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.

16

Mods / Re: [0.95.1a] Quality Captains: A Skill Rework v1.1.1

« on: June 08, 2023, 10:27:52 AM »

Yeah thats exactly what I did, still crashes.

17

Mods / Re: [0.96a-RC10] BigBeans Ship Compilation

« on: June 04, 2023, 02:50:30 PM »

Altia noooooooo 

At least I still got the Fennec

Thanks for the update! The hole in my modlist has been spackled.

18

Suggestions / Re: Phase Lance range buff?

« on: June 01, 2023, 09:19:36 AM »

I wonder if something like a fairly hefty reduction in flux cost might be sufficient. It does good burst damage already, I don't think that needs to change. But if it went to .8 or even .6 (instead of 1.2) flux/damage, then the anti-shield use would be more ok, and it'd get a boost as an anti-fighter option, and it would further be solidified as a low-flux option (that still has some punch) for a medium slot.

I like the flux cost reduction idea, probably no less than 0.8 tho

You could make this one also deal EMP damage, like a baby Tachyon Lance, with the same mechanics. EMP arcs that penetrate shields is actually a very interesting niche that brawler ships could use. Currently if you want that your only options are Ion Beam (long range, no damage) or TL. Especially interesting with HSA so the weapon could arc by itself

But I also like this idea

Can you argument for your choice then, what would 700 range exactly accomplish? On high tech ships you don't need that since it clashes with standard and strike ranges. Beam builds are also out of the question since then you're too short. Midline ships really don't want a "spend more flux than your opponents shields will even take" weapon. I'm just curious where do you see a 700 range Phase Lance making a difference.

You're right, the only thing it would synergize with in vanilla is Railguns and Needlers, which would be good on some ships but not many. Range buffing probably isn't the answer.

19

Suggestions / Re: Phase Lance range buff?

« on: June 01, 2023, 08:16:52 AM »

I would actually prefer it to get more direct damage without changing DPS. It is basically a melee range strike weapon, like AMBs. Better to make it better at that than buff other stats and have to either walk back, or remove the one thing it's still good at.
EDIT: Hell, make it do more damage and make it less flux efficient, kinda like a strike Heavy Blaster.

But its the same range as the Pulse Laser and Heavy Blaster, far from being 'melee range'. Why would any other stat need to be walked back if one small change makes it slightly more competitive with other options it has a hard time competing against right now?

If medium really needs a true point-blank strike weapon like the AMB, instead of shoehorning a beam into that role there should be a separate AMB analogue for medium.

20

Suggestions / Phase Lance range buff?

« on: June 01, 2023, 07:44:14 AM »

So the Phase Lance is a cool weapon, but it feels like one of the least appealing options for medium energy most of the time. Pulse Laser is more efficient and more DPS and hard flux dmg, Heavy Blaster has way more DPS and hard flux with comparable efficiency, Ion Pulser has EMP and more DPS with only slightly less range, Mining Blaster is dedicated to cracking armor, etc. Phase Lance is basically a scaled down Tachyon Lance with few of the things that make the Tachyon Lance so appealing.

Beams are generally supposed to have more range than projectile energy weapons, so I propose a modest range increase from 600 to 700 to make the Phase Lance the 'long range' or 'sniper' non-suppression option for medium energy slots. I think it would better define the Phase Lance and make it much more competitive with other options without degrading or over-enhancing its current role as the highest burst damage option.

21

Modding / Re: Issue with hull tags in ship_data.csv and market spawning

« on: May 31, 2023, 03:44:55 PM »

So, seems to be a specific issue with some mods due to the removal of blueprint packages (specifically the hightech_bp as pirates still have mid and lowtech so those can spawn on the black market) from factions and some modded hightech hulls slipping through the cracks. Thanks for the clarification.

22

Modding / Issue with hull tags in ship_data.csv and market spawning

« on: May 31, 2023, 03:07:19 PM »

So it seems like any ship tagged only with hightech_bp never spawns in markets. Its not relevant for vanilla because no vanilla ship is only tagged hightech_bp (Wolf, Shrike & Fury all have merc and ind tags), but its an issue for several mods. When merc and ind tags are added to the offending ships they start appearing in markets again. The authors of some of the mods have been made aware of the issue.

While testing I was using Stellar Networks to quickly find ships in markets using its market query feature, and when a hull only had the hightech_bp tag it wouldn't appear as a query option at all, behaving like a hidden hull. When the hull couldn't be queried via StelNet I used Console Commands for the forcemarketupdate and findship commands, and got zero hits on affected hulls for sale after a dozen market updates.

It doesn't affect hulls only tagged midline_bp or lowtech_bp, and I didn't have time to test whether it also affected fleet spawning.

23

Mods / Re: [0.95a] Vayra's Ship Pack 1.2.3 - less ruined ruin 2021-03-26

« on: May 31, 2023, 12:19:04 PM »

I did some more testing...only some of the ships appear in markets. I can see Tyrants and the exploration-class ships, but I've never seen any of the Luddic Path ships or Dire Wolves.

I had the same problem so I looked into it. I don't know about the LP skins, but apparently any ships with only the 'hightech_bp' tag in ship_data.csv almost never show up for whatever reason, they aren't even visible as an option in Stelnet's market queries. In vanilla and every other mod they have something else along with hightech_bp like 'merc' or 'ind', which are the 2 most common by far.

So I edited ship_data.csv to add both merc and ind to the ships with only hightech_bp (Pinnacle, Dire Wolf, Exemplar, Seer & Clairvoyant, I think it somewhat makes sense for indies and mercs to have access to all 5) and now they actually show up in markets. I also edited the 5 derelict drones to have the 'auto_rec' tag so they can be recovered if the player has the Automated Ships skill, like other derelict drones. I'll attach my edited ship_data file, just change the file extension back to .csv (can't upload .csv files on forum, only .txt) and replace the existing ship_data.csv in the data > hulls folder. If that doesn't work its easy enough to edit tags manually, you can use Excel to modify .csv files.

24

Mods / Re: [0.96a] Missile Ship Overhaul 1.2.3

« on: May 30, 2023, 04:51:06 PM »

Cool mod 

fyi, Diktat Enhancement already uses Vanquisher for one of it's ships, and I think another mod might do as well. If that's of any concern.

25

Mods / Re: [0.96a] Mayasuran Navy 10.0.0 RC1

« on: May 29, 2023, 12:51:59 PM »

So since vanilla now has a Gorgon missile, will you rename it in a next patch? nvm it looks like they don't appear ingame any more (?)

26

Mods / Re: [0.95.1a] Quality Captains: A Skill Rework v1.1.1

« on: May 28, 2023, 09:03:58 AM »

tried Sanrai's fix and still getting crashes whenever opening the Character menu

Spoiler

272654 [Thread-3] ERROR com.fs.starfarer.combat.CombatMain  - java.lang.NullPointerException
java.lang.NullPointerException
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.impl.StandardTooltipV2$3.createImpl(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.impl.StandardTooltipV2Expandable.create(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.impl.StandardTooltipV2Expandable.beforeShown(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.coreui.nullsuper.Ò00000(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.n.advanceImpl(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.thissuper.advance(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.interfacenew.advanceImpl(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.coreui.v.advanceImpl(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.thissuper.advance(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.interfacenew.advanceImpl(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.coreui.AptitudeRow.advanceImpl(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.thissuper.advance(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.interfacenew.advanceImpl(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.g$Oo.advanceImpl(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.thissuper.advance(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.interfacenew.advanceImpl(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.g.advanceImpl(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.thissuper.advance(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.interfacenew.advanceImpl(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.coreui.Oo00.advanceImpl(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.thissuper.advance(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.interfacenew.advanceImpl(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.coreui.OoO0OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.advanceImpl(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.thissuper.advance(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.interfacenew.advanceImpl(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.newui.o0OO.advanceImpl(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.thissuper.advance(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.interfacenew.advanceImpl(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.public.advanceImpl(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.newui.L.advanceImpl(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.thissuper.advance(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.interfacenew.advanceImpl(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.thissuper.advance(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.CampaignState.advance(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.BaseGameState.traverse(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.state.AppDriver.begin(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.combat.CombatMain.main(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.StarfarerLauncher.o00000(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.StarfarerLauncher$1.run(Unknown Source)
   at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:750)

[close]

27

Bug Reports & Support / Graphical issue with hyperspace/slipstream/flickering lines - fixed

« on: May 23, 2023, 05:36:05 PM »

Had a serious graphical bug in hyperspace rendering. It was like the thing that can happen when useSlipstreamGLLines is set to true and flickering lines get drawn everywhere (I had it set to false because I'd had that issue before) but way worse. I updated my GPU drivers (the old ones were years out of date) and that made it even worse, but I set slipstreamUseGLLines back to true and that seems to have completely resolved it.

Just thought I'd put the sequence here in case it was of use. I got some screenshots I can send if they'd be useful.

28

Bug Reports & Support / Re: The Typo Thread

« on: May 23, 2023, 04:01:18 PM »

Seems to be a typo in Alvis' VIP transport dialogue. Can't remember exactly but there's an 'and, and...' bit that seems like it should just be ', and...'

29

Suggestions / Re: Another Pegasus balance opinion

« on: May 21, 2023, 02:48:23 PM »

I think in AI hands its worth the 50, even with a nerfed system as they can use it well enough. In player hands it still slightly overperforms even with no skills and a nerfed system. But some more care needs to be taken to use it at the right time.

30

Suggestions / Another Pegasus balance opinion

« on: May 21, 2023, 01:41:14 PM »

Personally I feel like no matter what, Fast Missile Racks on the Pegasus will always be imbalanced. Even if it went to 70 DP you might still be able to argue its worth the cost. FMR + even 2 large missiles is extremely powerful, it just doesn't seem like FMR as-is can be made to work with that much firepower.

I think a solution is to give Pegasus a much weaker version of FMR. That would preserve the cool novelty of a 'missile dumping' battleship with the 4 larges and a way to occasionally 'pop off' even more, without resorting to making it painful to fly by nerfing other stats. The in-universe justification, if any is needed, could be that the 4 large slots require a much heavier duty system that's more limited in repeat capability compared to say the one on a Condor.

I've trialed a version of FMR with 1 charge, 30 second charge regen and 60% flux/use. The reduced charges means only 8 large missile slot's worth of ordnance can be brought to bear at once without a high level skill (Systems Expertise), the tripled regen time means it can't dump out another 8 large salvo without giving the target a chance to get some breathing room, and the 60% flux/use makes it actually dangerous to do a missile dump while being pressured and Systems Expertise characters need to be in a really secure position to dump 12 large missile slot's worth of firepower at once. Keeping it with one charge means (from what I can tell) both Missile Specialization and Systems Expertise offer a similar power boost but in different ways. Seems to work well with the existing FMR AI as well.

Thoughts?