TobiWahn_Ke...

TobiWahn,

I'd be leary of over linking the techs to each other. I'm still interested to see the corrected links from the last build. Especially vexing is having to research all parts of a multi step tech before being able to move on. In the case of EA the complete vertical linkage is also a pain. I wholeheatedly support the horizontal linkage along the timeline techs but don't much care for the degree of linkage in the 0.422 build. That said it is an incremental process and the forcing function is partly for the AI.

Agree with all other observations.

1) To the extent we know we can correct balance we should (carrier AM beam length you've alread corrected, note sure what else is ready),

2) Agree,

3) Agree,

4) I'm willing to hold off on this to fund time for 1-3 and to allow for more indepth time in the DB,

5) To the extent sure, but otherwise the cubes and SoaSE placeholders work for me.

On a change of subject we really need a 2D artist for the numerous buttons and icons. Honestly the UI is huge, the visual interface is a critical component to displaying the data. Also, the information in the string files is aging but that is a very low priority and will require near continous adjustment anyway as things are added and tweaked.

Darvroth

As long as you're find with cleaning up green backgrounds (Photoshop is really good for this), one can make unit pictures, for use in UI elements, using Sins alone. You don't need a whole artist for that. I'd be happy to expand on this more when I get the time, if you'd like.

Lava_2,

Your help would be most appreciated! If I had to prioritize it would have to be tech icons for the steady state effort and ability icons when the abilities are added. I'd love to do the abilities first, but they haven't all be thought of let alone implemented yet... TobiWahn may have a better prioritized list.

TobiWahn,

Vertical breaks in the tech tree are definitely needed and researching the first of a multi part tech should satisfy in every case. Some vertical linkage makes perfect sense, but more than three such links in a row really steals from player choice.

Darvroth

Much appreciated.

TobiWahn,

Researching what might be needed to improve Stealth Mode I've hit a stumbling block and seek guidance if this is a typo or I'm missing something more fundamental.

ResearchSubject_MINBARI_SENSOR_DEFLECTOR_GRID lists the following values:

modifierType "ShieldMaxMitigationAdjustment"

modifierType "ShieldPointsMaxAdjustment"

However neither term as such can be found in the associated ability, buff, ship or starbase entity files.

The ship entity files use:

MaxShieldPoints

ShieldPointRestoreRate

maxMitigation

The starbase entity and upgrade files use:

propertyType "MaxShieldMitigation"

propertyType "MaxShieldPoints"

propertyType "ShieldPointRestoreRate"

The player entity files also do not mention the terms as such. I can only conlude that the ResearchSubject entity file is in error and uses the wrong terms to modify adjust the ship entity files. If this is not the case and the ResearchSubject entity file is correct help me with the linkage.

Darvroth

If you're doing research files,  0.05 is a 5% adjustment and 0.01 is a 1% adjustment.  And increases being additive depends on what research you're modifying.  Some things like shield mitigation are a flat boost (since shield mitigation is already a percentage), while most other researches are percentage-based.

And yes, research subjects use different wordage for their effects than ability and ship .entity files.

EDIT: Check out the research float (percentage) and boolean (1 or 0) modifiers from Original Sins here.

Be sure to have actually played Sins a couple times so you can guess what modifiers are percentages and what are flat (like armor).

Hi,

Sorry for my absence. Migraine as well as private life and work have kept me much too busy. I've cleaned up my database and exchanged the commandline calls with java calls, added the ability to add base Strings and entities to the exported entity.manifest and english.str and also started to add structures for buffs and abilities. Buffs are about 55 percent finished, abilities about 7 percent. When they are in I will add all existing abilities in the DB. After that I will link all the necessary research subjects to the respective techs (for Vorlons and Shadows) and then it will be time to package another release.

Woot! You have been busy and I like the packaging plan for 0.43. I was going to send you another abilty but decided to test it one last time and it immediately mini-dumped. So now I'm trying to figure out why it did work and now doesn't work and how I can make it work again. Very frustrating at times.

Darvroth

Found it! Ability works like a charm. Sent via e-mail.

NewHorizons,

Every bit of help is appreciated.

If you have other easily plugged in ideas for the string file, or abilities, post. I'm slowly adding ship and structure abilities but a new stream of ideas is always appreciated.

Darvroth

Many thanks, added (corrected) the names.

This was a design decision. Won't easily be changed. Not in the near future anyhow.

Not possible, sorry. Starbases have this possibility but Capships don't. I'd love to have that but it is not supported by the engine.

Thanks, didn't know that was possible!

boshimi336,

Not just weapons, the tech could implement a number of changes (cost, metal, crystal, etc) to account for the new capability. Initial ships would be cheaper and nerfed, later ships would be more capable but cost more. Those already built would benefit from the upgrade for "free", really the cost of the research having paid for the upgrades. This would also go along with the younger races having more and more easily replaced ships while the older races have fewer but much more valuable ships.

This would make for a clearer seperation of the time lines with respect to tech and ship capabilities but would require a complete rework of the tech tree and many models for all races (hardpoints).

Question: Is the researchable weapons for ships an on/off or is there finer control to tweak existing weapon stats?

TobiWahn,

Since we already have 0.43 already planned out, recommend we continue along that path. Implement the new research where it aligns with the current effort but save a more comprehensive reworking till 0.44. Not only will this require tweaking research but the tech pathing, and in many cases model rework to fix the hard points. Also, we'd need to scope out the work and have a blueprint, better to save the effort for down the road, unless there is a willing party... 0.43 is already ambitious enough.

Darvroth