Jump to content

Nath

Members
  • Posts

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Nath's Achievements

Apprentice

Apprentice (3/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. Nath

    Report in

    I am still here, but have become discouraged with the lack of input from the Devs. Even as a Gamma tester, I can't seem to get any info on any modding changes/updates they might (or might not) have planned. Anyway, myself and Torn had worked on the star wars map. We then started to make single gravity well systems, but ran into some difficulties when making 'fake' stars (simply transferring star meshes to asteroid pebbles). Since that point, we have been waiting to hear back from the devs about how to deal with the issue. We are kind of stuck, discouraged and unmotivated at this point. That said, a working Star Wars shipset mod would definitely be enough to get us back into the map work.
  2. Happily, it should be possible to make thick asteroid belts that interfere with large ship pathfinding within gravity wells. This will add a nice tactical touch around systems like Hoth. Hmmm, looking at the sector maps at http://www.xs4all.nl/~wrvh/galaxymap/ , I think we could actually make a campaign that is divided into sectors as well. Of course, Sins can apparently handle all those sectors at once...however, not everyones computer can handle it. It there were a way to allow more than 10 players, that would be great. I'll go ask the devs if it will be possible.
  3. Okay, I am here to help with the SoaSE Warlords mod. Unfortunately, I can't model at all. I can play with script and run balance tests gallore. However, I would imagine that it would more sense to use official (and guestimated) values for ships/structures/abilities/weapons/armor/shields/and so on. Maybe I can help work on the Star Wars Galactic Map. Unlike the Sins of a Solar Empire stock game, we shouldn't have any use for stars that have a dozens of habital planets. Instead, we should maybe concentrate on only using star systems that have noteworthy locations within them. Including planets, remote asteroid bases, mining facilities and so on, does anybody know how many areas would be included in the map?
  4. There are some beta testers with crap systems (ie, 2.0 Gig, 512 Meg, 6800 video type systems). Sins actually runs well even on older systems. Still, I suspect you'll be losing out on some of the eye candy with these older computers for the games final release.
  5. Okay, so we know that SoaSE can make Star Wars hyperdrive equipped strike craft by producing them like regular ships at a shipyard. They can then be grouped into squads however we see fit. Something to consider will be by how much to adjust the fleet points these regular ship strike craft consume (as well as all the other ships in the mod). Of course, these hyperdrive equipped ships will also have shields and higher armor when compared to the standard Tie models (in/bomber/interceptor). Tie squadron sizes might need to be reduced in number as well. *For those of you who don't know, carriers/hangars produce and carry strike craft that have no hyperspace ability (at this time in the beta testing). These carrier/hangar based strike craft don't consume any fleet points either...but that actually works well in simulating the extra cost in maintaining/using strike craft that do have shields and a hyperdrive.
  6. Hey EvilleJedi, I suspected that you were in on the Sins beta testing as well. I did notice that you didn't post anything since that one joke message in the Star Wars topic...at least not under your 'EvilleJedi' name/title. So what do you think about the beta so far? I share the same opinion on Windows Vista. I plan on staying with XP for the next 2 years or so. For the most part, I think SoaSE will be be perfect for Warlords. There are of course some concerns such as strike craft being closely tied to their carrier 'motherships'. This would mean that there would be no hyper drive capable strike craft. While perfectly fine for most Imperial Tie type craft, it will seriously reduce the value of fighters that are supposed to be able to jump to hyperspace. Hmmm, I suppose you could make the hyper drive capable strike craft like regular ships (just very small, cheap and weak). They would be constructed at shipyards like the other regular ships. You just won't be able to dock them with other ships. Another concern will be whether or not we will be able to make more than one functional planet within a gravity well. If we can do this, we will be able to make custom maps where each star will have a massive gravity well that encompasses several planets. This will make for some pretty epic battles over who ends up owning the entire star system. Finally, I really hope we will be able to mod in some type of fog of war within gravity wells. At this point, SoaSE allows full sight of all ships/structures to any other presence in the same gravity well. Last I heard, Ironclad will put such a function in IF they have time prior to the official game release. Has anybody gotten any recent info on these issues from the game developers?
  7. Hey EvilleJedi, I've done HW2 modding work in the past. We've been in contact a few times before. In fact, I recently sent you an email about that Homeworld3/Sins of a Solar Empire game. Hope Sins can seamlessly work with your Warlords mod. Anyway, my skills with HW2 revolve mostly around scripting and stats. I can't help with any of the models, unfortunately. Still, I am getting a serious high speed line in June, so I can help you with additional server space. Let me know if you would want that. Later
  8. Hey guys, still haven't had any luck with a non tractor beam based Kamakazi ship. Oh well, no big loss really. As far as making ships target mines and missiles, you have to give them the Minelayer Ability. Also, ships with the Minelayer Ability automatically give targetting priority to enemy mines and missiles that are in range. Of course, you still have to alter your familylist.lua file to add the new attackfamily for missiles. You also need to alter your ship and weapon files to allow attacks on munition and missile targets. Thanks again for the help. And a special thanks to EvilleJedi for all he has done for the Warlords mod.
  9. Hey guys, still haven't had any luck with a non tractor beam based Kamakazi ship. Oh well, no big loss really. As far as making ships target mines and missiles, you have to give them the Minelayer Ability. Also, ships with the Minelayer Ability automatically give targetting priority to enemy mines and missiles that are in range. Of course, you still have to alter your familylist.lua file to add the new attackfamily for missiles. You also need to alter your ship and weapon files to allow attacks on munition and missile targets. Thanks again for the help. And a special thanks to EvilleJedi for all he has done for the Warlords mod.
  10. Hey guys, I've already posted these questions in the balance and ideas section. But since it also kinda fits this section, here it is again. I wanted to test how giving more ship guns the ability to target small and large missiles (EvilleJedi seperates the missiles into two classes) would affect the balance. I've unfortunately run into some trouble. So, here are my questions. 1. How do you make ship guns able to target missiles. I know that the main steps are to give the missiles a target class other than 'untargettable', add that target class to FamilyList.lua, and alter .ship and weapon files to allow attacks on that new target type. I've done this, and the guns still refuse to fire on incoming missiles. What have I missed? 2. In the original Homeworld2, you lose the game if all your construction ships die. However, EvilleJedi has somehow allowed a side to stay in the game with a cruiser (for example), even if that sides construction ships are all dead. He somehow does this without adding the 'CanBuild' line in the cruisers .ship file. So, how does he manage to make the Cruiser a 'Mission Critical' ship without adding the build command in the .ship file? 3. I've seriously wanted to add a kamakazi frigate to the game, but don't want to use the short range tractor beam concept that some have suggested. I've been trying to give a frigate the same attack ability as a mine (munition). So far, I can't get it to work. Has anybody had success with the kamakazi ramming attack in this way? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again!
  11. Hey guys, here is another modding question concerning Warlords. I wanted to test how giving more guns the ability to target small and large missiles (EvilleJedi seperates the missiles into two classes) would affect the balance. I've unfortunately run into some trouble. So, here are my questions. 1. How do you make ship guns able to target missiles. I know that the main steps are to give the missiles a target class other than 'untargettable', add that target class to FamilyList.lua, and alter .ship and weapon files to allow attacks on that new target type. I've done this, and the guns still refuse to fire on incoming missiles. What have I missed? 2. In the original Homeworld2, you lose the game if all your construction ships die. However, EvilleJedi has somehow allowed a side to stay in the game with a cruiser (for example), even if that sides construction ships are all dead. He somehow does this without adding the 'CanBuild' line in the cruisers .ship file. So, how does he manage to make the Cruiser a 'Mission Critical' ship without adding the build command in the .ship file? 3. I've seriously wanted to add a kamakazi frigate to the game, but don't want to use the short range tractor beam concept that some have suggested. I've been trying to give a frigate the same attack ability as a mine (munition). So far, I can't get it to work. Has anybody had success with the kamakazi ramming attack in this way? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks guys
  12. Hi, my friends and I have been playing the Warlords Mod a lot on Huge maps ( {400000, 90000, 400000} or bigger). One reason we prefer huge maps is that we find the PING ability to be a bit unbalanced for the smaller ones. While it is easy to mod the range of PING for smaller maps (the 2.5 value represents 250km (addAbility(NewShipType,"SensorPing",0,1,10,2.5) ), does anybody also know how to reduce the RU cost for PING to help better balance smaller maps? Any info on modding PINGs 1000 RU cost to a different amount would be appreciated. Another question that I have concerns just the original HW2 ships. Does anybody know how to make PING require BOTH the Advanced Sensor research AND for the ship using PING the Advanced Sensor Array module????? I can't find the answer to this question. Any help would make me worship you as a God. *On a side note, some people find it impossible to play on maps that big due to CPU limitations. By removing SpawnDebris commands and removing a lot of the pebble/debris type eye candy on the map, the game will run quite smoothly on even a modest system.
  13. Hi Guys, I've been playing Homeworld 2 Original and the Warlords mod on VERY large maps {400000, 90000, 400000} or bigger. My friends and I find the Huge maps give you more of a fleet admiral feel. Let's face it, most maps out there are so small you practically start nose to nose with your opponent. Anyway, what we want to do is change the cost to activate the PING ability. I've spent days searching mods/tools/archives and have found no way to do this. I can change the PING range easily enough, but not the cost. If anybody could help with info on how to modify the RU cost to use PING, it would be greatly appreaciated. On another note, does anybody know how to have PING require BOTH Advanced Sensor research and for the ship using PING to require an Advanced Sensor Array module??? Answer me this, and I will be doubly thankful and will praise your abilities greatly.
  14. Hi guys, great job so far. Here are a couple of problems I've run into with two ships in the game. The World Devastator is pretty cool. Seems to be almost on par with a SSD for FAR less cost. Here is the problem with the ship. I jumped into an AI base with several World Devastators and started crushing everything in sight. Then the Devastators started to use their tractor beams (blue beams that come out the front of the ship). They ended up pulling the Destroyer yard and Cruiser yard towards them. Of course, impacts started to occur. I lost 3 World Devastators to shipyard collisions caused by the tractor beams...not very cost effective. I guess the tractor beams are supposed to draw ships in to be consumed but don't yet work as planned. Maybe you could use the tractor beams to cause collisions between enemy ships. Note: It did give me a really cool visual of a high speed cartwheeling exploding Cruiser shipyard. The other ship I had a problem with was the Torpedo Sphere. I didn't even know you could build them until I saw the AI pull one out in an attempt to deal with my Sovereign SSD. I later built one myself, but found that the thing could only fire ONE torpedo salvo. It would never reload again after that one shot. Still, it is an impressive ship. My Sovereign took a surprising amount of shield and hull damage from the one salvo. I guess 200+ torpedos can mess up any captains day. I wasn't able to hyper out of the way because the AI had just seconds earlier produced an Interdictor type destroyer...bastard!
  15. Here are a few thoughts on the single player campaign. 1. Perhaps RUs/tech level/available ships for construction should all be based more on (or exclusively on) your mission performance and how far you are into the campaign. Of course, they should also carry over from mission to mission. I've always disliked the concept of jumping into an area of space, not knowing how to build anything but the most basic ships, and then after an hour of harvesting and research, you are pumping out SSDs (are you using the RUs to build the human crews too?). Having your Superiors provide tech/new ships/resources based on your performance is a far more realistic proposition. Note: A big advantage of giving RUs based on mission performance would be that you would have to place fewer resources (if any) on the map = better PC performance. IF you have to place RUs on the map, please make fewer asteroids that contain MORE RUs 2. You could disable/limit ship construction DURING actual missions. You would instead use mission points (gained by completing missions and sub missions) towards purchasing tech and refitting/replacing/upgrading ships between missions. This would still allow a player to spend his points on construction a fleet composition to match his or her combat style. You could still allow reinforments during missions based on mission conditions if necessary. 3. A Flagship could be used to represent your character's command station. If this ship is destroyed/captured, you lose the mission. As you gain better ships, you can transfer your command to a better vessel between missions. 4. Maps up to max manageable size (10 000km or 2 000km depending on your definition of manageable) are going to be necessary for that truely grand fleet scale. Of course, if the maps are that big, missions will have to be either defend or attack goals. Too much size for wandering encounter type mission battles...unless of course you could get the AI to properly use SENSOR PING...or make a long range sensor that works like PING non stop. 5. Giving the player strategic choices between missions would be a nice touch. I don't just mean buying new ships/tech between missions. Here is an example to help clarify what I mean. Your character is assigned a mission to defend a research station. If your character succeeds in the mission and say losses only 10% of his fleet value, then your superiors could still consider your fleet to be at an acceptable level of combat strength without need of refit. Instead of the next standard mission in the campaign story line, the next mission could instead involve a choice for the player... Mission choice 1. Your characters successful defence of the research station has diminished the enemies local strength, while preserving your own. So you can now lauch an attack on a suspected/known shipyard while your opponent is weaker than would normally be the case. This mission would have some Op/Espionage and Map info that could be used to assess chances of success. For example, the info could indicate that the shipyard has heavy anit-fighter/corvette defences. If the player tends to favor the purchase of starfighters/corvette type ships, then he would be ill equiped to deal with this mission. If successful, the next few missions might have a reduction of a certain type of enemy combat ship. Mission choice 2. Your characters successful defence of the research station has diminished the enemies local strength, while preserving your own. So you can now lauch an attack against a suspected/known enemy mining station while your opponent is weaker locally than would normally be the case. This mission would have some Op/Espionage and Map info that could be used to assess chances of success. For example, the info could indicate a heavy resource/asteroid zone surrounding the mining base. Large ships would be hard pressed to navigate the asteroids (maybe put into the game collision damage). But fighters and corvettes would be better able to deal with the environment and make a successful attack run. The results of successfully capturing/destroying the mining station would be a reduction of resources for the enemy for the next main campaign mission = either less enemy ships or enemy ships have less hull strength or don't repair automatically or have less speed or something like that. Mission choice 3. Your characters successful defence of the research station has diminished the enemies local strength, while preserving your own. While you can now try to make use of the temporary strength imbalance to further increase your strategic advantage, you instead decide to report to your superiors and play the political game with them and try to capitalize on your prestigeous victory. The result of this action is that you are given new tech/ships earlier than would have occured in the campaign storyline...or can purchase new ships for a reduced cost...or something like that. 6. I don't know if anyone has been seriously working on a Death Star ship, but having Endor without one might be a bit dissapointing for some. I don't see how you could have a fighter attack on the core of such a ship, there would be so many internal collisions as the Death Star rotated around. Maybe you could make a weak point on the DS that would have the standard crazy shielding, but would be vulnerable to a strike force mass torpedo attack...do damage through the shield with local shield failure like the game mechanics allow for already. If that point is destroyed, then the Death Star is destroyed as well. 7. Something that I would love to see implemented is blast radius. Right now, you can have ships all around an Executor SSD that is about to blow up. The SSD blows up and the nearby ships don't take any damage from the explosion...even if they are almost touching the exploding ship. Implementing blast radius damage from exploding ships and rockets like they did in HW Cataclysm and FreeSpace would bring a new level to fleet maneuvers. 8. Another neat thing would be the ability to go kamakazi with your ships. If you are grossely outgunned and are about to lose a vesel, you can have it ram an enemy ship to take it out as well (especially if exploding ships have a blast radius). Hmmm, but the problem here is what is preventing someone from making the cheapest crappy ships, and just using them to ram their opponents more expensive vessels. Probably not a viable idea for this type of game. However, hopefully asteroid fields will have collision damage. 9. Lastly, it would be great if you could fail a mission and it isn't necessarly an automatic replay. If the campaign could allow for the occasional mission failure, that would add a serious level of realism. Of course, some missions would always be non negotiable...such as 'Don't die' type missions. But some missions, like defend station/escort vessel/kill enemy admiral and so on could allow for failure WITH penalties. For example 1) If you fail to defend a vital research station, you might get access to a new tech later in the campaign than would normally be the case. 2) If you fail to defend a military shipyard or mining station, you might get less RUs to go toward ship purchase/construction 3) If you allow an enemy Admiral to escape, he could show up later on in an additional enemy ship that gives targetting bonuses to your opponents fleet. 4) If you destroy/save a neutral vessel, you could bring a new opponent/ally into the campaign (such as a merchant guild or alien race). Thanks for taking the time to read this. I hope some of my ideas are of use. I love what you guys are doing with this Mod. Thank you.

Copyright (c) 1999-2022 by SWRebellion Community - All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters. Star Wars(TM) is a registered trademark of LucasFilm, Ltd. We are not affiliated with LucasFilm or Walt Disney. This is a fan site and online gaming community (non-profit). Powered by Invision Community

×
×
  • Create New...