleets?

« on: September 14, 2019, 11:22:30 AM »

A little while back in a thread about different levels of crew I had suggested having different crew commodities with different values for pay and crew provided per item. That same thing could be used to have a 0-salary, 0-crew passenger item that takes up crew space instead of cargo space. You wouldn't want them for sale in markets, but it could also expand the bar missions available to the player (perhaps with juiced up mission failure penalties). De-prioritizing them for crew losses due to hull damage/fighter losses would be important though (what, you don't take pleasure cruises through [REDACTED] space?).

49

General Discussion / Re: Navigation mods? (or "Please stop flying into stars you idiot!")

« on: September 11, 2019, 05:28:38 AM »

On a related note, I would like to be able to set waypoints in-system, for the times that I would like to go to the other side of the system but not fly straight through the star, instead taking a safe path around it.

50

Suggestions / Re: Aurora as sample case for AI piloting errors.

« on: September 07, 2019, 01:45:20 PM »

Yes, you can see a list of weapons on the ship, and you can pause and closely inspect the ship so that you can recognize weapon sprites, but that takes an order of magnitude more experience at the game than "the Onslaught has most of its guns facing forwards, get behind it". I wouldn't expect most players to be able to use that information to determine where to attempt to strike from, so using that info for AI feels like making an RTS AI aware of where the enemy is at all times.

51

Suggestions / Re: Aurora as sample case for AI piloting errors.

« on: September 07, 2019, 12:06:05 PM »

- Odyssey has different priorities, all of the above will easily hit it, but can be shield tanked for quite a while. While kinetics are to be avoided. Yet, if there is a direction that is covered by multiple Needlers only and nothing else, that's also a vulnerable spot for armor tanking.

The AI making decisions based on which weapons are in which mounts feels kind of cheaty, as that is information that the player doesn't have easy access to until they find out the hard way (and is more fiddly to program nicely). A more basic decision making process based on the fields of fire of all filled mounts (regardless of type) would be best, in my opinion. Additionally, attempting to hammer on sides where armor has been worn down would be good.

52

Suggestions / Re: Make Frigates Viable in Mid- to Late Game via Combat Logistic Ships Docking

« on: September 04, 2019, 07:14:14 AM »

Perhaps only restore PPT and ammo, not CR, so that you can keep small vessels in the fight if you are active about pulling them back once PPT runs out, but ships with rapidly dropping CR like phase ships can still only stay in for so long.

53

Modding / Re: Making some ships, need feedback

« on: September 03, 2019, 03:33:39 PM »

Don't take my word without verification, but I think the UI only supports 6 fighter wings on a ship, which may interfere with implementing the formerly-known-as-Labrador.

54

Suggestions / Re: An all option in the inventory screen

« on: August 30, 2019, 04:44:12 AM »

If you are on Windows, make sure you have disabled Sticky Keys (unless you actually need it). That accessibility option is the bane of gamers trying to use ctrl, alt, or shift.

55

Suggestions / Re: Add a scroll bar to blueprint packages

« on: August 29, 2019, 12:01:52 PM »

It is, however, very important to show a player exactly which blueprints they have learned when using a package, so that they can then go and look up the ships/weapons to discover what they do. How this is done is arguable, and could be done in a non-tooltip way that eases hunting through the production lists.

56

General Discussion / Re: Crew Levels

« on: August 27, 2019, 10:48:16 AM »

A relatively simple (and fairly meaningless) way of doing it would be having different crew have different levels of crew supplied vs crew wages - experienced crew would get paid more per individual, but be worth more than their pay in terms of how much staffing they supply (1.5x wages vs 2x "crew value", for example). Barring the need to override a bunch of the core game's math in lots of places, I would imagine that would be relatively easy to mod in.

57

General Discussion / Re: Does +% damage from Ordnance Expertise affect fighters?

« on: August 27, 2019, 10:29:41 AM »

I don't know about during combat, but the post battle screen definitely shows fighters of retreated carriers as having their carrier's CR.

58

Suggestions / Re: Partial Industry Disruptions

« on: August 27, 2019, 06:20:56 AM »

I see your point about partial disruptions being tiresome when performing raids to disrupt. Partial disruptions seems more useful in a situation like Nexerelin's invasions, where full and lengthy disruptions are an undesired side effect of crushing all resistance (your marines are there to kill their marines, not tear down industries). Additionally, it might be a nice feature to be able to spend money/resources to bring a disrupted industry into partial functionality until it recovers - faction raid/Pather activity disrupts a structure, you spend money similar to stabilizing a colony but just bring your structure into working at low efficiency. It could take some time to go from fully disrupted to partially disrupted so that raids still have the full effect for a while.

59

Suggestions / Re: Pirate bases should be easier to find.

« on: August 26, 2019, 12:29:39 PM »

There's a reason why each time I scout a Neutron system, I create a colony and hand it off to some other faction (Nexerelin) - any colony keeps pirate bases from spawning.
Perhaps actions within the system should give you a (significant) chance of revealing the exact location of the base, with actions being capturing relays and defeating pirate fleets.

60

Blog Posts / Re: Skills and Story Points

« on: August 23, 2019, 01:12:11 PM »

It could be set up as "this ship benefits from the Carrier Group skill, but doesn't count towards the cap".
On a related note, does the Carrier Group skill count built in fighter bays? I assume it is just fighter bays on ships tagged as carriers, so that ships that happen to have their own fighter screen but aren't really carriers don't count, but I also wouldn't want Shepherds counting against my carrier cap if I am just using them as defensive escorts (although if I wasn't at the cap, I might want them to count, hmmm...)