[MOD] Foundation of Conquest and War V. 7.2
Moderators: Moderators for English X Forum, Scripting / Modding Moderators
-
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Tue, 13. Nov 18, 00:26
Re: [WIP - MOD] Foundation of Conquest and War V. 2.4Alpha
The I incident happened in X:Rebirth [The New Frontier] but I used it to illustrate how OOS can be sometimes terrifying. You didn't tweak the drones or OOS but X:Rebirth OOS calculations would assume drones would be launched and ready to fire in a pinch, which never hapenned when actually fighting it. This thing would litteraly down my Arawns in a seconds if I didn't pay attention and save often. That probably should have been my first point.
Also, I managed to track the new faction representatives. Those Xenon scums do pack a punch now. Ianamus Zura was infested with I and K, I had to bring dozens of destroyers and some carriers to take care of all that mess !
Also, I managed to track the new faction representatives. Those Xenon scums do pack a punch now. Ianamus Zura was infested with I and K, I had to bring dozens of destroyers and some carriers to take care of all that mess !
Re: [WIP - MOD] Foundation of Conquest and War V. 2.4Alpha
Will do; did ALL factions get more of both stations? Which factions are the heaviest consumers?BlackRain wrote: ↑Sun, 27. Jan 19, 14:42The demand is too high, we want the factions to be able to build whatever ships they need so they can continue to fight. Give me feedback on how it goes though.Dreamtide wrote: ↑Sun, 27. Jan 19, 14:29...might it be better to let the player supply those smart chips and engine parts with their own stations for profit?BlackRain wrote: ↑Sat, 26. Jan 19, 22:24Version 2.4 FOCW Alpha
1) Decrease in shield regen for all shields
2) Increase in damage for most weapons/turrets
3) Increase in Xenon ships in Xenon sectors
4) Increase in Teladi defense fleets/ships
5) Slight increase in Argon and Antigone defense fleets/ships
6) Slight increase in Paranid and HOP defense fleets/ships
7) New basket for only engine parts and smart chips with new trade ships for each faction focused on only these two resources
8 ) Increased how many engine parts and smart chips factories get built per faction
9) Capital ships won't boost (doesn't work with aggressive ai though)
Re: [WIP - MOD] Foundation of Conquest and War V. 2.4Alpha
So I have a question about faction rep levels in the XML file itself.
I've noticed that if you make two factions "at war" (-1 rep), traffic screams to a halt at the jump gates.
So as I understand it, this project is making fleets that "go get in trouble with each other". How does that relate to the faction rep ratings in the XML file?
If I decided to play a "galaxy at war scenario", would the galaxy lock up since nobody would go through jump gates to attack each other?
I think it'd be fun to play a game where I'm basically saving the factions from embargo-isolation, and then watching them absolutely tar each other with battle fleets.
Is that even possible?
I've noticed that if you make two factions "at war" (-1 rep), traffic screams to a halt at the jump gates.
So as I understand it, this project is making fleets that "go get in trouble with each other". How does that relate to the faction rep ratings in the XML file?
If I decided to play a "galaxy at war scenario", would the galaxy lock up since nobody would go through jump gates to attack each other?
I think it'd be fun to play a game where I'm basically saving the factions from embargo-isolation, and then watching them absolutely tar each other with battle fleets.
Is that even possible?
Re: [WIP - MOD] Foundation of Conquest and War V. 2.4Alpha
Can we keep playing, with 1.6 being released? Or do we need to wait for an update?
-
- Posts: 3206
- Joined: Thu, 16. Jul 09, 12:24
Re: [WIP - MOD] Foundation of Conquest and War V. 2.4Alpha
I gave every faction more but not the same amount. Hop for example got more. HOP and PAR seem to be the biggest consumers, followed by TEL and ANT. Argon seem the leastDreamtide wrote: ↑Mon, 28. Jan 19, 14:54Will do; did ALL factions get more of both stations? Which factions are the heaviest consumers?
Re: [WIP - MOD] Foundation of Conquest and War V. 2.4Alpha
I dont think ships stop going through gates just because they are at warDreamtide wrote: ↑Mon, 28. Jan 19, 15:10So I have a question about faction rep levels in the XML file itself.
I've noticed that if you make two factions "at war" (-1 rep), traffic screams to a halt at the jump gates.
So as I understand it, this project is making fleets that "go get in trouble with each other". How does that relate to the faction rep ratings in the XML file?
If I decided to play a "galaxy at war scenario", would the galaxy lock up since nobody would go through jump gates to attack each other?
I think it'd be fun to play a game where I'm basically saving the factions from embargo-isolation, and then watching them absolutely tar each other with battle fleets.
Is that even possible?
Re: [WIP - MOD] Foundation of Conquest and War V. 2.4Alpha
is it ok to use your mod alongside this one viewtopic.php?f=181&t=413122&start=15 ?
it seems to fix wars better then faction wars one
it seems to fix wars better then faction wars one
Re: [WIP - MOD] Foundation of Conquest and War V. 2.4Alpha
According to the author of Faction Fix Pack - yes.Mr.Freud wrote: ↑Tue, 29. Jan 19, 08:28is it ok to use your mod alongside this one viewtopic.php?f=181&t=413122&start=15 ?
it seems to fix wars better then faction wars one
viewtopic.php?p=4836230#p4836230
Re: [WIP - MOD] Foundation of Conquest and War V. 2.4Alpha
Yeah, the wars being fixed works fine with this and will complement it well. This not only affects the wars (by adding more ships) but it also adds fleets/ships which are not controlled by the factionlogic so that at least some action is always going on.
Re: [WIP - MOD] Foundation of Conquest and War V. 2.4Alpha
I know it's a little out of scope for this project, but would it be possible to beef up the "random encounter" enemies?
Occasionally have that random Xenon ship not be just an M or N?
And I'd sure like to get hassled by pirates that are flying nastier ships than those kestrels. It'd just make a lot more sense for pirates to possibly be any non-Xenon non-Khaak ship in the game. One or two pirate destroyers consistently in-game somewhere could really spice things up too.
Just a suggestion
Occasionally have that random Xenon ship not be just an M or N?
And I'd sure like to get hassled by pirates that are flying nastier ships than those kestrels. It'd just make a lot more sense for pirates to possibly be any non-Xenon non-Khaak ship in the game. One or two pirate destroyers consistently in-game somewhere could really spice things up too.
Just a suggestion
Re: [WIP - MOD] Foundation of Conquest and War V. 2.4Alpha
is there any possibility for shiled-penetration?`i remember x3 had shield penetrating weapons which could come in handy in destroying surface targets.
i.e. a specialised ship with shield penetrating weapons, Engine and crucial surface elements of capitals being integrated into the main-shield, but vulnerable by penetration. This could lead to specialised wings for fleets only to destroy surface elements of capital targets
i.e. a specialised ship with shield penetrating weapons, Engine and crucial surface elements of capitals being integrated into the main-shield, but vulnerable by penetration. This could lead to specialised wings for fleets only to destroy surface elements of capital targets
Re: [WIP - MOD] Foundation of Conquest and War V. 2.4Alpha
I can look into it.SMoOoVEeR wrote: ↑Sat, 2. Feb 19, 14:04is there any possibility for shiled-penetration?`i remember x3 had shield penetrating weapons which could come in handy in destroying surface targets.
i.e. a specialised ship with shield penetrating weapons, Engine and crucial surface elements of capitals being integrated into the main-shield, but vulnerable by penetration. This could lead to specialised wings for fleets only to destroy surface elements of capital targets
Re: [WIP - MOD] Foundation of Conquest and War V. 2.4Alpha
you mean the encounters in deep space? It would be easy to add encounters and such.Dreamtide wrote: ↑Sat, 2. Feb 19, 12:35I know it's a little out of scope for this project, but would it be possible to beef up the "random encounter" enemies?
Occasionally have that random Xenon ship not be just an M or N?
And I'd sure like to get hassled by pirates that are flying nastier ships than those kestrels. It'd just make a lot more sense for pirates to possibly be any non-Xenon non-Khaak ship in the game. One or two pirate destroyers consistently in-game somewhere could really spice things up too.
Just a suggestion
Re: [WIP - MOD] Foundation of Conquest and War V. 2.4Alpha
Yeah, especially the pirates. Seems like every time I get "hand over your cargo!" it's some guy flying a cardboard box with a water pistol glued to the side of it.BlackRain wrote: ↑Sat, 2. Feb 19, 14:30you mean the encounters in deep space? It would be easy to add encounters and such.Dreamtide wrote: ↑Sat, 2. Feb 19, 12:35I know it's a little out of scope for this project, but would it be possible to beef up the "random encounter" enemies?
Occasionally have that random Xenon ship not be just an M or N?
And I'd sure like to get hassled by pirates that are flying nastier ships than those kestrels. It'd just make a lot more sense for pirates to possibly be any non-Xenon non-Khaak ship in the game. One or two pirate destroyers consistently in-game somewhere could really spice things up too.
Just a suggestion
Re: [WIP - MOD] Foundation of Conquest and War V. 2.4Alpha
i was wondering why Teladi got so swamped by single Xenon Destroyers in nearly every sector without defnding any in my game i looked up in my log and found this:
Meanwhile i found this one aswell in my log
Code: Select all
[=ERROR=] 173768.45 Error in default context: No suitable ShipGenerator found with tags=[tag.military,tag.destroyer], size=class.ship_xl, factions=faction.teladi
* Expression: [military, destroyer]
[General] 173768.45 ======================================
[General] 173768.45 ======================================
[=ERROR=] 173768.45 [JobEngine] No ship generated for JobID: 'teladi_destroyer_company_patrol'. Probably invalid ship macro/group/ref definition.
[General] 173768.45 ======================================
[General] 173768.45 ======================================
[=ERROR=] 173768.45 Error in default context: No suitable ShipGenerator found with tags=[tag.military,tag.destroyer], size=class.ship_xl, factions=faction.teladi
* Expression: [military, destroyer]
[General] 173768.45 ======================================
[General] 173768.45 ======================================
[=ERROR=] 173768.45 [JobEngine] No ship generated for JobID: 'teladi_destroyer_company_patrol'. Probably invalid ship macro/group/ref definition.
[General] 173768.45 ======================================
[General] 173768.45 ======================================
[=ERROR=] 173768.45 Error in default context: No suitable ShipGenerator found with tags=[tag.military,tag.destroyer], size=class.ship_xl, factions=faction.teladi
* Expression: [military, destroyer]
[General] 173768.45 ======================================
[General] 173768.45 ======================================
[=ERROR=] 173768.45 [JobEngine] No ship generated for JobID: 'teladi_destroyer_company_patrol'. Probably invalid ship macro/group/ref definition.
[General] 173768.45 ======================================
[General] 173768.45 ======================================
[=ERROR=] 173768.45 Error in default context: No suitable ShipGenerator found with tags=[tag.military,tag.destroyer], size=class.ship_xl, factions=faction.teladi
* Expression: [military, destroyer]
[General] 173768.45 ======================================
[General] 173768.45 ======================================
[=ERROR=] 173768.45 [JobEngine] No ship generated for JobID: 'teladi_destroyer_company_patrol'. Probably invalid ship macro/group/ref definition.
Code: Select all
ERROR: ARG Privateer Escort Nova Vanguard 0x94e21 is a jobship that does not have a jobmainzone. Attempting to recover.
Line 2991: [=ERROR=] 173777.84 aicontext<order.fight.patrol,0x94e13>: ERROR: ARG Privateer Escort Quasar 0x94e0e is a jobship that does not have a jobmainzone. Attempting to recover.
Line 2995: [=ERROR=] 173781.02 aicontext<order.fight.patrol,0x94e44>: ERROR: ARG Privateer Escort Elite Vanguard 0x94e40 is a jobship that does not have a jobmainzone. Attempting to recover.
Line 2998: [=ERROR=] 173782.75 aicontext<order.fight.patrol,0x94e36>: ERROR: ARG Privateer Escort Elite Vanguard 0x94e32 is a jobship that does not have a jobmainzone. Attempting to recover.
Line 3245: [=ERROR=] 175595.30 aicontext<order.fight.patrol,0x2116f>: ERROR: ARG Privateer Squadron Eclipse Vanguard 0x2116a is a jobship that does not have a jobmainzone. Attempting to recover.
Re: [WIP - MOD] Foundation of Conquest and War V. 2.4Alpha
I am already aware of the first issue, it is just one of the new jobs I added (it is only one so it doesn't affect much). I fixed it already but didn't upload yet. As for the second thing, not sure about that. Those are escorts and should follow the main ship.SMoOoVEeR wrote: ↑Sat, 2. Feb 19, 15:35i was wondering why Teladi got so swamped by single Xenon Destroyers in nearly every sector without defnding any in my game i looked up in my log and found this:
Meanwhile i found this one aswell in my logCode: Select all
[=ERROR=] 173768.45 Error in default context: No suitable ShipGenerator found with tags=[tag.military,tag.destroyer], size=class.ship_xl, factions=faction.teladi * Expression: [military, destroyer] [General] 173768.45 ====================================== [General] 173768.45 ====================================== [=ERROR=] 173768.45 [JobEngine] No ship generated for JobID: 'teladi_destroyer_company_patrol'. Probably invalid ship macro/group/ref definition. [General] 173768.45 ====================================== [General] 173768.45 ====================================== [=ERROR=] 173768.45 Error in default context: No suitable ShipGenerator found with tags=[tag.military,tag.destroyer], size=class.ship_xl, factions=faction.teladi * Expression: [military, destroyer] [General] 173768.45 ====================================== [General] 173768.45 ====================================== [=ERROR=] 173768.45 [JobEngine] No ship generated for JobID: 'teladi_destroyer_company_patrol'. Probably invalid ship macro/group/ref definition. [General] 173768.45 ====================================== [General] 173768.45 ====================================== [=ERROR=] 173768.45 Error in default context: No suitable ShipGenerator found with tags=[tag.military,tag.destroyer], size=class.ship_xl, factions=faction.teladi * Expression: [military, destroyer] [General] 173768.45 ====================================== [General] 173768.45 ====================================== [=ERROR=] 173768.45 [JobEngine] No ship generated for JobID: 'teladi_destroyer_company_patrol'. Probably invalid ship macro/group/ref definition. [General] 173768.45 ====================================== [General] 173768.45 ====================================== [=ERROR=] 173768.45 Error in default context: No suitable ShipGenerator found with tags=[tag.military,tag.destroyer], size=class.ship_xl, factions=faction.teladi * Expression: [military, destroyer] [General] 173768.45 ====================================== [General] 173768.45 ====================================== [=ERROR=] 173768.45 [JobEngine] No ship generated for JobID: 'teladi_destroyer_company_patrol'. Probably invalid ship macro/group/ref definition.
Code: Select all
ERROR: ARG Privateer Escort Nova Vanguard 0x94e21 is a jobship that does not have a jobmainzone. Attempting to recover. Line 2991: [=ERROR=] 173777.84 aicontext<order.fight.patrol,0x94e13>: ERROR: ARG Privateer Escort Quasar 0x94e0e is a jobship that does not have a jobmainzone. Attempting to recover. Line 2995: [=ERROR=] 173781.02 aicontext<order.fight.patrol,0x94e44>: ERROR: ARG Privateer Escort Elite Vanguard 0x94e40 is a jobship that does not have a jobmainzone. Attempting to recover. Line 2998: [=ERROR=] 173782.75 aicontext<order.fight.patrol,0x94e36>: ERROR: ARG Privateer Escort Elite Vanguard 0x94e32 is a jobship that does not have a jobmainzone. Attempting to recover. Line 3245: [=ERROR=] 175595.30 aicontext<order.fight.patrol,0x2116f>: ERROR: ARG Privateer Squadron Eclipse Vanguard 0x2116a is a jobship that does not have a jobmainzone. Attempting to recover.
Re: [WIP - MOD] Foundation of Conquest and War V. 2.4Alpha
I think there needs to be a little tweak for Pulse L turrets.
Currently pulse L turret is not only anti fighter but also anti capitals. Considering its dmg, range and projectile speed, not only it is extremely accurate (huge projectile speed making it almost impossible to dodge) but also deadly against anything (can 1 shot anything below L class ships)
While I am ok with Xenon ships being stronger than the average ship, when you get 5 xenon K's invading together, they 1 shot anything in sight. Dropping Destroyers like S fighters with the sheer amount of pulse projectiles.
I think L pulse turrets need either a damage nerf or projectile speed nerf. Long range nuke turrets should be Plasma turrets
That's just my opinion of course.
Currently pulse L turret is not only anti fighter but also anti capitals. Considering its dmg, range and projectile speed, not only it is extremely accurate (huge projectile speed making it almost impossible to dodge) but also deadly against anything (can 1 shot anything below L class ships)
While I am ok with Xenon ships being stronger than the average ship, when you get 5 xenon K's invading together, they 1 shot anything in sight. Dropping Destroyers like S fighters with the sheer amount of pulse projectiles.
I think L pulse turrets need either a damage nerf or projectile speed nerf. Long range nuke turrets should be Plasma turrets
That's just my opinion of course.
Re: [WIP - MOD] Foundation of Conquest and War V. 2.4Alpha
Are you talking about the Xenon L laser turrets? I am a little confused because you talk about L pulse turrets but then talk about Xenon ships and then talk about plasma turrets? Your comments don't make sense because Xenon don't even use plasma turrets. Anyway, the Xenon L laser turrets are supposed to be extremely powerful and Xenon are meant to be powerhouses. I can lower the range on them but I don't see the need to decrease their damage. Maybe a slight decrease.Warnoise wrote: ↑Wed, 6. Feb 19, 17:15I think there needs to be a little tweak for Pulse L turrets.
Currently pulse L turret is not only anti fighter but also anti capitals. Considering its dmg, range and projectile speed, not only it is extremely accurate (huge projectile speed making it almost impossible to dodge) but also deadly against anything (can 1 shot anything below L class ships)
While I am ok with Xenon ships being stronger than the average ship, when you get 5 xenon K's invading together, they 1 shot anything in sight. Dropping Destroyers like S fighters with the sheer amount of pulse projectiles.
I think L pulse turrets need either a damage nerf or projectile speed nerf. Long range nuke turrets should be Plasma turrets
That's just my opinion of course.
Re: [WIP - MOD] Foundation of Conquest and War V. 2.4Alpha
Ah sorry I am talking about Xenon L pulse turrets.BlackRain wrote: ↑Thu, 7. Feb 19, 01:08Are you talking about the Xenon L laser turrets? I am a little confused because you talk about L pulse turrets but then talk about Xenon ships and then talk about plasma turrets? Your comments don't make sense because Xenon don't even use plasma turrets. Anyway, the Xenon L laser turrets are supposed to be extremely powerful and Xenon are meant to be powerhouses. I can lower the range on them but I don't see the need to decrease their damage. Maybe a slight decrease.Warnoise wrote: ↑Wed, 6. Feb 19, 17:15I think there needs to be a little tweak for Pulse L turrets.
Currently pulse L turret is not only anti fighter but also anti capitals. Considering its dmg, range and projectile speed, not only it is extremely accurate (huge projectile speed making it almost impossible to dodge) but also deadly against anything (can 1 shot anything below L class ships)
While I am ok with Xenon ships being stronger than the average ship, when you get 5 xenon K's invading together, they 1 shot anything in sight. Dropping Destroyers like S fighters with the sheer amount of pulse projectiles.
I think L pulse turrets need either a damage nerf or projectile speed nerf. Long range nuke turrets should be Plasma turrets
That's just my opinion of course.
I mentioned the Xenon K's because in my game all xenon K's come equipped with L pulse turrets and M pulse turrets. When a bunch of Xenon K are grouped up, literally nothing can stop them. I agree they should powerhouses, but currently in my game, 1 xenon K can solo 3 destroyers in some cases (well we can partially blame the destroyers AI for not using the main batteries too though)
I mentioned the plasma turrets as a comparison to pulse turrets, because plasma turrets are supposed to be the long range+ high damage type of turrets, yet currently pulse turrets do that job but better.
Currently, i feel like L pulse turrets are the go-to as anti capital ship turret because they have long range and do absurd damage without suffering from lack of projectile speed (which makes them equally deadly against fighters.). Therefore, to balance them out, i suggest either a slight decrease in damage and projectile speed, or range.
Last edited by Warnoise on Fri, 8. Feb 19, 09:27, edited 1 time in total.