Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[fjc130]

Hello there, I dont know if this is planned or not but i think it would be a good idea to make the disabled or destroyed mechanics of combat matter more, the way i see it is, if a ship gets destroyed in battle it shouldn't (or atleast the chance should be small) get recovered, it always felt a bit weird seeing a ship explode into 4 small parts and then i can recover it afterwards with just "Increased Maintenance".

[SafariJohn]

Destroyed ships always get Structural Damage unless they have Reinforced Bulkheads or Rugged Construction IIRC.

I remember Alex saying something to the effect of they are (almost) the same because trying to keep a disabled ship from being destroyed is unfun at best.


I would like to seem some kind of "defeated but not dead" state. Let us recover some of our own ships even when we lose.

[Big Bee]

Oh, I always thought that disabled ships were still possibly recoverable while destroyed ones are just gone. I always assumed that that was how the game decided recoverability, and did try to keep ships from getting blown up more after being disabled...

It feels kind of like an indicator, but I guess it isn't one anymore for gameplay reasons?

[itBeABruhMoment]

Weirdly enough you can get 6 dmods by getting structural damage on a ship with 5 dmods that previously didn't have structural damage. Not sure why it's made so that you get punished if you don't roll structural damage as your first 5 dmods.

[prav]

I think the distinction could just be removed, and ships always get just disabled. It's opaque and doesn't really affect how you play. There's probably some post-battle details that would need adjustment, but again, opaque.

[Zsar]

It would be nice if we at least had the option to make the distinction matter in mods.

E.g. I wanted to build a mod, where the commander of a ship would surely die if it blows up, but probably survive if it is disabled (and Blast Doors would reduce both chances, becoming finally useful)... but right now the API is just not there, because post-battle all destroyed ships are recategorised as disabled.

I had reported the latter as a bug, but alas.

[Alex]

.. but right now the API is just not there, because post-battle all destroyed ships are recategorised as disabled.

I had reported the latter as a bug, but alas.

That doesn't seem like how you'd want to make the distinction anyway, no? That string is at best a secondary effect to base something like this on, not the "proper" API way to do it. Hackery like that is definitely needed sometimes, but framing it as an API issue feels like a bit of a stretch. You *could* do this in several other ways - one you probably wouldn't want to do is implementing a custom FleetInteractionDialogPlugin (because it'd be incompatible with other mods that do this). There, you could get at which ships are destroyed vs disabled using EngagementResultForFleetAPI.getDestroyed() and .getDisabled().

Another option would be to check for the presence of HullMods.COMP_STRUCTURE - if a ship did not have it and then acquired it, it was (very likely) destroyed in a battle. You could make this more reliable by checking that the ship was in fact in a battle etc, and would probably want to store fleet member references using WeakReference, etc (or be otherwise careful about it), but in general this seems like another hacky, but probably workable, approach.

[Zsar]

No, it's true, that is not the best way to receive that information for modding. At the time I reported it, I was simply concerned that it falsified data. It could have been used to this effect though, in absence of more convenient ways.

The optimal solution, I think, would be adding an additional parameter of type EngagementResultForFleetAPI to the method FleetEventListener#reportBattleOccurred, containing the obfuscated object with filled fields backing accessors getDestroyed and getDisabled, as it exists - but is inaccessible - immediately after a battle.

... Err, I think I posted that in the API request thread, but I might have forgotten. ... Argh, checking my posting history, I have indeed forgotten to! Rectifying that now. ~~ Thank you for the heads-up.