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: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Pages: 1 ... 296 297 [298] 299 300 ... 396

Author Topic: [0.97a] Nexerelin v0.11.1b "Clausewitz Protocol" (update 2024-02-11)  (Read 3014017 times)

Theurgist

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: [0.95.1a] Nexerelin v0.10.4b "Dissonance" (hotfix 2022-01-30)
« Reply #4455 on: February 02, 2022, 08:50:32 PM »

Ok, that works, cheers!
It was just really difficult to get this guy close to a planet, they keep deciding to patrol the sector just as they get close to  where I told them to orbit, or when I told them to follow me, and then wait at location. Not set to independant cause they decided to patrol the sector my outpost was in, which happened to be full of [Redacted]. ^^
Logged

Theurgist

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: [0.95.1a] Nexerelin v0.10.4b "Dissonance" (hotfix 2022-01-30)
« Reply #4456 on: February 02, 2022, 10:27:43 PM »

Ahah, back again, I've got an eternal invasion going now. Turn 41, I can't work out how to get back to the battle screen to see wth the troops are doing and fix it, so am now considering just flying off and letting them live there

Edit: Sending another invasion in to help did the trick; in the end we got to turn like 105
« Last Edit: February 02, 2022, 11:01:45 PM by Theurgist »
Logged

Nesano

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: [0.95.1a] Nexerelin v0.10.3i "SpaceLand Battle" (update 2021-12-17)
« Reply #4457 on: February 03, 2022, 04:33:44 PM »

Could you adjust vengeance fleets so that they don't automatically follow you no matter where you are? They "follow your trail," but there doesn't exist a mechanic in the game to allow for that, so they effectively work like that moon ghost from Starbound. It makes for dumb gameplay where you're just moving away from a slow, lumbering fleet that's always moving towards you.

A better way of doing it would be to just have the vengeance fleet patrol the system in search of you, responding to any hostile activity reported and certainly not following you to other systems.
If they only hung around in one system the vengeance fleet would be almost guaranteed to never catch the player.
That said, I'm considering just replacing the normal long-chase vengeance fleets with the mechanic from vanilla missions, where a fleet spawns nearby and tries to jump you (usually in hyperspace) after you did something, and if you evade it you don't have to worry about it again.

I've observed factions having lots of "Task Forces" or "Special Purpose" fleets patroling around objectives and also just outside hyperspace at times, for whatever reason. Making factions churn out more domestic patrol fleets the more you raid their planets would be a much more organic way of going about it. It would also be a more sensible solution than making one slow fleet that ESP tracks the player, considering multiple fleets orbiting around a colony makes it effectively impossible to raid it without first dealing with the fleets.

Also, the vanilla mission mechanic where the fleet just spawns out of the ether isn't a very good way of going about it because, at least with your transponder off, they'd have no way of knowing it's you. Colony defense patrols wouldn't need to be concerned about that, though, because they'd be going after anything that doesn't have a transponder turned on.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2022, 04:36:16 PM by Nesano »
Logged

Kakroom

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
    • View Profile
Re: [0.95.1a] Nexerelin v0.10.4b "Dissonance" (hotfix 2022-01-30)
« Reply #4458 on: February 03, 2022, 04:36:13 PM »

I just want to say how much I appreciate the new ground battle system. It's kind of amazing. Besieging Chicomoztoc with thousands of troops feels as suitably epic and catyclysmic in scale as attacking its Star Fortress.
Logged

float

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 245
    • View Profile
Re: [0.95.1a] Nexerelin v0.10.4b "Dissonance" (hotfix 2022-01-30)
« Reply #4459 on: February 04, 2022, 08:56:32 AM »

Any chance you could update the version checker to optionally allow parsing the tag name from the latest release? The latest release info can be obtained with only the Github username and repo name via the Github API:

Example GET request:
https://api.github.com/repos/qcwxezda/Starsector-Officer-Extension/releases/latest
The tag name can be found under the “tag_name” field, and I believe that most modders will either make their tag names equal to the version number of preface it with a “v” (which Github recommends).

This would be a nice QoL upgrade for modders to not have to manually ensure that their Nexerelin version file is in sync with their Github repo and their mod_info.json.
Logged

MajorTheRed

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 288
    • View Profile
Re: [0.95.1a] Nexerelin v0.10.4b "Dissonance" (hotfix 2022-01-30)
« Reply #4460 on: February 04, 2022, 11:37:38 AM »

Someone asked on Stop Gap Measure topic about removing spawning of Star systems added by the mod. I'm not playing Nexelerin myself (too weak laptop) but if you have any idea how to add a toggle option for spawning of star system to my mod (so it better blends in Nexelerin) I will be pleased to add it (as long as it's not over-complicated). Here is the detail someone post about it:

Quote
Is it possible to add a toggle for the systems added by the Mod? Utic and Byzos still spawn when using nex random sector and it plays hell with the random colonies. More often than not they'll be colonized by two factions at the same time.
Logged

Anexgohan

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: [0.95.1a] Nexerelin v0.10.4b "Dissonance" (hotfix 2022-01-30)
« Reply #4461 on: February 04, 2022, 12:44:42 PM »

Hello,
Is there any way to move my already existing Prism Freeport from Hyperspace to one inside a System, cause the hyperspace lag is killing my months long playthrough.

I managed to delete my already existing Prism from hyper space
using this code:
Code
runcode MarketAPI market = Global.getSector().getEconomy().getMarket("nex_prismFreeport");
Global.getSector().getEconomy().removeMarket(market);
market.getPrimaryEntity().getContainingLocation().removeEntity(market.getPrimaryEntity());

and i can create a new one using this code:
Code
runcode new exerelin.world.ExerelinNewGameSetup().addPrismMarket(Global.getSector(), false);


but the issue is its generating the Prism port in the exact same location in Hyperspace and not in its own System,
Anyone can help me out please


Thanks for this awesome mod.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2022, 12:55:58 PM by Anexgohan »
Logged

Histidine

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4661
    • View Profile
    • GitHub profile
Re: [0.95.1a] Nexerelin v0.10.4b "Dissonance" (hotfix 2022-01-30)
« Reply #4462 on: February 05, 2022, 12:43:59 AM »

Hello,
Is there any way to move my already existing Prism Freeport from Hyperspace to one inside a System, cause the hyperspace lag is killing my months long playthrough.

I managed to delete my already existing Prism from hyper space
using this code:
Code
runcode MarketAPI market = Global.getSector().getEconomy().getMarket("nex_prismFreeport");
Global.getSector().getEconomy().removeMarket(market);
market.getPrimaryEntity().getContainingLocation().removeEntity(market.getPrimaryEntity());

and i can create a new one using this code:
Code
runcode new exerelin.world.ExerelinNewGameSetup().addPrismMarket(Global.getSector(), false);


but the issue is its generating the Prism port in the exact same location in Hyperspace and not in its own System,
Anyone can help me out please
That console command puts Prism in hyperspace. Change the false to true and it'll appear in its nebula, but won't have any officials on the comm directory.
Fastest way to work around that issue would probably be to use the SetMarketOwner console command to take over Prism, dock with it to generate the officials, then give it back to independents.

Someone asked on Stop Gap Measure topic about removing spawning of Star systems added by the mod. I'm not playing Nexelerin myself (too weak laptop) but if you have any idea how to add a toggle option for spawning of star system to my mod (so it better blends in Nexelerin) I will be pleased to add it (as long as it's not over-complicated).
Just have your sector generation code run the following checks before running:
-Is Nex loaded?
-If yes, is Nex in random sector?
Check the FAQ in the OP for a code example.

I've observed factions having lots of "Task Forces" or "Special Purpose" fleets patroling around objectives and also just outside hyperspace at times, for whatever reason. Making factions churn out more domestic patrol fleets the more you raid their planets would be a much more organic way of going about it. It would also be a more sensible solution than making one slow fleet that ESP tracks the player, considering multiple fleets orbiting around a colony makes it effectively impossible to raid it without first dealing with the fleets.

Also, the vanilla mission mechanic where the fleet just spawns out of the ether isn't a very good way of going about it because, at least with your transponder off, they'd have no way of knowing it's you. Colony defense patrols wouldn't need to be concerned about that, though, because they'd be going after anything that doesn't have a transponder turned on.
I don't think spawning an in-system patrol fleet in response to raids is a replacement for vengeance fleets
– although it might be worth adding as its own feature nevertheless, to counteract player repeat raiding.

There's a couple of reasons for this:
- Vengeance fleets are created in response to all hostile player activity (including in hyperspace, or systems with no markets of the target faction), not just raids
- If one system spawns more patrols in response to player activity in the same system, the player just goes elsewhere; all faction systems could spawn more patrols, but that aggravates the annoying thing about NPCs generating fleets from nothing at will.
Logged

gentulf

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Re: [0.95.1a] Nexerelin v0.10.4b "Dissonance" (hotfix 2022-01-30)
« Reply #4463 on: February 05, 2022, 04:02:11 AM »

I have some reservations about the whole "winning" system after the alliance I was commissioned in just won "conquest" by adding another faction as a member ("conquest" should perhaps be called "domination", like in old Civ games where it meant majority of land and population, but I digress).

After that event, which happened too early for me to do many of the things I wanted (didn't even get to finish the story), I had some reflections on the entire diplomacy / winning / 4X situation:
  • Starsector is not and will not work as a proper 4X game - the actual game that is really analogous to it is... Mount & Blade: Warband.
    • Just like in M&B, we are dealing here with a world that is in important ways static (the core) and has always the same factions.
    • Diplomatic interactions shouldn't follow the logic of 4X games but rather the logic of being rather random and maintaining the status quo.
    • The only winning condition should probably be to be in control (together with allies) of all the inhabited planets in the sector. That would already make things better as at least one alliance can't just balloon to the point of meeting some less stringent victory goals.
    • Alternatively, if one really wants this to be, somehow, 4X proper, then the alliance mechanic needs some changes to punish or make it more difficult to have really large alliances.
  • The diplomatic win is redundant - factions that have good relations will join alliances and that will most likely win one of the other conditions first.
  • Apparently you just need to be commissioned by one of the allied factions to be considered a winner - so you don't really have to do anything beyond a certain point.
  • Why is the "economic" victory just the number of heavy industries? So basically you can get an ally or two and just spam those yourself and get this easily...

Overall the winning mechanic feels vacuous, I can't care about these conditions and just have to shrug when it happens - but it still is awkward to play a game that is somehow "won" or "lost".
If one wants more variety of goals for winning then again M&B might provide better inspiration - by taking it from the Prophecy of Pendor mod that not only requires complete conquest but also things like eliminating dangerous parties and maintaining good relations with an important independent group.
I realize too that I'm playing with additional factions but I think these points still stand to some extent and the fact that you can't add a faction without worrying about its impact on diplomacy is still problematic (as factions in this game are not just assemblies of generic traits but have their distinct "personality" that is itself an important value added to the game).
Logged

kaine3d

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: [0.95.1a] Nexerelin v0.10.4b "Dissonance" (hotfix 2022-01-30)
« Reply #4464 on: February 05, 2022, 04:37:39 AM »

can't even seem to launch 10.4 disabled all mods except nex and requirements log here 10.2 works just fine zipped log file to fit. hold that thought i might be an idiot. fiddled with it for 2-3 hours trying to figure out the issue. finally post for help. figure out issue is wrong version of SS. carry on and ignore this post. (double facepalming)

[attachment deleted by admin]
« Last Edit: February 05, 2022, 04:48:05 AM by kaine3d »
Logged

gentulf

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Re: [0.95.1a] Nexerelin v0.10.4b "Dissonance" (hotfix 2022-01-30)
« Reply #4465 on: February 05, 2022, 06:46:34 AM »

A funny thing happened: Tri-Tachyon left the alliance that won the game two months after - maybe one simple solution to improve how win conditions work is to require these conditions to be maintained for some period (a cycle or two). Or require a conjunction of conditions, like population and heavy industry. Both of these changes could be used together.
Logged

ktarn

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: [0.95.1a] Nexerelin v0.10.4b "Dissonance" (hotfix 2022-01-30)
« Reply #4466 on: February 05, 2022, 07:44:45 AM »

Quote
* Add player version of the special task group

I really like this feature, noticed a few bugs with it though.

Told my task force to to patrol my system and followed him around and he kept trying to fly into the sun.

Also, even though I have the independent orders thing toggled off so I can have him orbit my main planet, he will still randomly go off to patrol a planet (often in another system) on his own after a while.

Keep up the great work   ;D
Logged

float

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 245
    • View Profile
Re: [0.95.1a] Nexerelin v0.10.4b "Dissonance" (hotfix 2022-01-30)
« Reply #4467 on: February 05, 2022, 12:07:21 PM »

Possible ConcurrentModificationException in RebellionCondition:

Code
	
@Override
public void apply(String id) {
    if (refetchEventIfNeeded())
market.getStability().modifyFlat(id, -1 * event.getStabilityPenalty(),
    StringHelper.getString("exerelin_marketConditions", "rebellion"));

    if (event == null) /* refetch failed */
market.removeSpecificCondition(this.getModId());
}

If the refetch fails post game load (where the game goes through and reapplies every market condition, see econPostSaveRestore in CoreLifecyclePluginImpl.java), calling market.removeSpecificCondition will cause a ConcurrentModificationException.
Logged

Zadalben

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: [0.95.1a] Nexerelin v0.10.4b "Dissonance" (hotfix 2022-01-30)
« Reply #4468 on: February 05, 2022, 12:48:44 PM »

Anyone know how to fix this problem?

ERROR com.fs.starfarer.combat.CombatMain  - java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: com/fs/starfarer/api/campaign/CustomVisualDialogDelegate
java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: com/fs/starfarer/api/campaign/CustomVisualDialogDelegate
   at java.lang.Class.getDeclaredConstructors0(Native Method)
   at java.lang.Class.privateGetDeclaredConstructors(Unknown Source)
   at java.lang.Class.getConstructor0(Unknown Source)
   at java.lang.Class.newInstance(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.rules.super.getCommandClass(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.rules.super.<init>(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.rules.Rules.o00000(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.loading.SpecStore.public(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.loading.ResourceLoaderState.init(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)
Caused by: java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: com.fs.starfarer.api.campaign.CustomVisualDialogDelegate
   at java.net.URLClassLoader$1.run(Unknown Source)
   at java.net.URLClassLoader$1.run(Unknown Source)
   at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
   at java.net.URLClassLoader.findClass(Unknown Source)
   at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(Unknown Source)
   at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(Unknown Source)
Logged

Histidine

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4661
    • View Profile
    • GitHub profile
Re: [0.95.1a] Nexerelin v0.10.4b "Dissonance" (hotfix 2022-01-30)
« Reply #4469 on: February 05, 2022, 06:47:57 PM »

(forgot to reply to this one previously, whoops)
Any chance you could update the version checker to optionally allow parsing the tag name from the latest release? The latest release info can be obtained with only the Github username and repo name via the Github API:

Example GET request:
https://api.github.com/repos/qcwxezda/Starsector-Officer-Extension/releases/latest
The tag name can be found under the “tag_name” field, and I believe that most modders will either make their tag names equal to the version number of preface it with a “v” (which Github recommends).

This would be a nice QoL upgrade for modders to not have to manually ensure that their Nexerelin version file is in sync with their Github repo and their mod_info.json.
I'll take a look. That said I might well remove Nex's Version Checker once the standalone mod updates anyhow, I'd prefer to not maintain someone else's mod inside my own.

Anyone know how to fix this problem?

ERROR com.fs.starfarer.combat.CombatMain  - java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: com/fs/starfarer/api/campaign/CustomVisualDialogDelegate
java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: com/fs/starfarer/api/campaign/CustomVisualDialogDelegate
   at java.lang.Class.getDeclaredConstructors0(Native Method)
   at java.lang.Class.privateGetDeclaredConstructors(Unknown Source)
   at java.lang.Class.getConstructor0(Unknown Source)
   at java.lang.Class.newInstance(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.rules.super.getCommandClass(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.rules.super.<init>(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.rules.Rules.o00000(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.loading.SpecStore.public(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.loading.ResourceLoaderState.init(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)
Caused by: java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: com.fs.starfarer.api.campaign.CustomVisualDialogDelegate
   at java.net.URLClassLoader$1.run(Unknown Source)
   at java.net.URLClassLoader$1.run(Unknown Source)
   at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
   at java.net.URLClassLoader.findClass(Unknown Source)
   at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(Unknown Source)
   at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(Unknown Source)
Nexerelin 0.10.3i and later require Starsector 0.95.1a. Update your Starsector, or go back to the older Nex version.

Possible ConcurrentModificationException in RebellionCondition:

Code
	
@Override
public void apply(String id) {
    if (refetchEventIfNeeded())
market.getStability().modifyFlat(id, -1 * event.getStabilityPenalty(),
    StringHelper.getString("exerelin_marketConditions", "rebellion"));

    if (event == null) /* refetch failed */
market.removeSpecificCondition(this.getModId());
}

If the refetch fails post game load (where the game goes through and reapplies every market condition, see econPostSaveRestore in CoreLifecyclePluginImpl.java), calling market.removeSpecificCondition will cause a ConcurrentModificationException.
Thanks for the find, I'll try making it not remove the condition. Although I'll need to test first; worried about 'zombie' market conditions.

I have some reservations about the whole "winning" system after the alliance I was commissioned in just won "conquest" by adding another faction as a member ("conquest" should perhaps be called "domination", like in old Civ games where it meant majority of land and population, but I digress).

After that event, which happened too early for me to do many of the things I wanted (didn't even get to finish the story), I had some reflections on the entire diplomacy / winning / 4X situation:
  • Starsector is not and will not work as a proper 4X game - the actual game that is really analogous to it is... Mount & Blade: Warband.
    • Just like in M&B, we are dealing here with a world that is in important ways static (the core) and has always the same factions.
    • Diplomatic interactions shouldn't follow the logic of 4X games but rather the logic of being rather random and maintaining the status quo.
    • The only winning condition should probably be to be in control (together with allies) of all the inhabited planets in the sector. That would already make things better as at least one alliance can't just balloon to the point of meeting some less stringent victory goals.
    • Alternatively, if one really wants this to be, somehow, 4X proper, then the alliance mechanic needs some changes to punish or make it more difficult to have really large alliances.
  • The diplomatic win is redundant - factions that have good relations will join alliances and that will most likely win one of the other conditions first.
  • Apparently you just need to be commissioned by one of the allied factions to be considered a winner - so you don't really have to do anything beyond a certain point.
  • Why is the "economic" victory just the number of heavy industries? So basically you can get an ally or two and just spam those yourself and get this easily...

Overall the winning mechanic feels vacuous, I can't care about these conditions and just have to shrug when it happens - but it still is awkward to play a game that is somehow "won" or "lost".
If one wants more variety of goals for winning then again M&B might provide better inspiration - by taking it from the Prophecy of Pendor mod that not only requires complete conquest but also things like eliminating dangerous parties and maintaining good relations with an important independent group.
I realize too that I'm playing with additional factions but I think these points still stand to some extent and the fact that you can't add a faction without worrying about its impact on diplomacy is still problematic (as factions in this game are not just assemblies of generic traits but have their distinct "personality" that is itself an important value added to the game).
Thanks for the thoughts! I still need to figure out how exactly I'd change this stuff though, maybe later.
(The idea in the other post about having to maintain the win condition for some time might be good, at least)

Some background info and random thoughts:

- Originally the conquest victory required eliminating every other victory-eligible faction. This took way too long even in vanilla, much less modded games, and it was always faster to do the diplomatic victory if you really want the endgame screen. So it became the majority-population and two-thirds heavy industry rules.
-- The intent of having the two different requirements was to create different strategies: snap a lot of enemy small planets, or punch out the core worlds with HI? Although I hadn't considered the "spam your own heavy industry" exploit.

- For the player I'd still expect a diplomatic victory to be preferable to conquest, with allies or otherwise, unless you're already associated with the biggest boys like the Hegemony and/or League. You can just throw a bunch of prisoners, AI cores and operatives at factions to get friendly with them (and kill off any small, recalcitrant factions). The main contribution of being in an alliance is to get dragged into random wars and otherwise incur increased risks of negative diplomacy events (the diplomacy 'disposition' calculation treats alliance members as having the size of the full alliance when calculating the dominance penalty, and this applies to intra-alliance relations too).

- Thinking about it a bit more, a problem with the diplomatic victory for NPC factions is that they don't try to win it at all. (They don't specifically try to win a conquest victory either, but tend towards it 'on their own' as territory gets taken during wars).

- All things considered, I'm vaguely thinking of (adding a setting to) remove all victory conditions completely, and let the player measure their own success. Don't a couple of Paradox games do this?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 296 297 [298] 299 300 ... 396