Oh no, my water world isn't going to be able to feed a hundred quintillion people now!?
Look on the bright side, it can still supply them with drink
Well I'm disappointed with my favourite ships strongest aspect being nerfed, but my end-game fleets always involve lots of Apogees, as their shield tanking is legendary, so I have been expecting a nerf to this ship since it's 0.9a cost reduction (The low fuel usage, excellent cargo and fuel capacity on top of it's Surveying suite make it very cheap for it's deployment costs).
Having used it as my flagship for a bit, it's still a brick!
System-activated ship engines are no longer affected by low-CR malfunctions
Are they still affected by the engine malfunction chance provided by, say, Ill-Advised Modications?
Good question - double-checked and they shouldn't be.
And I notice that in ship_data.csv Odyssey have no tags, but Legion have "COMBAT, CARRIER", what's the difference between them?
It affects the AI and some other stuff such as fleet doctrines/fleet compositions.
Could you give a little explanation about the effect on AI?
It's a lot of little things. The overall effect should be a "CARRIER,COMBAT" ship being more defensive than a ship without those tags. Also, IIRC, giving them an "Eliminate" order will work differently (the CARRIER,COMBAT won't attempt to close in recklessly), but I could be wrong about that. I'd have to dig through a lot of code to provide a more comprehensive/detailed answer
The good stuff! Very happy about AI cores becoming less rare, raiding changes, hyperspace storm changes, removal of Q/W hotkeys (way too many newcomers got stuck on this), emphasized pather hail, auto navigation not targeting stars anymore. Nerfed growth incentives will make passive bonuses more attractive. Good to see autofit and EW/CM fixes in particular.
Thank you, happy you're liking the changes overall!
Hazard rating was so much of an issue that now it's made not only much weaker, but can also be made 85% redundant (25% from beta, 50% from demand, 10% from industry planning). Maybe 70% redundant if we go for multiplication instead of subtraction.
Reductions are multiplicative, btw, so it's about 34%
The complaint about being unable to buy ships doesn't come from the fact that people were overloaded with hotkeys, but form the fact that they don't use hotkeys at all and used different options to access ship market and commodities market.
There were some cases where the profusion of hotkeys was confusing to people, but as far as being unable to buy ships, the change addressing that is mentioning "buy ships" in the text of the option.
Chaingun is now 600 DPS for 10 OP (albeit only 450 range)?
This is going to look fairly weird (out-DPSing probably three quarters of large weapons). But the actual change to gameplay probably isn't going to be exceptional I guess.
I guess it might, but, yeah, as we both well know, DPS isn't the end-all
If anything, I'm not sure if this is enough to make it useful or not - curious to see how that goes.
Is there any way to work around this? I have a mod faction that lists a couple hulls by name from another mod, which currently is handled in a robust enough way that it just doesn't spawn those ships when the other mod isn't active, and does when they are.
There isn't, no - sorry! This doesn't seem like a good idea, though. If a missing ship ID is present in a faction's "known ships", for example, it's not just your code that has to be robust in handling this, but all of vanilla and every single other mod that might conceivably do something based on what ships a faction knows. It's a "random" crash waiting to happen.
If you want to do this, I think a more robust way to do it would be to manually add those ships (and remove some other ships to compensate?) to whatever fleets you want via a script (say, in a "reportFleetSpawned(CampaignFleetAPI fleet)" method, or in some other way after it spawns.)
I think you could just make the faction not know the hulls by default, and add them to faction's known ships in onNewGame()/onGameLoad() if the other mod is detected?
Oh, right, yeah, that seems like a much better way to go.
BTW: Is it intentional that PirateBaseIntel.affectsMarket() doesn't check if the market is hostile to pirates (unlike various other bits of pirate base and pirate raid logic)?
This has a couple of significant effects:
- Pirate Activity condition is also applied to markets of factions not hostile to pirates
- Pirate base can target a system with no valid raid targets (causing pirate activity), although it won't create the raid intel in that case
Yes, it's absolutely intentional. Otherwise the player is really incentivized to be friendly with pirates. Bounties, bases to destroy, random pirate fleets to fight are all a big part of the game and getting such a bonus from being friendly with pirates would really go against that and basically force the player to avoid fun stuff to be optimal.
So what would the chances of that panning out be? Would a stability 10 colony be mostly safe from Pather attempts at sabotage?
<checks> 50% at stability 10.
Good changes all around. Looking forward to getting back in again. I really hope the colony balancing is effective. With the current version it felt so wonky that I kinda stopped having fun with colonies.
I hope so too - at least in testing, it seems to be a lot better as far as it being a slow-burn progression instead of "plop down everything and roll in credits til the end of time". I'd love to hear your impressions once you've had some time with it!
That's nice so I can give myself a title that is appropriate for my current status. It felt always strange starting as an admiral etc
(Oh, hey, that's a neat use for this.)