furyofthestars

I don't believe this is a bug but rather on purpose. I think (just guessing at the motives) the point is to reset all your settings so that way there is a reduced chance that some of the errors or crashes you get are due to the settings themselves. I get around this issue by making a copy of SP setting files and sticking them in a separate folder. Then when I'm done with the dev.exe and want to play a normal game, I just copy them in.

[quote who="RespawnedTitanL10" reply="13" id="3473810"]Fury, I guess you don't know anyone (personally) who works in the game industry... The pressure/rush to release stuff is quite something.[/quote] Respawned, first, this was a DLC that was released a year after the game proper. While I'm sure there was still an internal deadline, the pressure for this would not have been so much that they didn't have time to do a copy/paste of 3 files, rename them to add "Fair" at

[quote who="RespawnedTitanL10" reply="10" id="3473716"]Who knows... That one I could say was more likely deliberate.[/quote] But why? Obviously it looks as though they could've purposely deleted the upgrades out of there, but to what end? We already have a "dead" asteroid and none of the other "fair" versions got this treatment. I think it's more likely that they created the "fair" versions (or at least in this case) based on the original asteroid file befo

Hehe, I think a "Fair" planet and a "Fair" map system are little different... especially when you consider you are generating a "random" map. ;)

[quote who="RespawnedTitanL10" reply="4" id="3473660"]Oddly enough, not all Fair planets even have this simple feature of fixed resource counts. The known exceptions [as of 1.82.5006] are: Oceanic, Ferrous and Greenhouse. The "Fair" versions of those still have a randomized/range of resource extractors. I'm not sure if that'a a bug or is by design. So if you want those on a truly fair/balanced map, you currently need to mod them. Also, the Ship Graveyard (which is colonizable) lacks a

[quote who="Lavo_2" reply="3" id="3473239"]researchModifier modifierType "ExperienceConstantGainRate" baseValue 0.000000 perLevelValue # researchModifier modifierType "ExperienceConstantGainLevelCap" baseValue 0.000000 perLevelValue 3.000000 Where # is the XP needed for level 3. [/quote] It's too bad this doesn't work f

Respawn, the only change (and subsequent update) that I did to my PC was purely a C++ redistrib. Again... .NET was not the issue here. EDIT: Blah, edits... added the original post I was commenting against in case some people don't know you can view the edit history. Either way, as stated, it was a wrong version of C++ redistrib that was the issue with this old case.... [quote]Alas every program linked to MS Visual C++ libs needs precisely the vers

It would be a safe bet that user.settings wouldn't control any real gameplay element, thus would most likely be UI related. ;)

https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/450758/page/1/#3426885 Check your C++ redistrib installs as well. ;) Additionally, for Win7, there are not separate installs for 3.5 and lower. They come part of the OS.

Yeah, to note, if you have to use the "explore planet" planet upgrade to reveal the bonuses (ie, normal start) and you have not set the random spawn chance of bonuses for the map to 0, you stand a chance of the bonuses being "overridden" by what ever the map randomly spawns in. On any map of mine that I do where I "force" add planet bonuses, I always have to set the random spawn chance to 0 else some or all will not appear.

Yeah, I've certainly seen this before, and definitely with small ships, but experience it even when I am giving the ships a group jump order. I usually see that, though, a bit more often when the frigates were already close to the jump line and the cap wasn't... then it comes in, pushes the frigates aside, then they sit there and try to realign themselves. If I'm having to retreat, I tend to bring the various fleets back together first (if I even allowed them to spli

Yeah, I know they limited how much it chews. But they didn't limit how much it pulls, resulting in what others have reported in that it spits the ships out "whole" through its rear. Further, the cone of angle for the "chew" is actually wider than that of the pull.... Re-studying the files, though, it looks like it'll take more than a simple text change to fix it. First, the convert buff is applied once. This means new ships that enter the area affected

Yeah... thanks for the suggestion, but I kind of didn't want to do that. Yeah, it's a mod and the point is to make the pirates... more interesting... I'm also trying to (mostly) do things within a certain rules and guidelines. Another thought I've had, too (after a night's sleep), that might be a bit more complex.... Instead of having the initial buff that hits the planet be what spawns the constructor, have it spawn a module, instead.&

Ok, I've been trying to get this to work all day today, but I think it's about time for me to admit I've fried my brain on it. As part of the mod I'm working on for the pirates, I have a Starbase that will spawn in after a delay to the base or any world they happen to colonize. I was using a "CreateFrigate" buff thrown at the planet and then has the "impulse" value on that buff set so it'll push the starbase constructor a little ways away before a timer on th

Yeah, they may have weight values to determine build chance, similar to how the fleet beacon abilities can.

Yarlen, Elsewhere there was pointed out a bug with the Maw in that it was attracting frigates in but only actually devouring some of them, resulting in the extras being "spit" out the back of the VL Titan. I don't know if it was intended (it seems to me like it shouldn't be?), but I see where in the code as to why it happens. Pastebin link: BuffTheMawSelf.entity For the instantAction that applies the buff BuffThe

[quote who="WJC3688" reply="34" id="3472783"]I see that these special interests have been working their mojo on you as well.... This is most unfortunate. Try to keep in mind that the ideas implanted by a certain group's propaganda don't necessarily fit with reality.[/quote] [e digicons]:rofl:[/e]

[quote who="WJC3688" reply="30" id="3472768"]The reason for Akkan's usage and ability choice is obvious, colonizer capitals are always recommended as a first ship choice. If you have to build something else for its increased combat prowess then you're sacrificing the economic benefits of an Akkan start, which is still a big negative to your overall gameplay. Even the AI prefers colonizers as its starting capital. I would only expect "combat" capitals to be present in larger, mid-game

[quote who="WJC3688" reply="7" id="3472751"]The barrier to Flak usage in online games is their research requirement and higher production costs, not the capacity for cobalts to still beat them with proper micro. It would be interesting to see what happened if Flak was able to be produced without research, such that they could be spammed from the start like LFs, and whether or not MP players would develop proper LF counter-micro as a response...... but ofc we will never know.[/quote] E

The biggest problem I have with the flak vs Akkon test? The Akkon isn't meant to be a heavier combat capital, not to mention that of its abilities, you selected the only non-combat one it had available. Capital ship's power in combat come more from their abilities and (subsequently) level up rather than raw DPS (it's the same concept with Titans). At low levels they're meant to be more easily taken without support than at higher levels. <p

Ah, k, sorry. Guess I misunderstood in that the AI was deliberately putting them into combat fleets, not just the auto-join kicking in (I personally never form fleets... just use the ctrl-# grouping... because their behavior annoys the crap out of me). Yeah, you'll probably have to bring this to the devs attention as I doubt they'll see this on their own.

That scout bug can probably be fixed by turning the autoJoinFleetDefault to FALSE on the scouts.

Haha, and that's honestly why I even thought of it. One of the first times I played... "What...? This huge ship has no point defense weapons against fighters and bombers? Well that makes no sense...." But agreed. Even if it does play nicely, it probably wouldn't get in to the core game.

[quote who="Turchany" reply="32" id="3472559"]Those big orange multiheadpulsegunthings are named as phase missiles. Before XY patch it's name was pulse cnnon, but it was changed. And on the infocard of the Vorastra it says it has PM's.[/quote] Huh. It's strange that they're counting those as "phase missiles", especially seems they look and act nothing like regular phase missiles and they even have a damage type of "energy" vers "physical" like every other phase m

Hmm, in all honesty... I can't think of a good reason for a flak frigate to be more heavily armored (Armor, HP, and Shields) than the LF. Something I've been toying with in my mind and want to try modding at some point to test... Add couple flank flak weapons to capital ships and Cruiser Carriers. DPS for each should be less than the flak frigate. Then decrease the flak frigate's health/armor/etc significantly. I kind of would like to see how that