Those working on this mod do so in their own free time and for no pay.
Show your support for them by enabling ads on this site!

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Indignation211

Pages: [1] 2
1
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Where to find fighter spawns for ships in the files?
« on: March 07, 2019, 07:58:43 PM »
So since the manual doesn't list the exact fighter spawns for ships I decided to try to dig up this information out of the XML files. However it seems recently this info has been moved out of the standard ship listings. The closest I could find was the spawns for the skirmish ships (ie Skirmish_MC90) but I don't know for sure if those are the same ships used in GC. I also remember Star Destroyers in particular having different fighter complements per era. Could anyone point me to where the fighter spawns for the GC ships are?

2
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / List of Mining Colonies
« on: May 19, 2018, 06:38:02 PM »
I took the liberty of rummaging through the files and identifying which planets in the game are designated mining colonies. I feel this is important to post since afaik the game itself does not directly tell you this information (without inspecting your income on certain planets). For those who don't know, normally an economic building such as a Mining Facility or Tax Collection Agency provides income equal to twice the base income of the planet its built on. Mining Facilities constructed on planets that are Mining Colonies will instead provide 3x the planet's base income, or an increase of 50% over a non-mining colony of equal value. Note that I specifically said Mining Facilities - Tax Collection Agencies do not benefit from being built on Mining Colonies so most Imperial factions do not benefit from this mechanic.

The list of mining colonies is as follows:
Bespin
Bilbringi
Biniir
Bonadan
Dathomir
Dolomar
Dubrillion
Halanit
Hast
Hewett
Kampe
Kessel
Muunilinst
Nkllon
Pardron
Rishi
Sullust
Trasi
Vondarc
Wroona
YagDhul
Ylesia

3
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Updated manual/documentation for 2.2?
« on: May 07, 2018, 09:15:41 PM »
Another question, according to the files planets like Kashyyyk have <Special_Structures_Space> set to 5, which I come to mean the number of space structures such as Golans that can be built at the planet. However it seems I am only allowed to build 2 Golan IIs at the planet. I do notice that planets that previously had more space slots such as Coruscant do have values as high as 8, though I doubt that means 8 Golans at the planet (I recall in 2.2 it was 5 Golans for Coruscant). Anyone know what in the files determines the number of Golans or other space structures that can be built at a planet?

4
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Updated manual/documentation for 2.2?
« on: May 03, 2018, 07:04:53 PM »
First, let me just say how happy I am that 2.2 is finally here. :)

That said, the manual included with the download is still for 2.1. A LOT has changed since then and there are a ton of little things that as far as I know the game itself doesn't tell you so it would be nice if these things were documented somewhere. Things like which planets have more slots for space structures, which ones can build Golan IIIs, which ones are mining colonies, how much damage each weapon does against each ship type (that last point REALLY changed how I played 2.1 once I discovered how effective torpedoes were against capital shields).

Will an updated manual be made, or will this information be posted elsewhere such as the wiki?

Side note, I attempted to dive into the xml files to see which planets can build Golan IIIs, but there were only four planets listed under <Required_Planets> or something, and I could have sworn at least one planet not listed there could build a Golan III. If I want to try to find this information out myself in the files, where would I need to look?

5
Ascendancy Tech Support / More unusual weapon values
« on: November 23, 2016, 04:58:58 PM »
I did another pass through the 1.0 ship files, jotting down the exact weapon damage values since the ingame infocards can be misleading. I found a few unusual things, mostly in Imperial Remnant ships:

-The laser cannons of the Scimitar Assault Bomber and TIE Bomber are set to do Anti-Light damage. Every other laser cannon i've seen thus far is set to Anti-Very Light.

-Speaking of the TIE Bomber, it's laser cannons deal 80.5 damage which is far higher than any other imperial or republic fighter. For refrence, the TIE Defender's lasers deal 40.5 damage.

-The Immobilizer's quad laser cannons deal Capital damage (I KNEW there was an instance of this somewhere!)

-Concussion Missiles in general tend to vary widely in which damage type they deal, whereas other weapons are almost all consistent. Depending on the ship Concussion Missiles can deal either Anti-Very Light, Anti-Very Heavy or Capital damage. Compare to Turbolasers which always deal Capital damage or Laser Cannons which almost always deal Anti-Very Light or Proton Torpedoes which always deal Anti-Very Heavy.

EDIT: These are the values in 1.0F. I'm aware that you may have aleady adressed some or all of these during the effort towards 1.1.

EDIT 2: I'm also a bit wierded out by the weapon configuration on the MC90. The turbolasers are focused forward with some on the sides, but the Ion Cannons are all on the sides and none fire forward??? Also the MC80B's turbolaser power seems a bit high especially compared to the ICW MC80B.

6
Ascendancy Discussion / Hangar Defenses?
« on: November 22, 2016, 02:11:12 PM »
Are there going to be static hangar defenses like in base sins? I know such facilities exist in Star Wars (there are some in X-Wing Alliance) and without them a carrier fleet can simply sit at the edge of a gravity well and spam bombers at structures. I know Golan III's get one squadron each but that is nowhere near enough.

7
Ascendancy Discussion / Re: Question about lasers, warheads and damage types
« on: November 17, 2016, 01:45:02 PM »
Now that we're closer to 1.1, have the damage modifiers been looked at again? Or are they going to be the same as 1.0?

8
News & Updates / Re: 1.1 Dev Diary: Fractured Empire
« on: November 16, 2016, 09:48:28 AM »
To clarify, if you pick one tree are you Locked out of the others? Like if you research Daala's tree  youre then locked out of Thrawn's and Palpatine's?

9
News & Updates / Re: Schism Events, Research & Galactic Conquest Breakdown - Era Three
« on: November 15, 2016, 03:00:07 PM »
Quote from: Corey on November 15, 2016, 01:05:14 PM
If you change their pop cap requirements like that, it becomes impossible for them to have a reasonable support fleet and the AI gets even worse with them than they are now. You also can't make the game somehow force them to not be in a fleet together.

You realize that the AIs idea of a reasonable support fleet is another Executor?

Besides you might be surprised at what can fit into 19 population. Try 5 Lancers, 5 Carriers and either a Dominator or Hero ISD to round things out. And this is just what is out on the field at a given time, theres always reinforcements waiting. The point is there really shouldnt be more than one of these things out at once.

Edit: An alternative solution would be to simply not have b uildable generic supers.

10
News & Updates / Re: Schism Events, Research & Galactic Conquest Breakdown - Era Three
« on: November 15, 2016, 11:23:12 AM »
Personally I find it much more fun to fight against supers than with them.

That said, can we PLEASE limit them to one super per side on the battlefield at a time? All it takes is just changing their population to (50% of space cap + 1). Because fighting both Reaper and Vengeance AND a Praetor is just ridiculous. Maybe take it a step further and limit to one per fleet. This only applies to things of Executor size and power and above.




11
Ascendancy Discussion / Re: Question about lasers, warheads and damage types
« on: August 31, 2016, 07:12:47 PM »
Two things.

First, i redid my math because i neglected to account for the damage modifier for anti-very heavy damage vs capital armor (only 60% damage...) with this the K-Wing actually has almost 2.7x the DPS of the B-Wing. I know we just established these modifiers are subject to change but yeah this is what it is now.

Second, I reread your first reply and caught something I missed before: its a quad TURBOlaser?! Like, isn't that ISD-grade weaponry? How did they fit that on a bomber?

12
Ascendancy Discussion / Re: Question about lasers, warheads and damage types
« on: August 31, 2016, 06:26:20 PM »
Thanks for the response!

Okay I could have sworn the AF's quad lasers did capital damage at one point, but maybe i'm mistaken. I was thinking the AF was underpowered, but after studying it some more I think I finally figured out its selling points.

Damage modifiers aren't finalized. Good to know.

The A-Wing I'll just say its for game balance and leave it at that.

As for the K-Wing I do now see that it's a turbolaser (I dont know why I thought it was a quad laser). Still I question having such a powerful weapon on a bomber. If my math is right, the K-Wing does twice as much DPS as a B-Wing even with Bomber Superiority maxed out. Basically K-Wings seem overpowered even with the 2x supply cost in my opinion, and using them over B-Wings also renders Bomber Superiority moot.

13
Ascendancy Discussion / Question about lasers, warheads and damage types
« on: August 31, 2016, 01:35:54 PM »
So I noticed that the Assault Frigate's quad lasers were nerfed from capital to anti-very light damage. This is all well and good except the K-Wing's quad laser still deals capital damage. Is there a reason for this? Personally I find it weird for a fighters lasers to deal more damage than its warheads against enemy ships. Meanwhile the Assault Frigate takes a hit to its firepower.

Also, why do torpedoes and missiles deal anti-very heavy damage? As far as I can tell no ship has the very heavy armor type. Wouldnt it be simpler if they just did capital damage like normal ship weapons?

Lastly why do A-wings have higher laser damage than X-wings (30 compared to about 25)?

14
News & Updates / Re: Elite Fighters
« on: February 21, 2016, 04:47:55 PM »
I definitely approve of the concept but 75% seems like a bit too much, especially when you take into account the Endurance's Signal Interference ability which also reduces enemy fighter's accuracy.

Maybe something like 50% or 33% would be better, depending on how it stacks with Signal Interference.

15
Ascendancy Discussion / Migration
« on: February 21, 2016, 04:43:04 PM »
So I noticed certain planets, namely Desert and Arboreal, have really high population caps but really slow growth rate. It occurs to me that these planets are what the Migration mechanic is supposed to be for; moving population from planets with high growth rates to fill up these other planets.

Thing is, as far as i can tell it hasn't been implemented yet. I know this still isn't full 1.0 yet but these planets have been like this since .95 and the pitiful growth rates really bother me on these planets when there's no way to fill them up faster.

I'm just cruious, is migration still going to be a thing? If not then Desert, Arboreal and maybe Ecumenopolis planets really need higher growth rates.

16
Ascendancy Tech Support / Ion Cannons damaging hull, among others
« on: February 18, 2016, 10:19:11 PM »
I first noticed this back in .95 with the Executor, but going through the files again for 1.0 beta I noticed a lot more instances of this:

AttackType "CAPITALSHIP"
DamageAffectType "AFFECTS_SHIELDS_AND_HULL"
DamageApplyType "BACKLOADED"
DamageType "ENERGY"
WeaponClassType "ION"

Am I right in assuming this means these ion cannons damage hull as well as shields? Is this intentional or a bug? Off the top of my head I know the Executor, Viscount, Bellator, Nebula, MC90, MC80B, and MC80 Liberty are like this, but i'm sure there's more.

I also noticed a few other curiosities, like one set of turbolasers on the Dauntless having ion cannon particles and the other being able to fire on fighters... again, bugs or intentional???

17
Ascendancy Discussion / Re: Damage types and modifiers?
« on: October 24, 2015, 12:43:03 PM »
After digging through the files it looks like Ascendancy is indeed going for a more Imperial Civil War style approach to weapons. So no need to worry about a particular frigate's dps being nerfed against a particular other frigate here.

18
Ascendancy Discussion / Re: .95 Feedback and minor bugs
« on: October 10, 2015, 06:04:23 PM »
I was just digging through the files and I discovered that the DamageAffectType for the Executor's ion cannons is set to "AFFECTS_SHIELDS_AND_HULL". I presume it's supposed to be "AFFECTS_ONLY_SHIELDS".

19
Ascendancy Discussion / Damage types and modifiers?
« on: October 09, 2015, 09:59:22 PM »
Here's a question i've been meaning to ask for a while now.  Do each of the weapon types have the same damage modifiers regardless of what ship they are fired from (like in Imperial Civil war, all Turbolasers did .75x damage to Captial shields regardless of whether they were fired by a Nebulon-B Frigate or a Star Destroyer) or does each ship have its own modifiers (like in base Sins, where the Beams of Advent Bombers are more effective against Heavy Cruisers than the Beams of Illuminator Vessels, while the Illuminators are better against Light Frigates).

Also are these modifiers going to be documented anywhere? I remember it was only relatively recently that the damage modifiers for Imperial Civil War were published in the manual, and finding out how much damage Proton Torpedoes actually did to Capital shields GREATLY changed how I played that game.

20
Ascendancy Discussion / Re: Diplomacy Mechanics
« on: June 30, 2015, 02:24:10 PM »
I understand. I was just worried that in your efforts to make the tech trees more unique you might have inadvertently removed important sources of relationship points. If these things are in 1.0 then I will be perfectly happy.  Thank you.

Pages: [1] 2
Those working on this mod do so in their own free time and for no pay.
Show your support for them by enabling ads on this site!