Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Planet Search Overhaul (07/13/24)

Pages: 1 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 76

Author Topic: [0.97a] Realistic Combat 2.0.6  (Read 331903 times)

DrBorg

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: [0.95.1a] Realistic Combat 1.22.1
« Reply #570 on: October 02, 2022, 12:29:43 PM »

Pared down my mod list to just Realistic Combat 1.22.1, GraphicsLib 1.6.1, MagicLib 0.42.1, LazyLib 2.7b, Content Unlocking Missions 1.12 and SpeedUp 0.7.2...

Ooh, I tried it with just Realistic Combat 1.22.1 and Content Unlocking Missions 1.12.  Did you use SpeedUp during the mission?

Quote
Also deleted the entire \saves\missions folder and sub-folders (where all saved mission .variant(s) are stored, so stock loadouts; same changes to Radar.json and Toggles.json.

Still got the exact same CTD, though at different points throughout the battle (the CTD won't happen right away); disabling Realistic Combat allows Hornet's Nest to be completed.

Ok, so it's consistent.  I might have to push a hotfix that will crash more-informatively.

I think I'm having similar issues. Game crashing and throwing up the error about fatal null exception. I thought it was mods conflicting but after reading this section. I disabled all mods to just only realistic combat enabled and tried to play the missions, the second mission or so involving more ships seems to throw more chance to crash the game. Not only that issue, in my modded campaign gameplay getting into any kind of battles will crash. Since I been playing with realistic combat mod before the hot-fix to resolve the allies spamming, there was no crashing null pointer like that. I did not modify the realistic combat as all settings are default out of the box, except the part that enable this mod to run.

I assume this is relevant section of starsector log before the crash. not much difference from other report except that last says unknown.

72120 [Thread-9] INFO  sound.public  - Creating streaming player for music with id [miscallenous_main_menu.ogg]
72121 [Thread-9] INFO  sound.OooO  - Playing music with id [miscallenous_main_menu.ogg]
80709 [Thread-7] INFO  sound.public  - Cleaning up music with id [miscallenous_main_menu.ogg]
81129 [Thread-9] INFO  sound.public  - Creating streaming player for music with id [battle_ambience_01.ogg]
81130 [Thread-9] INFO  sound.OooO  - Playing music with id [battle_ambience_01.ogg]
102994 [Thread-7] INFO  sound.public  - Cleaning up music with id [battle_ambience_01.ogg]
103154 [Thread-9] INFO  sound.public  - Creating streaming player for music with id [miscallenous_main_menu.ogg]
103155 [Thread-9] INFO  sound.OooO  - Playing music with id [miscallenous_main_menu.ogg]
106312 [Thread-7] INFO  sound.public  - Cleaning up music with id [miscallenous_main_menu.ogg]
106657 [Thread-9] INFO  sound.public  - Creating streaming player for music with id [battle_ambience_01.ogg]
106658 [Thread-9] INFO  sound.OooO  - Playing music with id [battle_ambience_01.ogg]
115064 [Thread-7] INFO  sound.public  - Cleaning up music with id [battle_ambience_01.ogg]
115167 [Thread-9] INFO  sound.public  - Creating streaming player for music with id [battle_ambience_01.ogg]
115168 [Thread-9] INFO  sound.OooO  - Playing music with id [battle_ambience_01.ogg]
115211 [Thread-3] ERROR com.fs.starfarer.combat.CombatMain  - java.lang.NullPointerException
java.lang.NullPointerException
   at listeners.Retreat.advance(Retreat.java:114)
   at com.fs.starfarer.combat.entities.Ship.advance(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.combat.CombatEngine.advanceInner(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.combat.CombatEngine.advance(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.combat.CombatState.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(Unknown Source)

Uh-oh...


I have realized that you weren't having issues, I assume I nabbed the new hotfix too soon. After a fresh install of the mod, the crash issue stopped showing up at all when playing vanilla with Realistic combat on. So I went on to test it with all mods on for the gameplay, played few mission did not cause the same crash so I continued on the campaign to destroy the cabal that has been bothering me before with consistent crashes.

I'm sorry to make you worry, back to the point. I resolved it with just new install of the mod. Or that I took the hotfixed mod soon before you did any last minute fixes. But I will let you know if that issue will pop up again.
Logged

Liral

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 725
  • Realistic Combat Mod Author
    • View Profile
Re: [0.95.1a] Realistic Combat 1.22.1
« Reply #571 on: October 02, 2022, 12:31:31 PM »

Pared down my mod list to just Realistic Combat 1.22.1, GraphicsLib 1.6.1, MagicLib 0.42.1, LazyLib 2.7b, Content Unlocking Missions 1.12 and SpeedUp 0.7.2...

Ooh, I tried it with just Realistic Combat 1.22.1 and Content Unlocking Missions 1.12.  Did you use SpeedUp during the mission?

Quote
Also deleted the entire \saves\missions folder and sub-folders (where all saved mission .variant(s) are stored, so stock loadouts; same changes to Radar.json and Toggles.json.

Still got the exact same CTD, though at different points throughout the battle (the CTD won't happen right away); disabling Realistic Combat allows Hornet's Nest to be completed.

Ok, so it's consistent.  I might have to push a hotfix that will crash more-informatively.

I think I'm having similar issues. Game crashing and throwing up the error about fatal null exception. I thought it was mods conflicting but after reading this section. I disabled all mods to just only realistic combat enabled and tried to play the missions, the second mission or so involving more ships seems to throw more chance to crash the game. Not only that issue, in my modded campaign gameplay getting into any kind of battles will crash. Since I been playing with realistic combat mod before the hot-fix to resolve the allies spamming, there was no crashing null pointer like that. I did not modify the realistic combat as all settings are default out of the box, except the part that enable this mod to run.

I assume this is relevant section of starsector log before the crash. not much difference from other report except that last says unknown.

72120 [Thread-9] INFO  sound.public  - Creating streaming player for music with id [miscallenous_main_menu.ogg]
72121 [Thread-9] INFO  sound.OooO  - Playing music with id [miscallenous_main_menu.ogg]
80709 [Thread-7] INFO  sound.public  - Cleaning up music with id [miscallenous_main_menu.ogg]
81129 [Thread-9] INFO  sound.public  - Creating streaming player for music with id [battle_ambience_01.ogg]
81130 [Thread-9] INFO  sound.OooO  - Playing music with id [battle_ambience_01.ogg]
102994 [Thread-7] INFO  sound.public  - Cleaning up music with id [battle_ambience_01.ogg]
103154 [Thread-9] INFO  sound.public  - Creating streaming player for music with id [miscallenous_main_menu.ogg]
103155 [Thread-9] INFO  sound.OooO  - Playing music with id [miscallenous_main_menu.ogg]
106312 [Thread-7] INFO  sound.public  - Cleaning up music with id [miscallenous_main_menu.ogg]
106657 [Thread-9] INFO  sound.public  - Creating streaming player for music with id [battle_ambience_01.ogg]
106658 [Thread-9] INFO  sound.OooO  - Playing music with id [battle_ambience_01.ogg]
115064 [Thread-7] INFO  sound.public  - Cleaning up music with id [battle_ambience_01.ogg]
115167 [Thread-9] INFO  sound.public  - Creating streaming player for music with id [battle_ambience_01.ogg]
115168 [Thread-9] INFO  sound.OooO  - Playing music with id [battle_ambience_01.ogg]
115211 [Thread-3] ERROR com.fs.starfarer.combat.CombatMain  - java.lang.NullPointerException
java.lang.NullPointerException
   at listeners.Retreat.advance(Retreat.java:114)
   at com.fs.starfarer.combat.entities.Ship.advance(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.combat.CombatEngine.advanceInner(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.combat.CombatEngine.advance(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.combat.CombatState.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(Unknown Source)

Uh-oh...


I have realized that you weren't having issues, I assume I nabbed the new hotfix too soon. After a fresh install of the mod, the crash issue stopped showing up at all when playing vanilla with Realistic combat on. So I went on to test it with all mods on for the gameplay, played few mission did not cause the same crash so I continued on the campaign to destroy the cabal that has been bothering me before with consistent crashes.

I'm sorry to make you worry, back to the point. I resolved it with just new install of the mod. Or that I took the hotfixed mod soon before you did any last minute fixes. But I will let you know if that issue will pop up again.

Whew!  Maybe just redownload, luddites and lobsters. :D

TimeDiver

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 390
    • View Profile
Re: [0.95.1a] Realistic Combat 1.22.1
« Reply #572 on: October 02, 2022, 12:47:44 PM »

I have realized that you weren't having issues, I assume I nabbed the new hotfix too soon. After a fresh install of the mod, the crash issue stopped showing up at all when playing vanilla with Realistic combat on. So I went on to test it with all mods on for the gameplay, played few mission did not cause the same crash so I continued on the campaign to destroy the cabal that has been bothering me before with consistent crashes.

I'm sorry to make you worry, back to the point. I resolved it with just new install of the mod. Or that I took the hotfixed mod soon before you did any last minute fixes. But I will let you know if that issue will pop up again.

Whew!  Maybe just redownload, luddites and lobsters. :D
That makes two of us; re-downloaded 1.22.1, saw the .jar file had a modified date several hours newer than the one I had, replaced it with newer one... no more CTDs, even with my somewhat-heavy mods folder (>70 folders, but many are QoL and/or utility-type mods).
Logged

Liral

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 725
  • Realistic Combat Mod Author
    • View Profile
Re: [0.95.1a] Realistic Combat 1.22.1
« Reply #573 on: October 02, 2022, 01:45:48 PM »

That makes two of us; re-downloaded 1.22.1, saw the .jar file had a modified date several hours newer than the one I had, replaced it with newer one... no more CTDs, even with my somewhat-heavy mods folder (>70 folders, but many are QoL and/or utility-type mods).

I had figured you all had the version with the last-minute fixes I had made.  :-[

Liral

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 725
  • Realistic Combat Mod Author
    • View Profile
Re: [0.95.1a] Realistic Combat 1.22.2
« Reply #574 on: October 05, 2022, 10:07:22 PM »

Hotfix 1.22.2 is out!  Fixed missile flaming out out too early.

ThiccChungus

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: [0.95.1a] Realistic Combat 1.22.2
« Reply #575 on: October 07, 2022, 05:40:19 PM »

Hello, I'm sorry I'm bothering you again, but which file is the fighter weapon range multiplier stat in? I'm still somewhat new to starsector modding so forgive me if its a stupid question.
Logged

ThiccChungus

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: [0.95.1a] Realistic Combat 1.22.2
« Reply #576 on: October 07, 2022, 05:44:50 PM »

Hello, I'm sorry I'm bothering you again, but which file is the fighter weapon range multiplier stat in? I'm still somewhat new to starsector modding so forgive me if its a stupid question.

Found it. For those who were in a similar situation to me its in the ThreeDimensionalTargeting.json file in RealisticCombat/data/config
Logged

Liral

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 725
  • Realistic Combat Mod Author
    • View Profile
Re: [0.95.1a] Realistic Combat 1.22.2
« Reply #577 on: October 07, 2022, 07:49:43 PM »

Hello, I'm sorry I'm bothering you again, but which file is the fighter weapon range multiplier stat in? I'm still somewhat new to starsector modding so forgive me if its a stupid question.

Found it. For those who were in a similar situation to me its in the ThreeDimensionalTargeting.json file in RealisticCombat/data/config

I'm happy to be bothered and glad you're posting to the thread!  Good on you for finding the answer to your question.

Gameciel

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: [0.95.1a] Realistic Combat 1.22.2
« Reply #578 on: October 08, 2022, 05:45:28 AM »

Hotfix 1.22.2 is out!  Fixed missile flaming out out too early.
Cheers! Now TORPEDOES!  8)
Logged

Liral

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 725
  • Realistic Combat Mod Author
    • View Profile
Re: [0.95.1a] Realistic Combat 1.22.2
« Reply #579 on: October 08, 2022, 07:13:14 AM »

Hotfix 1.22.2 is out!  Fixed missile flaming out out too early.
Cheers! Now TORPEDOES!  8)

Yay!  Thank you! :D

Shibdib

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: [0.95.1a] Realistic Combat 1.22.2
« Reply #580 on: October 10, 2022, 04:35:46 PM »

Gave this a go and it's really interesting. Definitely completely changes combat.

That being said it seems badly balanced for the game as a whole. Fights are extremely quick now (basically removing any kind of input from the player). Ships seem to be much more susceptible to exploding with little to no time for you to react by issuing them orders. This would work great if the game wasn't balanced around making individual ships and keeping them alive very important (until you're the end game boss with stupid money).

Station attacks seem to be borderline impossible for the AI to figure out, I haven't attempted one of my own but have watched some very nice fleets get spanked by a lud station (both as a 3rd party and on the campaign map).

Super interesting mod but it just doesn't jive outside of the fights imo.
Logged

Liral

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 725
  • Realistic Combat Mod Author
    • View Profile
Re: [0.95.1a] Realistic Combat 1.22.2
« Reply #581 on: October 10, 2022, 07:35:58 PM »

Gave this a go and it's really interesting. Definitely completely changes combat.

Thanks!  I'm glad you've tried and found it interesting.

Quote
That being said it seems badly balanced for the game as a whole. Fights are extremely quick now (basically removing any kind of input from the player). Ships seem to be much more susceptible to exploding with little to no time for you to react by issuing them orders. This would work great if the game wasn't balanced around making individual ships and keeping them alive very important (until you're the end game boss with stupid money).

Other people have said as much, and I think about this problem while play-testing.  I intend for firepower to compete against protection and thereby determine damage.  If firepower loses even slightly, damage shall be absent; if it wins slightly or somewhat, damage shall be manageably slow and small; if it wins greatly, damage shall be devastatingly sudden and great.  I have found that any ship 'in contact' might be suddenly destroyed, and that I must watch the radar and tactical screen for ones nearing uncertain fights and then withdraw them while massing ships elsewhere to overwhelm and obliterate the enemy piecemeal.  My experience of such combat is tense, nervous, uncomfortable vigilance punctuated by the relief of destroying an enemy ship or anguish of losing a friendly one--quite unlike the vanilla one of giving occasional orders while piloting a flagship in close, spectacular combat--and thereby indeed realistic.

I still want player-pilots to enjoy the mod to allow and therefore need your ideas: lower high-end damage, warning sirens, etc.?   I encourage you to play with the well-documented data/config files and see what makes it playable for you.

Quote
Station attacks seem to be borderline impossible for the AI to figure out, I haven't attempted one of my own but have watched some very nice fleets get spanked by a lud station (both as a 3rd party and on the campaign map).

See the FAQ: the AI is indeed the problem.  I have asked Alex, and he said that he might fix it next patch but "no promises". :(

Quote
Super interesting mod but it just doesn't jive outside of the fights imo.

I wanna make it better but don't quite know how.  Please help!

Gameciel

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: [0.95.1a] Realistic Combat 1.22.2
« Reply #582 on: October 11, 2022, 02:46:32 PM »

Had a couple of tries. Here's feedback.

UI stuff:

1. "100% Armor penetration.
     100% Hull and Structures Damage. (no hard flux)"
     For energy beam weapon, this sentence pops out of text box which is eh :o. And it didn't mention shield absorbtion.
     So it could be:
    "100% Armor penetration.
     100% Hull and Structures damage.
     100% Shield damage. (no hard flux)"

2. Hovering on some tooltips like "Armor" on topright of ship modification page, it still says max 85% min 5% stuff that needs a change.

3. Seems you changed Integrated Targeting Unit to realistic targeting, which is nice but I didn't see much difference (though I aim manually quite often).

4. Hullmods like Advanced Targeting Unit on Paragon is still range extension which is wierd.

5. Advanced Optics only increase range of 200, which is like 2% over 10000, nope :(.

6. And Scatter Emitter is not working (blank). Maybe this is ongoing work? I think reducing range is actually fine, as it says, tunes frequency range so it behaves more "particle" rather than "wave" and deals hard flux. So to say this shouldn't decay (at least not too much) over range. But, since it's still instant, cut range in half (5000) is pretty fair.

Mechanism stuff:

1. AI is subpar. Try assign "Harass" or even "Rally", or any command with cautious or even timid. Toolstip says commanders should control ship according to enemy & self weapon range. Seems like AI is still following the vanilla range. Also, phase ship commanders still try to sub & float behind enemy for a "backstab" which fails completely. Phase ship AI prob needs a redo. They should now be real submarines, not phase-ninjas. Their AI should submerge as long as possible (at least in an intermediate range, doesn't matter whether being attacked). For firing, it's getting just about into range, float, fire and quickly submerge. For venting, it's getting out of range asap, float, vent and quickly submerge. I wonder if there could be a cooldown for both submerging and floating which extends the weakness window (and maybe 2x longer), then reduce the flux generation of phasing to balance out AI behavior.

[Modify: Just come up with another idea, if sub & float both have cooldown, then overloading is possible (Subs out of oxygen that needs to float), which is good fun for tactics.]

2. 200% For penetration is probably too high for Kinetic, or 50% and 12% being too low for HE and Frag, either way.
For example: Take shield in account and use energy (bolt) as a reference 100%/100%/100%, Kinetic is 200%/50%/?%.
  My personal expectation is:
    Kinetic 200%/50% /100%;
    HE       75% /125%/125%;
    Energy 100%/100%/100%;
    Frag     15% /100%/25%;
  Beam, just add (no hard flux), and decay with range, I think it's quite fair.
  The reason HE needs scale up, since Kinetic penetrates too good and it still has some high damage one shot bolt weapon. Like Hypervelocity Drive etc., they can take down heavy targets with mid-slots alone. Then what's Gauss Cannon for? Also, many HEs are fast small bolts that won't penetrate heavy armor at all. Then they can only deal with small crafts. HEs both mid- & small- slots are all for the same role  :-\ ? Why not making mid-slot HE & K deals similar damage to heavy armor?
  Then shield scaling on HE, it's for balancing maximum Kinetic damage. HE is GOTTA be good to penetrate something, or it's dealing ZERO below corresponding kinetic threshold and the only HE left is hellbore. Cuz no HE below that threshold is irreplacable by a Kinetic. But if it presses harder on shields then there are trade-offs.
  Frags are mainly for low flux PDs or some crazy damage low flux cryoblasters, so 12% (id say 15%) sounds fair, not much to say.

Still, overall a nice mod :) . Cheers.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2022, 03:15:23 PM by Gameciel »
Logged

Liral

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 725
  • Realistic Combat Mod Author
    • View Profile
Re: [0.95.1a] Realistic Combat 1.22.2
« Reply #583 on: October 11, 2022, 07:18:48 PM »

Had a couple of tries. Here's feedback.

UI stuff:

1. "100% Armor penetration.
     100% Hull and Structures Damage. (no hard flux)"
     For energy beam weapon, this sentence pops out of text box which is eh :o. And it didn't mention shield absorbtion.
     So it could be:
    "100% Armor penetration.
     100% Hull and Structures damage.
     100% Shield damage. (no hard flux)"

Where does this appear?

Quote
2. Hovering on some tooltips like "Armor" on topright of ship modification page, it still says max 85% min 5% stuff that needs a change.

I didn't even know that had a tooltip--thanks!  I'll ask Alex about it because I can't find it in the exposed or obfuscated code.

Quote
3. Seems you changed Integrated Targeting Unit to realistic targeting, which is nice but I didn't see much difference (though I aim manually quite often).

Huh, maybe I should increase the effect.

Quote
4. Hullmods like Advanced Targeting Unit on Paragon is still range extension which is wierd.

Uh-oh.

Quote
5. Advanced Optics only increase range of 200, which is like 2% over 10000, nope :(.

Huh, looks like another feature to add.

Quote
6. And Scatter Emitter is not working (blank). Maybe this is ongoing work? I think reducing range is actually fine, as it says, tunes frequency range so it behaves more "particle" rather than "wave" and deals hard flux. So to say this shouldn't decay (at least not too much) over range. But, since it's still instant, cut range in half (5000) is pretty fair.

Did you mean High Scatter Amplifier?  Oh, shoot, I guess I hadn't fixed it.  Thanks!

Quote
Mechanism stuff:

1. AI is subpar. Try assign "Harass" or even "Rally", or any command with cautious or even timid.

I don't understand: would you please elaborate?

Quote
Toolstip says commanders should control ship according to enemy & self weapon range. Seems like AI is still following the vanilla range.

Is this issue the same one as the above?  Regardless, that's not good.  Can you tell me more?

Quote
Also, phase ship commanders still try to sub & float behind enemy for a "backstab" which fails completely. Phase ship AI prob needs a redo. They should now be real submarines, not phase-ninjas. Their AI should submerge as long as possible (at least in an intermediate range, doesn't matter whether being attacked). For firing, it's getting just about into range, float, fire and quickly submerge. For venting, it's getting out of range asap, float, vent and quickly submerge. I wonder if there could be a cooldown for both submerging and floating which extends the weakness window (and maybe 2x longer), then reduce the flux generation of phasing to balance out AI behavior.

[Modify: Just come up with another idea, if sub & float both have cooldown, then overloading is possible (Subs out of oxygen that needs to float), which is good fun for tactics.]

Redoing the phase AI seems quite difficult.  What if I just dropped the phase cloak cost even more?

Quote
2. 200% For penetration is probably too high for Kinetic, or 50% and 12% being too low for HE and Frag, either way.

You might be onto something: I have now more-closely reviewed what information I can find about the relative effective thickness of modern composite armor against long-rod (Kinetic) and explosive-formed (High Explosive) penetrators and found the latter to be 50-100% greater than the former.  A .5  effective thickness factor against long-rod penetrators is not compatible with a 1.5 effective thickness factor for explosive-formed penetrators.  I will change the factors to be .67 and 1.33 in the next version.

Quote
For example: Take shield in account and use energy (bolt) as a reference 100%/100%/100%, Kinetic is 200%/50%/?%.
  My personal expectation is:
    Kinetic 200%/50% /100%;
    HE       75% /125%/125%;
    Energy 100%/100%/100%;
    Frag     15% /100%/25%;
  Beam, just add (no hard flux), and decay with range, I think it's quite fair.


TypeShieldThicknessDamage
Kinetic20.670.5
High Explosive0.51.331.5
Fragmentation0.2582
Energy111

Quote
  The reason HE needs scale up, since Kinetic penetrates too good and it still has some high damage one shot bolt weapon. Like Hypervelocity Drive etc., they can take down heavy targets with mid-slots alone. Then what's Gauss Cannon for? Also, many HEs are fast small bolts that won't penetrate heavy armor at all. Then they can only deal with small crafts. HEs both mid- & small- slots are all for the same role  :-\ ? Why not making mid-slot HE & K deals similar damage to heavy armor?
  Then shield scaling on HE, it's for balancing maximum Kinetic damage. HE is GOTTA be good to penetrate something, or it's dealing ZERO below corresponding kinetic threshold and the only HE left is hellbore. Cuz no HE below that threshold is irreplacable by a Kinetic. But if it presses harder on shields then there are trade-offs.
  Frags are mainly for low flux PDs or some crazy damage low flux cryoblasters, so 12% (id say 15%) sounds fair, not much to say.

You make good points that I have heard before and worried about, and I hope that the above table looks better!  It improves effective thickness against long-rod penetrators and reduces it against explosive-formed ones.

Quote
Still, overall a nice mod :) . Cheers.

Awwwwwwwww, thanks so much!  I'm glad you like it.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2022, 07:22:27 PM by Liral »
Logged

Gameciel

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: [0.95.1a] Realistic Combat 1.22.2
« Reply #584 on: October 11, 2022, 10:16:25 PM »

Had a couple of tries. Here's feedback.

UI stuff:

1. "100% Armor penetration.
     100% Hull and Structures Damage. (no hard flux)"
     For energy beam weapon, this sentence pops out of text box which is eh :o. And it didn't mention shield absorbtion.
     So it could be:
    "100% Armor penetration.
     100% Hull and Structures damage.
     100% Shield damage. (no hard flux)"

Where does this appear?

The tooltip hovering on top of weapons.

Quote
Quote
Mechanism stuff:

1. AI is subpar. Try assign "Harass" or even "Rally", or any command with cautious or even timid.

I don't understand: would you please elaborate?

Quote
Toolstip says commanders should control ship according to enemy & self weapon range. Seems like AI is still following the vanilla range.

Is this issue the same one as the above?  Regardless, that's not good.  Can you tell me more?

Yh same one as above, assigning Harass or Avoid will still make ships engage very very aggresively. They tend to behave same and keep same distance as vanilla which is suicidal ???.

Quote
Quote
Also, phase ship commanders still try to sub & float behind enemy for a "backstab" which fails completely. Phase ship AI prob needs a redo. They should now be real submarines, not phase-ninjas. Their AI should submerge as long as possible (at least in an intermediate range, doesn't matter whether being attacked). For firing, it's getting just about into range, float, fire and quickly submerge. For venting, it's getting out of range asap, float, vent and quickly submerge. I wonder if there could be a cooldown for both submerging and floating which extends the weakness window (and maybe 2x longer), then reduce the flux generation of phasing to balance out AI behavior.

[Modify: Just come up with another idea, if sub & float both have cooldown, then overloading is possible (Subs out of oxygen that needs to float), which is good fun for tactics.]

Redoing the phase AI seems quite difficult.  What if I just dropped the phase cloak cost even more?

Don't know :). But as phase ships keep trying to submerge through and float behind (very close to target), they're keep blowing up :P. I'd say distancing must be a value somewhere. This is critical than generic cost or behavior (cuz enlarging distance by 10x could just stop them from advancing).

Quote
Quote
2. 200% For penetration is probably too high for Kinetic, or 50% and 12% being too low for HE and Frag, either way.

You might be onto something: I have now more-closely reviewed what information I can find about the relative effective thickness of modern composite armor against long-rod (Kinetic) and explosive-formed (High Explosive) penetrators and found the latter to be 50-100% greater than the former.  A .5  effective thickness factor against long-rod penetrators is not compatible with a 1.5 effective thickness factor for explosive-formed penetrators.  I will change the factors to be .67 and 1.33 in the next version.

Quote
For example: Take shield in account and use energy (bolt) as a reference 100%/100%/100%, Kinetic is 200%/50%/?%.
  My personal expectation is:
    Kinetic 200%/50% /100%;
    HE       75% /125%/125%;
    Energy 100%/100%/100%;
    Frag     15% /100%/25%;
  Beam, just add (no hard flux), and decay with range, I think it's quite fair.

TypeShieldThicknessDamage
Kinetic20.670.5
High Explosive0.51.331.5
Fragmentation0.2582
Energy111


Shield Thickness Damage? Or you actually meant Thickness Damage Shield? Also 8x seems too high for frags, the nature of frag weapons are just very low flux/damage. So multiplyer larger than 1x is a bit risky.

And yes there are APC APBC APCBC HEAT HEATFS, long rod and depleted uranium long rod penetrators etc. etc., so many types of modern ammo. A scalar is not covering them. Sometimes "kinetic" and sometimes "HE" penetrates more, depends on armor TYPE. The fact is most of'em deals acceptable interior damage.

For this I was thinking, is it possible to switch multiplyer based on ship class? Hightech ships, they use more composite armor, which SHOULD be a combination between intelligent reactive armor and a thiner plain thickness, which makes'em much stronger against HE types but weak to kinetic. Low tech ships, they SHOULD be a lot thicker plain armor and low intelligent reactive armor, which is very strong against kinetic, but HEs can inject through. Midlines, 50-50. Sounds like a single factor could do, calling it "Reactive Armor Weighting" factor? Remnants are 0.85? Hightech ships are 0.7? Lowtech ships 0.3? Midlines and other mods just 0.5. Or effectively a separate damage table above, for each series of ship.

Quote
Quote
  The reason HE needs scale up, since Kinetic penetrates too good and it still has some high damage one shot bolt weapon. Like Hypervelocity Drive etc., they can take down heavy targets with mid-slots alone. Then what's Gauss Cannon for? Also, many HEs are fast small bolts that won't penetrate heavy armor at all. Then they can only deal with small crafts. HEs both mid- & small- slots are all for the same role  :-\ ? Why not making mid-slot HE & K deals similar damage to heavy armor?
  Then shield scaling on HE, it's for balancing maximum Kinetic damage. HE is GOTTA be good to penetrate something, or it's dealing ZERO below corresponding kinetic threshold and the only HE left is hellbore. Cuz no HE below that threshold is irreplacable by a Kinetic. But if it presses harder on shields then there are trade-offs.
  Frags are mainly for low flux PDs or some crazy damage low flux cryoblasters, so 12% (id say 15%) sounds fair, not much to say.

You make good points that I have heard before and worried about, and I hope that the above table looks better!  It improves effective thickness against long-rod penetrators and reduces it against explosive-formed ones.

Quote
Still, overall a nice mod :) . Cheers.

Awwwwwwwww, thanks so much!  I'm glad you like it.

Cheers  8).
« Last Edit: October 11, 2022, 10:39:52 PM by Gameciel »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 76