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 - nightraven1901

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Planet-Specific Shipyards
« on: October 18, 2017, 02:07:35 PM »
Oh, yeah- the planetary capture rewards are awesome; I'd just love an extra one for Fresia to give whomever captures it some X-Wings and Correlia some CR90s. Maybe a Kedalbe for Mandalore and a MC80b for Mon Calamari.

As to making Fresia able to produce X-Wings: I certainly didn't mean any changes to the normal way the Rebels get them- they should keep their capacity to build them anywhere, in this idea- just allow whoever holds it to also build a few. But, it does seem that the concept of multiple planet-specific buildlists has been explored and dismissed though; so that isn't too likely.

Meh; I just like the realism of it. The Russians turned a great many Panzers around and painted red stars on them- Germans did it to T-34s in return. Incom was making those fighters for the Empire; it just makes me feel good to see the odd mirror match between them. The GC that makes me most nostalgic now is the hunt for Zsinj- despite me preferring the multi-era ones gameplay wise- merely because seeing mixes of Nebulons, CR90s, and Star Destroyers is very cool and reminds me of the old X-Wing/TIE Fighter games where such ships could be working for either side (modified CR90s are notorious for it; can never tell if those buggers are hostile or friendly until they open fire) On a semi-related note, are the Imperial forces supposed to have no access to dedicated anti-fighter in that GC? Because they can build Nebulons but not either IPV-1s or CR90s. Odd... Perhaps they're going to get the Raider corvette instead and that's why they lack one now? I don't think we're expected to use Nebulons for anti-fighter work; they're bad at it.

Look, it's not critical, just flavourful. I know the Muuns sell to anyone and I do hate the Alignment and their Praetor spam so it'd make me happy if I could make Munificents while holding it. I mean, I'd offer to code it myself, but I know how much I need to learn to do that. Right now I don't even know how to implement story elements into the maps so I can allow C3PO and R2 use droid panels to blow up turrets from a remote location (something I'd love to implement on my current map) so the concept of doing a submod for this is somewhat daunting. That said, I will have between-map downtime, so, I might look into the code, watch some more tutorials. But that's for another time- I have enough work to do :)

2
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Master Mapping Thread: (Formerly "Build-pads: how many...")
« on: October 10, 2017, 06:19:49 AM »
I have brought a map to testing phase. Though I'm not precisely sure how to test a GC map without messing with my install, I figure it might be worth providing a link to the .ted file for any critique you guys may have: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3k86h47yz516cjp/City%20Test%20Map%202.ted?dl=0 Considering this is my second map in this editor, I don't think I did too badly- and obviously this is just entering testing and therefore subject to change.

Thoughts, people?

3
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Master Mapping Thread: (Formerly "Build-pads: how many...")
« on: September 28, 2017, 08:15:25 PM »
I wish very hard there was a list, but the planets requiring replacement maps are not currently determined. My strategy is to pick a map that I saw repeated and go from there for the time being. And I had a very similar trouble to you- first map was excessively large, and the second is just starting to develop now- I am slow, because my methods involve a significant amount of reiteration- and then testing, and retooling, and such. Making absolutely sure the spawn locations work as intended and other basic requirements were met is a hard priority- I will be taking my sweet time on it. And naturally you're exaggerating a bit mate- all cool,

4
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Planet-Specific Shipyards
« on: September 28, 2017, 08:00:34 PM »
Not at all- just really want to see some representation for things like the CEC and Incom Industries being Imperial, the Mandalorians working for pretty much whoever pays, etcetera. The world and lore of Star Wars is pretty rich with little ironic nuggets of truth after many people have added to it- some of them are are simply cool :) though I will check out the mod- cheers for the tip,

5
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Master Mapping Thread: (Formerly "Build-pads: how many...")
« on: September 27, 2017, 07:55:12 PM »
Tom: I don't think the map editor is too bad for a dev tool. She's a pain, naturally- and every bloody autosave makes me drop a patch of soft rocky ground onto my clean and immaculate roads- but she gets the job done. I'd like more assets for it- a cafe fresco prop would be nice, a few normal houses, a few farm props to make crop fields, a bunch of knick-knack props... But as is she works. She even crashes rarely- about once per day is my standing average (and I am abusing the poor girl; every day of texturing seems to increase the time needed to save or load... I'm around the load time of Belsavis right now, which is bad). I dunno; it is a tool never meant for public release. I'm pleasantly surprised by it; I've seen far, far worse in my travels.

6
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Planet-Specific Shipyards
« on: September 27, 2017, 07:42:51 PM »
Ahhh, I see. It's lore-based as well as gameplay-related. I was also unaware the New Republic sued the KDY into making MC80s- I knew they made Kuat produce them, I just wasn't clear on their methods. Most hilarious XD ...

Now, I definitely get the idea of not wanting to make several new ships that don't have a dedicated role within gameplay;  we can already see the effects of this on some existing ships- there's little need for them, or they do their job worse than another unit you already have. But, a very limited number of non-crap fighters would really benefit the Empire- so long as it was kept very limited, so as not to mess with their careful balance. I should also specify I don't mean a lot of these things either- I know the AI is too stupid, and myself too sporting, to overuse such limited access, it would happen and risk generating fleets of identical units. So it would need to be done very carefully if it was- but I don't see an enemy that is often segregated as being able too spread these everywhere, unless they're already winning pretty handily anyway. I would expect, perhaps wrongly, that these ships would naturally cluster around the one world that let you build them. However, an additional build limit could also be implemented- though, I'm guessing the difficulty you referenced would lie in the creation of the new planetary bonus. To that I have a modified proposal:

Adjust the existing planetary rewards for these planets to include a somewhat sizeable chunk of their units. Not a fleet's worth, but say five CR90s for Correlia, a Kedalbe for the Mandalorians, a stack of eight x-wing squadrons that were repurposed by the victorious Empire (Or Zsinj; he's in the right area)- just enough to make the effort worthwhile. Under this paradigm, if there were any new or unique ships added, their value needn't be directly military, but to a degree their novelty and rarity, and secondarily their value as being given for a specific planet's capture offering a strategic element present in AotR that would be nice to see a little of so long as it didn't become a cavalcade of knowing which planet to attack in which order to get a victory bonus and keep snowballing. So with this idea, especially, there would need to be limits, but a healthy chunk of the units I'm suggesting here do have models, and were in canon serving the factions who'd have access to them- it could be done without compromising the lore, at least. As to gameplay balance, I'd think a limited number of ships could be used to add personality without completely compromising the unique feel of the factions. The Remnant will always have a spiked wall of Imperial-class ships, I'm merely suggesting a way to represent the handful of CR90s and X-Wings and various other units who serve to remind us that these ships were Imperial-designed, Imperial-funded operations. I think it takes something away from the game to not see at least one or two of these particular units under Imperial colours. And some vessels are in canon almost specifically to be a shared unit- the Gozanti Cruiser, for example.

I'm not going to forget this idea, though. The call for new ships is eternal, and always will be.

7
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: economy buildings
« on: September 27, 2017, 07:11:59 PM »
Oh, is the end-goal to prevent the player getting out-of-control powerful so quickly? Because I am rushing to take over worlds until my fleet cap and economy right up until the enemy AI breaks and they suddenly go from sending five-Praetor doom fleets to nothing at all as (I'm guessing) the AI no longer feels it can breach your defences. Even when you remove your defences, because you want them to re-capture the planet and start offering a credible threat again- makes me wonder what the AI is doing when they hold four or five worlds, but good worlds, like Jaemus, Muunilinst, and Yaga Minor but simply stop producing ships. I've watched them, you know- they will sit there, on Admiral, for several hours without building one solitary ship. They definitely had the eco.

I can think of a reasonably easy, if not especially satisfying, method of controlling that OP-ness. Borrow from Stellaris its mechanic of increasing costs linearly based on the number of worlds you control, using a single modifier multiplier that kicks in around twenty-five worlds and begins to reduce your income/increase your upkeep (depending on how that's implemented) or increase all unit buy costs. This is a cheap and nasty way to model your larger empire requiring more funds for garrison maintenance, force support and basing, and civil engineering. Though, it's... Cheap and nasty, like I said.

I'd love to get a peek into the AI for GC that makes it straight-up die and essentially cease all functions when they're low on worlds. Possibly attacking the problem from the other side would work better- make the weakened factions fight harder with buffs, more story missions to give them rewards, give them a fairly serious economy boost, etcetera. This would make the AI less of a waiting target and more of a working small force when they've lost a few worlds. As it stands, it takes capturing around half of the Alignment's territory to break them entirely. The Empire of the Hand will stop functioning at around five worlds too- it makes the end of GCs just uninteresting and threatless. If we fix that, I don't think reigning in the player will need as much of a priority, and it might keep the fights a little bigger in the mid-to-late game.

What do you guys think? Most of you have more experience than I do on this title; you may be better informed than I.

8
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Emergent factions query.
« on: September 25, 2017, 07:17:00 PM »
I don't like freely-generated (not paid for by any faction's economy) raiding as a general idea much anyway, let alone a world that just keeps copping that despite being being behind the battle lines. That nonsense is why I disliked the expansion- or at least, was compelled to ruin the Consortium first and foremost to stop the incessenat rebuilding and decorrupting. I'm all for personality, but constant, non-critical battles are a good way to introduce a good measure of tedium too. I would prefer some other method for these worlds, mate.

9
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Planet-Specific Shipyards
« on: September 25, 2017, 07:11:01 PM »
Slornie: Yeah, I know how much work it could be to implement this to the maximum possible level, but doing it for a few planets isn't too much of a list. I'm specfying Corellia because they did sell to both sides, and private users, and pirates, and pretty much everyone else, but the Mandalorians' and Kuatians' technology certainly did wind up in the hands of different factions often enough, especially during this time period where the New Republic was in its infancy and couldn't source ships and vehicles effectively as they lacked a dedicated war industry, and the Imperial military complex was in disarray and collapsing, and thus resorted to supplementing their forces with increasingly ragtag units. Also, in some cases we're rewriting history in the course of our campaigns, taking Kuat as the Rebellion is something that happens often enough. Given a hypothetical occupation, whether they liked it or not, they'd be building ships for the Republic cause. Military expediency trumps all in war, and the deciding of moral stances is in my opinion is better left to the player than the dev- if possible. I would buy off the Hutts, as either side. And the Hutts would sell, albeit possibly at a mark-up. The Mandalorians are already portrayed as being forced to provide military units to the Empire in several sources, at least one of them modern canon. Besides, they were just examples- there are plenty of other choices, and different specifics of implementation.

I also don't expect a new model if one isn't available, or a lot of work done on the maps- I am learning the hard way how much work they can be, though I'm having a lot of fun doing it- but simply making a shorter version of the list that allows production of Golans, maybe even a separate single-planet list for each world, would not take anywhere near that long, and it's not like every single world offers unique units in canon anyway. There's maybe fifteen or twenty that are priority for this- Incom Industries on Fresia, as they were an Imperial company anyway contracted by the Empire to make fighters (which said Empire could really use a few of) is another big example, and maybe Muunilinst, as they happily sold to anyone and everyone. Hapes could provide access o more than a single small batch of Battle Dragons. There's a lot of planets this could apply to, and most of them are strategically relevant in most galactic conquests, changing hands often. I think it'd add a lot of personalty to them, and some of them need it, especially given the ground maps being repeated makes a lot of them feel samey.

A lot of suggestions I have made have been somewhat offhand; I don't consider them that important, or acknowledge their cost-to-effect ratio is lower than existing projects. This, though: this I believe is well worth it, and worth a little pushing. The planets and shipwrights that did  sell to both sides should be represented if possible, and the implementation for first-iteration testing is marginal compared to some existing projects. First test can be Correlia or Fresia alone, and just test functionality for selling X-Wings and CR90s etc to any owner. Hell, now I think about it, there doesn't even need to be a buildable, just a simple code block, implementing a new planetary bonus type, which permits the construction of new units at starbase tech level, which has a short list. No player interaction or wasting of resources/balancing needed. I think it might be worth a look into, at least.

10
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Planet-Specific Shipyards
« on: September 24, 2017, 07:27:59 AM »
So, we all want more ships in the mod. I want more ships. I have had a taste, now I'd dearly like to be able to build the entire catalogue of Star Wars ships. Now, some are unmodelled, or have no lore to work from to make one from scratch. But, there are a good number of ships for which we have models, and we can't build them, or they're not in the game. Why?

Because for some reason, doubtless relating to the Petroglyph dev team not needing to implement it, we can't scroll the damned build list. So, for most factions, by tech level five, it's absolutely full or close to it. But we have so many worlds limited to a smaller shipyard, and they therefore never come close to filling their build queues, and can't without changing the XML to allow the building of a larger station. Which brings me to my idea:

Why don't we have planet-specific space buildables, using similar scripting as the old Hutt Palace and Cantina buildings so they can't be built on world with access to level three shipyards, which could place another shipyard on the space map, which serve almost solely to allow the purchase of specific ships from planets that are otherwise not strategically relevant? Obviously Corellia have an interesting catalogue of ships, don't have access to a level three shipyard, and could therefore be made to build the Correlian catalogue for the Empire without compromising the build-list issue. In fact, with minimal effort, this could be made happen without shipyard models, or by recycling the asteroid base and other models that aren't being used right now (to any great effect, at least. They're in skirmish but they don't unlock more ships to build) and let many, many more ships fit into the mod. Hutt ships could be available to the controller of Nal Hutta, Mandalorian ships for the Mandalorians- I want to build Kedalbes again. Maybe an appropriate shipwright for Naboo, too. Kuat Drive Yards could theoretically be usable by the Rebellion/Republic, assuming they could have taken it from the Empire, the lore and basic business sense agree that the corporations will serve whichever master pays them- though this a great way to get saboteurs. This would let the Rebels build Imperial-class ships, which they could definitely use for both strategic and lore reasons (the rebels used a shocking number of Imperial ships in the lore; most of their technology was Imperial in design and manufacture)... The possibilities for this are entirely endless. With so many worlds that can't build level-three space stations, we could cram several hundred or even thousand more ship models into the game and have every one be easily buildable (and not subject to that dumb bug where having the Arc Hammer in orbit of a developed world meant things weren't buildable because they "fell off" the end of the end of the build tree).

Thoughts?

11
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: economy buildings
« on: September 23, 2017, 08:26:08 PM »
Tom: I know, right? Seriously; space-bar means pause. It's an genre standard that goes back years. Hell, I'd settle for P being pause. But no...

12
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: economy buildings
« on: September 23, 2017, 07:39:54 AM »
T78: The AI doesn't chain attacks against a single planet anyway- and adding the single-unit retreat code, as far as I know, requires writing that functionality into each unit individually, hence us not seeing it planned for every unit- too much effort to implement. I'd love to see it available, as every ship should have the ability to run away, but if it involves several hours of code per unit (and it may very well take days  per unit), then we can't really expect it.

13
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Gravity Wells.
« on: September 22, 2017, 01:48:46 AM »
Eh, might be doable, but implementing it would dilute the effectiveness of existing interdictors, and seriously up-f** some carefully-achieved balance. It might not be a terrible idea, but I am fairly sure it'd annoy more people than it would make happy. But, it's not like it's be difficult to make a new marker for the mapmaker to draw a circle that acted like the effect for ground battles retreats (anything not in a reinforcement point when the timer hits zero is left behind and considered dead) but just because it can be done doesn't mean it should. I don't want to deal with it- I'm happy with "there's an active gravity-well generator around" and "there's not currently a gravity well generator in the area." Nice and simple binary choice. Doesn't leave any room for confusion.

14
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Your Best/Most Memorable Battles
« on: September 22, 2017, 01:41:52 AM »
Hah, my kind of trade. Nicely done, Roach. Let me guess- Golans, wall of capitals between them, and an interspersion of corvettes and frigates between those? That's my preferred strategy if I have the star destroyers for it. The AI won't centralise enough firepower to break through it in a lot of cases; I have watched fleets five times my size get ground into dust against those quadanium dragon's teeth.

15
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Master Mapping Thread: (Formerly "Build-pads: how many...")
« on: September 22, 2017, 01:36:53 AM »
TomPhanan: I agree there was a slight lack of uniqueness to some of the maps, but they only had so many models to work with. I have to second Corey's opinion here- the base game maps were really good. I still remember several of them fondly- Coruscant, giving me extra shields and power. Mon Calamari- defenders paradise. Just like Nal Hutta. Kessel and Dagobah: both uniquely sparse in comparison to the other maps. Though, with a few hundred more props to place, there could have been some room for improvement.

16
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Master Mapping Thread: (Formerly "Build-pads: how many...")
« on: September 22, 2017, 01:32:04 AM »
T78: There are certainly basic precepts that are both normally followed, and generally are wise to follow for good measure. According to the guidelines in the map-maker tutorial files that come along with the mapmaker, and those found on the official sit where you get it from, your maps should have at least two approaches to the main base, to permit flanking attacks, as is seen on the Eriadu base game map (and most others in vanilla. They do follow their own rules), seven base build slots, even if the ground base isn't intended to have that many ground build slots, so you can move your buildings around. It requires some perfectly open space to serve as reinforcement points- failure to properly accommodate these with flat terrain can lead to ground units getting stuck on when you call them in. There's a lot of basic stuff you can find if you google "sweaw map editor tutorial."

That said, there's no single "perfect" map. I'm doing my best to create interesting and rewarding maps to play that work, look good, and support strong decisions- in exactly that order. Placing a base and an attacker entry point are first- this lets you see the avenues units will use to either attack or defend. Then place other structures and buildables and such to suit the terrain. A mix of open and tight space offers tactical opportunities, so I'm aiming to mesh both, with larger open areas and tighter city streets and ravines to traverse. An excessively open map makes it harder to find enemy units as there's so much space to get lost in- too little open space and they won't be able to move effectively, or in extreme cases, get stuck. So there's something of a balance to strive for with terrain open-ness.

But before that, you have to make sure the map works and the placement of things makes sense. You may not appreciate how much you can change a map by moving one structure on it. Example: The buildpad guarding the open water on aforementioned Eriadu. Take that away and waterborne attack are extremely difficult to repel, even though you didn't add more water. On the same map: move the base out of the city, and the defender won't feel like they're under so much early pressure. Any change affects how the map plays- a lot of maps that are annoying just need a few tweaks to be made far more satisfying to play. Bunker pads at the end of dead-ends moved to choke points, reinforcement points that are currently broken can be fixed with little effort once detected. It's really these things that decide how the maps are to play, not how open they are, in a lot of cases (there's one in the mod that's FAR too open; a desert map with a single assault avenue to the map's east, and all four reinforcement points in a huge open plain. I dislike this map for being too open, but it's an extreme case. It could be absolutely remedied by the addition of one, maybe two, abandoned sensor platforms. Seriously; that one change and the problem would just melt away.

I hope this helps, mate. Please, hit me up if you have any more questions. The more people know about the mapmaker the more likely some other folks will start mapping, which would make me happy. Also, a huge long shot but I don't want to pester Corey again, so: do you have any idea how populous Pantolomin (Panto Prime) is? I have trawled every lore source I know about and can't find much of any lore, let alone a query so specific. But, in this place I'm surrounded by people who know even more about Star Wars than I do, so maybe I'll get lucky :) Just want to know how densely to scatter civilian spawners.

Tom, Corey- sorry to interrupt,

17
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Master Mapping Thread: (Formerly "Build-pads: how many...")
« on: September 20, 2017, 07:33:46 PM »
I'm just realising a lot of things now as I go. Burying structures into the edges of terrain to make the neat slopes, overlapping the terrain with them, or bringing spires of terrain invisibly up through the middle of props to use their upper surfaces as terrain. I was wondering if there's any way to over-ride the minimap terrain shaders; some maps show lower ground as being bright blue, meant to signify water, even though they're clearly above ground. Does the terrain need to be a distance above zero to ensure the map doesn't try to see these sections as water, or is it something else?

Thank-you Corey for weighing in. While you're here, if you have any thoughts on mapping or Pantolomin in general, hit me up. It's your mod after all; I could save some serious effort by making sure I don't place factories or other stuff you absolutely don't want to see there (I was going to ditch on old Rebel factory on a small island next a mining facility, to reward a little micro- go over there with an amphibious transport and infantry and it'll give you some cash and a company of swamp speeders for your exploration) also, unless there's any complaints (or the engine will just die, unable to make sense of it all), I did put an extra shield generator in th city, and an extra power plant, to make it look like the rich tax-haven-exploiting elite of the universe are screwing your government for extra protection generally not seen off of Coruscant. This is just me trying to add some richness to a scenario; that said I may be off target, as I writer-aspirant I'm used to making the lore, not having to follow it.

Update: I am probably twelve percent done at making my test map, mainly because the city area, meant to represent the high-income elite place to stay, not unlike Aspen or Hawaii, is taking a lot of time to make neat. It's also a little bit too... Ninety degrees square, if you catch my drift? So it needs some more massaging, much like the hills. I think I'm doing alright considering this is my first attempt using the editor- but everything I do takes a very long time. Building a small city, meant to look pretty and upper-class? Could be done in around twelve hours in minecraft for one draw distance, two days if it was stuffed with triggers and effects. I spent all of yesterday making one and I'm still not done; each wall has to be slid into place with the care and attention-to-detail normally reserved for docking a space shuttle. That said, these areas I've done first, being the base and city, are easily the most detailed and precise parts- I should be done in a around a week.

Any lore or other info for Pantolomin? Post it. More lore equals a better represented map, ;)

18
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Master Mapping Thread: (Formerly "Build-pads: how many...")
« on: September 17, 2017, 01:21:38 PM »
I did look over a couple of them at first, yes; just didn't think to check Bastion. I'm going to look up Khomm/Pantolomin; I am going to find out why my mortars and tanks insist on getting stuck after being called down (I think the issue is the reinforcements will be placed in terrain cells the unit can't move in, so it doesn't move at all in compromise) and make absolutely bloody sure that it isn't a thing on my map. I'm also smoothing the hell out of terrain around reinforcement pads, just to be safe. OHHHH; right. The existing maps will have the correctly-set buildpads, too. I know what I'm doing next! Cheers Slornie!

19
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Unit suggestions [Split from Tester Signup]
« on: September 17, 2017, 01:14:17 PM »
Funnily enough that was exactly my thinking. The AI already has a working code for tracking when a speed debuff is preferable for a defence buff; just co-opt that and link it directly into the unit behaviour, so they just do it (helps to simulate troops under fire. Ordering your average marine rifle section to advance while they're recieving fire will yield an advance, but they won't charge into cannon fire. They'll proceed slowly, carefully. I wouldn't mind the troops doing that naturally; I'm already used to insubordinate officers from space combat. But that's fairly pie-in-the-sky, this is hardly priority.

20
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Master Mapping Thread: (Formerly "Build-pads: how many...")
« on: September 17, 2017, 01:06:22 PM »
Ohhhh; I see... That'd be tough to use for maps where the actual ground was visible, but still. Hmmm.  More food for thought; cheers Slornie!

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
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!