Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Thundercraft

  1. Thank you for the reply and the suggestion. This is, indeed, a nice way to fix it. Unfortunately, I've been playing on a server. So there's no way to use admin codes like that. In other circumstances I could probably contact the Admin and explain my situation. However, the Admin has been absent for a long time and we've not been able to contact him.
  2. Last night I lost $150 million due to either a game glitch or simple mistake that anyone could have made. Keep in mind: I've been carefully saving up my money, selling claimed Asteroids to factions, trading often (using a Trading System upgrade), salvaging wrecks constantly, selling over half of all the resources I've mined, selling excess Turrets and Upgrade Modules, etc. I eventually managed to save up over $420 million. This, despite investing in 4 Solar Power Stations, one 7-slot mining ship complete with Captain, and enough upgraded Mine Corp. mines to provide me with several thousand units of Iron, Titanium, Naonite and Trinium per cycle (plus about 500 Xanium). I've been preparing to take on the main quests, the mid-bosses and then tackle the Core. My current ship has 8 slots, about 100 k hull, and nearly 750 k shields (about 250 k shields without the 2 shield upgrades). I've already defeated Bottan and the M.A.D. Lab guy. I know that the Core is going to be more difficult, so I've been exploring near the core to find the absolute best turrets possible from Turret Factories. My big problem now is saving up enough $millions to afford to build the turrets, because they're just so insanely expensive! What happened: I decided that I need to face Pirate Captain Swoks and get it out of the way, especially since I don't venture far from the Core much, anymore. Granted, I haven't faced him in a long time, perhaps as long as almost a year ago, so I don't remember my previous encounters. So, I jumped around in empty sectors and, eventually, there he was. Except, I did not remember him having an entourage of nearly a dozen other pirate ships. Meanwhile, there is a gun blazing away! There is a dialog window open and I know that the fighting should NOT start until after our conversation. But there is definitely shooting going on already! I believe that someone is shooting my ship. (Later, I realized that it was probably my Point Defense Chaingun Turret that I had left on "Defense" mode.) What I can do is very limited as I am trapped by the dialog window. Until I get the dialog sorted out, I can't even check to see if it is my ship shooting at an enemy or an enemy shooting at me. I start to panic. While my memory of what happened is a bit foggy now, I believe that there was some graphic glitch preventing me from seeing the dialog options clearly. Or, maybe I did just panic. Either way, before I knew it, I was $150 million poorer! And Captain Swoks was laughing maniacally, saying "Thanks for doing business" or something similarly smug. I don't remember very clearly because I was in shock and FUMING MAD! :o :-\ >:( Seriously! In my book, there is no excuse to have a dialog option to pay off Captain Swoks a freaking THIRD of our entire savings just to make him leave us alone! At the very least, this dialog option should be the last option out of all possible choices. Definitely, it should not be the top-most option that is selected by default! And if such an option must be there, the least the game should do is include a pop-up confirmation window asking "Are you sure that you want to do this?" before committing to such an insane choice. I'd much rather lose my ship than pay such an exorbitant bribe! Argh! I'm still miffed. >:( What's worse is that there is absolutely no way to recover this bribe. I immediately set about hyperspace jumping again to face Swoks a 2'nd time. He faced me again before very long. (Why wouldn't he, after already 'scaring' me into coughing up $150 million?) And I easily defeated him as his lackeys. My shields and hull barely even took a scratch. I had a dim hope of finding a cloud of money resources popping out of his wrecked ship, but no... :'( At a minimum, I was hoping that fighting bosses like Swoks and M.A.D. Lab would function as a way to earn money relatively quickly or, at the least, they would drop a lot of rare or exotic Upgrades. I mean, these are BOSS FIGHTS. But all they drop are the XSTN and, maybe - if we're lucky - one Legendary turret. In my book, that's pretty darned weak. Instead, I think they should be popping out upgrades like a piƱata drops candies. If I wasn't so invested in my current game and if it wasnt't for the fact that the server I'm on will probably get wiped soon, I would have given up on Avorion entirely and switch to a different game. Frustrating events like this does that to me. I have difficulty sticking to one game for very long. It was only recently that I decided to give Avorion another try after having given up on it some time last year. I've never even managed to get to the Core before. Though, mostly, this is because the server I'm on always ends up wiping and starting over before too long.
  3. To answer my own questions: Q 1) Production Capacity is split between all simultaneous fighter productions. So, say, if your ship has a Production Capacity of 3000 and you are only trying to produce 1 fighter at a time, then all 3000 of that will go to making the production of that fighter relatively fast. But if you try to do 2 fighters simultaneously, then that Production Capacity is split between them, effectively giving just 1500 Production Capacity per each. And if you try to do 3 fighters simultaneously, then it just provides 1000 Production Capacity towards each fighter, etc. Q 2) Production Capacity is not limited on a per-Assembly basis. And adding more Assemblies to a ship (beyond the material limit; i.e., 3 for Trinium or Xanion, 4 for Ogonite and 5 for Avorion), will indeed add more Production Capacity to speed up fighter production (again, split up between the simultaneous productions).
  4. First of all, this mod rocks! This should be a default part of the game. Moving an asteroid can make the difference between a mine being profitable and not. And player-owned stations aren't terribly profitable to begin with. (The whole economy system desperately needs some TLC...) However, there's one aspect about this mod that I really don't like: I recently clicked on the "Move Asteroid" option on one of my claimed asteroids, because I wanted see how far away I could move it. I did not actually intend to move it. I then decided to click "Cancel"... [Warning to others] Unfortunately, this mod does not refund the moving fee if you click "Cancel"! At least, the version of this mod that my server uses doesn't. That would be bad enough, if the mod was left at the default 500,000 Credit moving fee. However, this server set the fee at 5,000,000 Credits! Talk about ouch! :o :'( And I really worked my behind off to make the few $million that I had. (I had $43 million, now down to $38 million...) Any chance you could change this so that canceling the move would refund the moving fee?!
  5. As I understand, ships with a hangar can produce several new fighters simultaneously, depending on the material that the Assembly is made of and depending on the total number of Assemblies. (For example, Assemblies made of Trinium or Xanion allow production of up to {a maximum of} 3 simultaneous fighters, assuming you've installed 3 such Assemblies. Assemblies made of Ogonite would allow up to 4 and those made of Avorion would allow up to 5, assuming you've added that many Assemblies.) Question 1: With the "Production Capacity" listed on the ship's Status tab or Build screen, does this Production Capacity apply to each simultaneous fighter production? For example, if my ship has a Production Capacity of 400 as a result of adding 4 Trinium Assemblies that each add 100 to Production Capacity and I'm trying to produce fighters that require a Production Effort of 40,000, does that mean my ship can produce 3 such fighters every 100 seconds or so? [40,000 divided by 400 = 100 seconds] Or, alternatively, is the Production Capacity limited on a per-Assembly basis? In my example above, would it take 400 seconds or so to produce such fighters? [40,000 divided by 100 per Assembly = 400] Question 2: Assuming that the answer to above is that Production Capacity is not limited on a per-Assembly basis, is the added Production Capacity of Assemblies beyond the simultaneous limit of the material (3 in the case of Trinium or Xanion) still counted? In my example above, I have to wonder if, perhaps, the time it would take to produce 3 fighters simultaneously might be more like 133.3 seconds, if the Production Capacity of the 4'th Assembly gets ignored/wasted. [40,000 divided by 300 per Assembly = ~133 .33 seconds] P.S.: Maybe I'm just overthinking this and it's not really that complicated?
  6. On the server where I often play, it seems hardly anyone ever uses torpedoes. And the reason why should be self-evident: Torpedoes cost money and aren't exactly cheap. Every time we fire one we're throwing away money. It's not that they're not effective (like certain kinds of turrets I could name), but they don't seem worth the cost. My solution: Have Torpedoes drop from enemies as loot, the same as Modules and Turrets. By giving players some free Torpedoes as a semi-common drop, they won't have to pay so much to buy them, giving them incentive to actually install Torpedo launchers and use them. It only makes sense, after all: If we can salvage Modules and Turrets from enemies and Wreckages, why not Torpedoes? Some enemies definitely fire Torpedoes at us, including Pirates and Bounty Hunters, so we know that they carry them in their ships.
  7. Slaves are illegal, for obvious reasons. Trafficking in slaves should be illegal. Sometimes, though, as we are salvaging a Wreckage, some contraband or dangerous (i.e., license needed) loot will pop out. If we're not careful and/or quick, we might get fined for having them in our cargo hold, even if our ship picked them up automatically. But that mechanism isn't even, exactly, what I want to talk about. Rather, I suggest that there be some mechanism by which players could turn over Slaves to patrol ships (or whoever) without getting fined or losing reputation. Let me explain: Let's say we were to write some fan fiction about Avorion. And let's say the story revolves around a mercenary captain. But, while hardened by a tough and unforgiving galaxy, he (or she) is not exactly heartless. A situation arises much like what I pointed out above: Said captain (and crew) is salvaging a Wreckage when some cargo containers pop out. Some of these cargo containers are Slaves. But this is an uninhabited sector and there are no patrol ships. What does the Captain do? The captain certainly does not have the stomach to go to a Smuggler's Den or whatever to sell the slaves there. That's a line he won't cross. However, this is an uninhibited sector. There aren't even any asteroids or anything of value to attract traffic. If he leaves these Slaves floating in the vastness of deep space - even if they are in cryosleep - they will be as good as dead. In this vast emptiness, nobody will ever find them. It's not like he could pick them up and turn them over to the authorities... could he? If he has them in his cargo hold, the patrol vessels will immediately stop him and blame him for smuggling Slaves, regardless of what he tells them... See what I mean? So, I think there should be some mechanism to turn them over. I'm thinking that if we have Slaves in our cargo hold and patrol vessels detect them, the player would be instructed to stop and they would remove them. However, if the player did not stop (i.e., their thrusters stay on), then the patrol might assume that the player is making a run for it and do the usual, with a penalty to reputation, etc, etc.
  8. What happened? Combining 5 Point Defense Cannons at a Research Station will always result in a Chaingun. Similarly, combining some combination of Point Defense Cannons and Chainguns at a Research Station will always result in a Chaingun. What did you do to make it happen? Combining 5 Point Defense Cannons at a Research Station will always result in a Chaingun. Similarly, combining some combination of Point Defense Cannons and Chainguns at a Research Station will always result in a Chaingun. And combining several Point Defense Cannons with other turrets will usually, but not always, result in a Chaingun. I can not find any combination of turrets that will result in a Point Defense Cannon. I would assume that this behavior is unintended and, thus, a bug. All of this seems very strange and unexpected. It's certainly not intuitive. If this is not a bug, then I would point out that this mechanism is a glaring exploit that players are sure to take advantage of. Consider that Point Defense Cannons are extremely cheap. I can buy a simple Iron or Titanium Point Defense Cannon for around $1500 or less, while an Iron or Titanium Chaingun of a similar Tech Level will cost around 10 times more, if not greater! So, all a player has to do is buy dirt cheap Point Defense Cannons whenever and wherever they are available, then go to a Research Station to combine them. Since the result is always a Chaingun, they will always get a much more valuable turret as a result. Steps To Reproduce 1. Having several Point Defense Cannons in inventory. 2. Go to a Research Station (with Good relations or better). 3. Either combine 5 Point Defense Cannons or combine 1 or more Point Defense Cannons with 1 or more Chainguns. 4. The result will always be a Chaingun. Game Version? v0.19.1 r12932 Game Log? Irrelevant. My game does not crash.
  9. Now that you've pointed it out, I can see it. But since it is located near the very top of the page and since there is that huge banner separating the [search] from the main forum bar, with the Topic Title and the rest of the forum functions, it was extremely easy to miss. No wonder I did not notice it! I'm glad that it has such functionality. However, this is not at all intuitive. And this seems to work a bit differently from the search functions of every other forum I have used (which is quite a few, since I've been a member of over a hundred forums over the years). Yes. I knew we could do this. However, in order to click on a user's name in a post of theirs, we first have to find a post that they've made. If we came to the forums from elsewhere, such as a Discord chat, and, say, just wanted to check the last time they visited the forums (and maybe send them a PM message) or see if they're even a member of the forums, that's much easier said than done. Also, if it has been more than a year since they last posted to the forums, it would be difficult to find a post they've made. Most of the better forum software that I'm familiar with have a [Members] function. This lists all members and has a search function to allow members to search for a specific member. My actual suggestion for (3) was to, quote "give a post a [like], [thumbs up] or [karma]". Nowhere did I suggest the need to 'downvote' someone. And I agree that there is no need for this. For that matter, I see little purpose in giving a specific member an 'upvote' or whatever. I specifically mentioned "giving a post", as in giving a specific topic post a 'thumbsup' or '+1' or similar. Granted, we can always reply to a topic with a simple "+1" or "thumbs up" to someone's comment or suggestion. However, people are inherently lazy. Some are too lazy to reply to a topic with a meaningful sentence that adds to the conversation, but are more than willing to simply click on a [thumbsup] button or similar. Also, based on my experience with other forums, I know that some people will complain when someone replies to a topic merely to give a "+1" to someone's suggestion without - as I said - replying with a meaningful sentence that actually adds to the conversation. But forum software that allows a [thumbsup] or [+1] to a post solves this issue as I've never seen anyone complain about the function when someone uses it.
  10. Here's an idea: A module that, once slotted, will show indicators to point out the direction of free Modules just waiting for a ship to come by and scoop them up. Granted, if I'm the one who popped loose a module - either by knocking it off an enemy directly or by popping it off a Wreckage - I usually notice it. However, if there is - for example - a faction war going on in a sector, I can't possibly keep up with all the fighting going on. A sector is a rather big area. And if fighting is going on several places at once, I can't be everywhere. So if factions pop loose Modules off each other on the opposite end of the sector while I'm, say, salvage Wreckages elsewhere, I'm sure to not notice. Worse, if this happened far enough away, it could easily be so far away that the spinning "wings" on the Module will be too small for me to see at that distance. Also, ideally, such a Module Detection Module would also beep a message at me to let me know that a Module was popped off. Seriously, I would use such a Module, even with how few Module slots my ships tend to have and even how undecided I can be with the trade-offs in choosing between slotting different Modules. Okay, I'll admit: I would slot a Module Detection Module in and out of one of my less important slots and only use it when I'm salvaging a sector, particularly when there's a faction war in the sector. And then I would swap it back out with something more important. I would never permanently install such a Module. But I would definitely use it when I think I need it!
  11. I'm just wondering if any of the mods has ever been adapted into the main game? Are there legal or other complications which prevent this? A number of mods seem quite amazing to me. And, after use mods for a while, I find some mods indispensable. I find it hard to play vanilla now. And I have noticed some other players making comments such as saying that they do not understand why certain mods are not already a part of the official game. Edit: To answer my own question: I just noticed that a function similar to FindStation was added to the base game, making said mod obsolete. I'm not yet aware of other examples, but I guess that I shouldn't be surprised if there are similar cases.
  12. Don't get me wrong: I am very appreciative of the fact that we have an official forum to give feedback, share our ships, stations and discoveries, mention our servers, report bugs, etc. However, I've noticed this forum lacks certain features that are common on most other forums and which I find myself sorely missing. In particular, there does not seem to be any way to (1) [search] the forum for certain topics, words or phrases; (2) search through [members] to find someone specific, such as to see their latest posts or when they last visited the forums or (3) give a post a [like], [thumbs up] or [karma]. For that matter: Has it just been that long ago since I last visited the forums, or did you change the forum software or look? ??? Maybe my memory is fault, but it does not look or behave the way I seem to remember it. Regardless, it would be wonderful if you considered finding a way to add a few more features to the forum sometime down the line. Though, I do realize that what I'm asking for is not as simple as it sounds. And I would understand if this is deemed too low a priority or too much of a hassle. In particular, I suppose switching forum software might entail losing forum data or entire topics and many would probably consider that not worth the price.
  13. Can anyone tell me if this is still an issue? Or, has it been resolved in a recent update? Respectfully, I disagree. For a different perspective: Let's say we're talking about an MMO RPG. There's nothing wrong with player characters vanishing when players log off. Indeed, that is the norm. Though, for the sake of a "persistent universe" or role-playing or suspension of disbelief, they may add a little something, like having the character disappear with a teleportation or magic summoning FX. Players log off to do real-world stuff. What the player does in real life is completely separate from the in-game universe and, as such, there is no 'nice' way of resolving this separation. Having an RPG or FPS character just sitting idle and totally unresponsive to what goes on around them while the player is logged off (or AFK) is every bit as unrealistic as having the character teleport away. Indeed, I'd argue it's even more unrealistic, especially if they're invulnerable while the player is away. Why should this be different if the game is a space sim and we're talking about ships instead of characters? For the sake of argument, let's say that Avorion was real. Let's say that we're now millennia into the future and many people earn their living aboard such ships. If the ship's captain is taking a much-needed nap, some R&R, a bathroom break or grabbing a bite to eat, obviously there would be procedures to follow. During such periods, a commander or someone lower in rank would be in charge. And, obviously, if they come under attack they'd try to wake the captain or ask him/her to put down their eating utensil long enough to tell them what to do. They would not just sit there idle without even trying to inform the captain. Besides, even if it was more realistic to have ships persist while players are logged off, realism sometimes has to be sacrificed for game balance. (There are certain sectors where ships are invulnerable to damage. Is that realistic?) Having a ship disappear after the player logs off would be a very easy fix for this issue. If nothing else, this could be made an option or server setting for those who want it.
  14. It's sad that this mod is abandoned as it was useful, especially for testing out new ship designs in creative. This! I've wanted either an admin code or a mod to do this for so long! I was shocked to learn that neither the dev nor the modding community had made something like this. In earlier versions, there were bugs that made it terribly easy to ruin relations with a faction just by defending oneself from pirates or from one stupid blunder. Before, bountyhunter ships and several other types of ships were classified as "civilian", meaning that destroying just one made any witnessing faction hate your guts no matter how high your standing was. And pirates could befriend any faction by attacking unknown ships on sight,ruining relations just by defending yourself from them.
  15. Could someone at least tell me which Visual C++ Runtime Library Avorion relies on? Please? Was it compiled with Microsoft Visual Studio 2013? 2015? 2017?
  16. I had quit playing Avorion for over a year and I decided to get into it again. Knowing that the game has received updates and remembering that I had installed mods and modified files, I opted out of Beta, deleted most of the game files, and clicked the "Verify Integrity of Game Files" button in Steam > Properties > Local Files. Since I liked to play on Rusty's Server, I then installed their mod pack (per their instructions). Now, though, the game either crashes to desktop or hangs after this error message: This happens randomly, either after several hours or - in the case of this last time - less than a minute after connecting with the server. It's such that I hesitate to play anymore. Imagine this happening if I'm in an alliance while engaged in a fight with a boss... I've reported this to the server owner/admin, but this is news to him. It doesn't sound like anyone else is experiencing this. He suggested that I uninstall and then reinstall Avorion. Also, he suggested that I uninstall and then reinstall my Visual C++ Runtime Library. Well, I've done both. And the latter was not easy, because I had 13 separate Visual C++ Runtime Libraries to find a source for, download, uninstall and then reinstall. (Visual C++ Runtimes including 2005 and both 32-bit (x86) and 64-bit versions of 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2017.) At the time, I did not have 32-bit/64-bit 2017, but I've since added those. Unfortunately, I'm still experiencing this issue. ??? ::) :'( Looking at the most recent clientlog, this is the only suspicious line that occurs right before the game decides to shut down: 2018-04-15 21-33-19| An exception occurred: volume has to be between 0 and 1 What the heck does that line mean? Can anyone give me a translation? Could this be a memory issue or something else? Does this suggest a possible culprit? NOTE: To be fair, my Windows 8.1 PC has been experiencing a growing number problems in the last year. It's gotten so bad that it frequently locks up (as in, completely and totally hangs) when I watch online videos or even playing certain games. Also, it regularly looses time such that the clock sometimes even goes backwards. I've done a number of things to try to resolve this, including replacing the video card drivers, using this procedure to repair corrupt files, and replacing the power supply with a brand new one. At this point, I figure these are the most likely causes: (1) Either my video card is going bad on me or (2) My Windows is suffering from a nasty degenerative condition and needs to be reinstalled. I'm considering the latter, but I wanted to see if anyone had any ideas first. PS: I did a complete test of my system's memory when I built it (a few years ago) and found no issues. But, perhaps I should do another test?
  17. I changed both the pirateattack.lua and alienattack.lua events. What happens now is once the event starts and creates ships bandit factions(pirates), xsotan, etc. will have -200k reputation with each other. I'm pretty sure this fixes the scenario you're describing. Looking at the code in eventchanges.zip, I think these are the important bits: piratattack.lua: local pirates = Galaxy():getPirateFaction(Sector():getCoordinates()) local others = Galaxy():getNearestFaction(Sector():getCoordinates()) Galaxy():changeFactionRelations(pirates, others, -200000) -- pirates hate other factions alienattack.lua: local pirates = Galaxy():getPirateFaction(Sector():getCoordinates()) -- get local pirate faction if pirates ~= nill then --checks if pirate faction in sector Galaxy():changeFactionRelations(faction, pirates, -200000) -- pirates hate xsotan Galaxy():changeFactionRelations(pirates, others, -200000) -- pirates hate other factions end Well, this was a really good idea. However... I'm not sure whether it's due to a recent patch or whether it never truly worked, but this fix does not seem to work now. Actually, I had not bothered trying to use this fix until recently because, until recently, I'd been playing multiplayer on a server that had been using Hostile Factions and this fix. But in my single-player game I had this happen - bandits ended up allied with the local faction. Remembering this topic, I downloaded eventchanges.zip and installed it. But this did not fix it. No matter how many different sectors I move to and no matter how many different waves of randomly generated bandits, the bandits never seem to attack this faction, nor does this faction ever attack them. Further, my relations still drop with this faction if they witness me destroying a bandit ship. As I mentioned in the Military & Bandit ships treated as CIVILIAN topic, part of the problem is that a recent patch made all military (i.e., headhunter) and bandit ships civilian, very heavily penalizing the player for destroying them. After learning of this, I altered pirategenerator.lua and shipgenerator.lua to comment out the code that did this. But, I still lose reputation with said faction for destroying bandit ships, just not nearly as much. Would you consider looking at your eventchanges.zip to see if it could be fixed?
  18. Since this happened, as mentioned here, I used parts of the Hostile Factions mod to subtract 200000 reputation with all other factions, hoping that would prevent this behavior. Well, it does not seem to work. I still get the same problem of factions ignoring bandits and raiders. The admin of the server where I participate suggested that I need to remove the "is_civil" and "civilship.lua" lines from pirategenerator.lua. So, I looked at pirategenerator.lua in /scripts/lib/. Near the bottom of function PirateGenerator.create, I found: ship:addScript("civilship.lua") ship:setValue("is_civil", 1) As he suggested, I've commented these out. I tried once more to stabilize relations in my single-player game. As my relations with my start faction was still at the worst it could possibly get, I decided to wipe out the headhunters in a sector as they were getting annoying. I destroyed just one of them and... "You destroyed a civilian ship! Relations with all witnessing factions have dropped!" And, of course, there happened to be ships of some other, friendly faction in the system. And, so, they went from a friendly turquoise to a Bad yellow-orange in the blink of an eye... for destroying a Headhunter ship. That's right! Even Headhunter ships and Hyperspace Blockers are treated as civilian ships! Searching through /scripts/ , I found the issue in shipgenerator.lua in /lib/. Apparently, most types of ships in the game are treated as civilian ships because they contain: ship:addScript("civilship.lua") ship:setValue("is_civil", 1) This includes createMilitaryShip, createDefender, and createCarrier. (This also includes Headhunter and Hyperspace Blocker ships because headhunter.lua calls createMilitaryShip.) Wait a minute... These are government (faction)-owned military ships, used strictly for combat. As such, setting the "is_civil" to true for these is something of an oxymoron, because - by definition - these are not civilian ships.
  19. I always try to design my ships in a Creative-mode single-player galaxy. I want unlimited resources and the peace and quiet. I've tried designing ships in a completely empty sector. However, after several hours of this, wave after wave of Xsotan keep spawning until there are several dozens of them: With that many Xsotan in the same sector, my game frequently crashes to desktop. :( So, I've been building in a system defended by several faction corvettes and frigates. These usually destroy any Xsotan or bandits, leaving me to design my ships in peace. After many hours of designing, all of a sudden I hear combat music. This time, the local faction refused to engage the pirate wave that spawned. (See the "Enemy of my enemy" topic for details of this phenomena.) I was disappointed, but not surprised as I've had this happen before. I did expect my reputation with my start faction to take a big hit because they became friendly with bandits for engaging and destroying Xsotan for them. What surprised me was how relations with my starting faction went from "Admirable" to "Abhorrent" after destroying just one bandit ship! Apparently, bandits and raiders (and military ships) are being treated as civilian ships. So when I destroy even one of them I get the double whammy of destroying one of their allies and destroying a civilian ship. After time and effort, I managed to improve relations to a blue "Neutral". Then I spent $millions to improve it back to "Admirable". Then, a little while later... it happened again. Bandits spawned. An "Admirable" faction refused to attack said bandits. I'm forced to defend myself and... "You destroyed a civilian ship! Relations with all witnessing factions have dropped!" Again, relations went from "Admirable" to "Abhorrent" in the blink of an eye. All I wanted was to design ships in peace. Isn't there a way to make this happen? After complaining about this on a Discord channel, someone suggested: So far, this seems to work. However, I have to remember to do this every time I restart Avorion. (And, of course, I forgot...) In desperation, I took a closer look at all the available options in the [~dev] debug menus. In the [ship Commands] tab, I tried the "Destroy" button after selecting one of the pirate ships. I was not pleased to see my ship self-destruct. Then, after rebuilding my ship and jumping back to the system, I tried "Delete", thinking that with all these debugging options there must be some way to delete a hostile ship... Nope. :( My ship self-destructed again, the only difference being that this time no wreckage was left behind. Finally, I tried "Toggle Invincible". I haven't tested this option thoroughly. But I can say that this does not prevent enemies from depleting your ship's shields. I've also taken a look at these button: "Entity Scripts", "Entity Values", "Faction Scripts", "Faction Values", "Player Scripts", "Player Values". Surprisingly, I could not find any option to adjust faction relations. Not one. After selecting a station owned by hostile faction, I pressed the "Like" button. But that did not seem to do anything. At least, it did not change my relations with the faction in question. I tried again after selecting one of the faction's ships. Still nothing. Though, at this point, I seemed to notice that as soon as I press the [~dev] button to go into the debug menu, whatever I had selected gets shifted to having my own ship selected... Granted, this is an early access game under development. Bugs and balance issues are bound to crop up. But how about a command line code or debug/admin command to permanently disable all events in the galaxy? How about changing "Creative" on galaxy generation so that events never happen? Or, maybe you could add a new option on galaxy creation to disable all events?
  20. From my experience and observations, I believe that upgrading modules or turrets purely for the sake of selling the end result is a mistake because you'd be better off selling the ingredients. Consider that we can insert anywhere from 3 to 5 modules or turrets into the slots of a Research station. But putting in less than 5 means that there is a good chance that the mix will fail and you will have wasted most of what you put in. The chance of failure is proportional to the number you put in. As such, if you averaged your failures with your successes you should find that there is no benefit to taking the risk. You're better off always using 5. So, you put in 5 modules or turrets and end up with something better. The result is more-or-less randomized, but there are some patterns to it. And certain things are predictable. For one, putting in 5 of the same module or 5 of the same type of turret (5 Chainguns, for example) will always yield the same thing, though the stats or details will be randomized. For another, there is a decent chance that some beneficial traits will be carried over, though this is far from certain. Negative traits can be carried over, too. What does seem certain, as far as turrets are concerned, is that the turret you end up with will use the worst material of the bunch. In my experience, anyway, I can put in four Naonite turrets and one Iron turret and reliably predict that whatever stats or traits the new turret has, it always seems to be an Iron turret. Even putting in turrets of the same material, I think you'd get more money by selling them separately as the increase in value is not that impressive. I'm more confident that holds true with modules - at least for most Uncommon and Rare modules. If you pay close attention to the buy and sell prices at Equipment Docks you'll see that 1 Uncommon or Rare module is usually worth less than 5 modules of one rarity lower. (I say that with some confidence because in my old galaxy I regularly bought out all the "cheap" lower tier modules of certain types in order to mix them at Research stations... that is, until I realized that I was spending more money that way than by just waiting to find a higher rarity module and buying it.) If there is any financial benefit to be gained from mixing stuff at a Research station and selling the result, there -might- be some merit to selectively mixing your cheapest, least valuable turrets you have because the result is randomized. You -may- end up with an especially good result. Might. That, or maybe mixing "Petty", the cheapest modules, because those are typically worth less than a thousand or so, anyway. Though, to get even one high rarity module would require mixing many dozens or even hundreds of Petty modules. Or, maybe it's worth mixing Exceptionals to get Exotics or mixing Exotics to get Legendaries? I don't have much experience with the really valuable stuff. And one would -hope- that that mixing a module worth over a $million should be worth the ingredients.
  21. You must be confusing naturally hostile factions which happen (randomly) to have "Pirates of" in their name. (See the "Pirates" strictly as BANDITS, not a Faction suggestion topic.) Those are not bandits or raiders, but a regular faction. And, yes, they do have stations and gates linking their territory together, like any other faction. The hostile "Bandit" and "Raider" ships that randomly spawn to attack a sector are generated from thin air. Don't believe me? Take a look at pirateattack.lua inside your C:\{Steam folder}\steamapps\common\Avorion\data\scripts\events\ folder. These ships behave differently from the hostile ships of typical factions. In any case: Not having another hard-coded enemy other than the Xostan is not what bothers me. No, what bother me is the situation - where Bandits and Raiders will always, eventually (over several in-game hours), become allied with the local faction. And when that happens, that puts the player in an impossible situation: You either defend yourself and ruin your relationship with the local faction, or you let the pirates attack (and conceivably destroy) your ship - over and over again, ad nauseum. In other words, if a player does not attack bandits/raiders by letting the local faction's forces defeat Xsotan and bandits/raiders, then it's only a matter of time before the player's relations with the local faction are ruined. I looked up this old topic because I wanted to point out that, several patches later, this is still an issue. In fact, in my latest creative-mode galaxy which I use to design ships, after destroying just one bandit ship, my relations with my starting faction instantly went from a bright green high "Admirable" to scarlet red of absolute 100% "Abhorrent" hate! :o :'( >:( Please, tell me how that is intended behavior and how that should be the way things are! Tell me how I'm supposed to fix faction relationships when they instantly dip that far into the red, through no fault of my own? With an Abhorrent relationship rating, I am unable to trade with them at all, so I can't fix it that way. And there are only so many large asteroids to claim and sell to factions. After all such asteroids near a faction have been claimed, a player is out of luck if they need more. And while I could fix it by fighting Xsotan ships, I'd only make things worse by fighting bandits. Also, I'd have to worry about both bandit ships and ships of the hostile faction as they will both attack on sight. As far as I know, there isn't even a server command to fix faction relations. I'm not aware of any (easy) way to fix this situation. The only solution I know is preventative, by using the Hostile Factions mod (or part of it) to prevent this from happening.
  22. Hyperspace Core blocks are used to both increase jump range and reduce the hyperspace energy recharge time. However, many players just add hyperspace modules for this purpose, making Hyperspace Core blocks a bit redundant. This redundancy is more evident when one considers how, at a certain point, reducing hyperspace energy recharge time further is pointless since the calculation time will be longer. Consider, also, how there are blocks for just about everything else. There's the Computer Core, which only helps to add a few more module slots than are normally allowed. There's the Turret Rotation Lock, which hardly anybody ever has a use for. There are Stone blocks, which are very heavy and have significantly less durability than Rick Stone blocks. There are Glass blocks, which are quite fragile and are only useful for decorative purposes. (Not to mention how neither Framework, nor Stone, Glass, Hologram, or Rich Stone count for volume for system upgrade slots.) More recently, we now have Directional Thrusters, Gyros, and Inertia Dampeners, which more-or-less do what Thrusters do. But, despite how many different blocks we have and despite all the different things that modules can do, we don't (yet) have any way to reduce hyperspace calculation time. (I was surprised when I learned that Computer Cores do not affect this as that seems counter-intuitive.) Would a block (or module) to reduce HS calculation time really be too OP? What if it required a lot of material and power? What if it could only be made out of Ogonite or Avorion? If koonschi discards this idea, perhaps he would at least consider this suggestion I found in a Steam discussion:
  23. Suggestion: Perhaps you should have more than one key (Teleporter Key 8) give a bonus to Hyperspace Cooldown? Perhaps Teleporter Key 1 should add this, too, instead of HS Recharge Energy? After all, a player can add some Hyperspace Core blocks to their ship to both increase jump range and reduce HS Recharge Energy. We can also add more Power Generators to provide more energy for HS recharging. But adding certain modules are the only way to reduce the Hyperspace Cooldown, so that should be more useful. Maybe if you compare them with standard legendary modules. But these are alien artifacts, after all. If they were not significantly better than standard legendary modules, then most players would be disappointed and would not bother with this mod. I think DarkPaapi should be praised for giving players an incentive to actually use these artifacts rather than vanilla legendary modules. I'm assuming that it's only a matter of time before koonschi balances the keys by making them better. As for the amount of energy these require: By the time the player is ready to take on the game's bosses, they're forced to build big, beefy ships with lots of shields. And such big ships must generate a lot of energy just to function. And by a lot, I mean the game is going to measure it in TerraWatts, not GigaWatts. If a ship's energy is measured in TerraWatts, then the difference between a module that consumes 0.8 GigaWatts and one which consumes no energy is downright trivial. At a mere 0.8 GW each, not even a dozen or more modules would add up to much.
  24. I've tried different methods, myself. And I would recommend others try different methods to see what works best for them. Also, I recommend designing ships in a creative galaxy in single-player in a safe sector so as to be able to go wild and avoid needless distractions. I've tried the inside-out approach. It works, though the outside may end up looking different from what you originally planned. I've also tried the outside-in approach - sort of. It also works. Though, you may end up with unused, hollow space or the stats may be hard to tweak like you want. In my experience, I've noticed that to build the outside first, it helps to build around a framework. Then, as it nears completion, I can use the Transform tool to transform framework blocks into the internals I need. Sometimes, I look at other ships. It gets my creative juices flowing and helps inspire, since I can see firsthand what is possible. For this reason I keep a folder with images of various ships from the Creations area and elsewhere. I've also saved some images of non-Avorion ships. Several of my ships started with a goal in mind. When I started my Needletail, I wanted to see if I could do a swept-back three-nacelle design, spacing them equidistant. It was a challenge as I had to use lots of triangle blocks. I had a rough idea how I wanted the front to look and how the nacelles would look. Since the thruster changes, nearly all of my designs have been cross-shaped in order to maximize the effectiveness of directional thrusters. While performance is high on my list of priorities, I don't want to sacrifice looks too much. Also, I try to design all my ships to be both decent at combat and have room to attach an optional cargo module in case I want to use it for trade. Perhaps going for a jack-of-all-trades approach is not the best, but it's what I like to do. My preferred method is to start with a concept and some goals, write down some stats to aim for (such as the approximate amount of shields and/or cargo), and figure out how big it will need to be to fulfill those stats. Then, I may lay down a lot of cube framework blocks (usually 1x1x1 or 2x2x2) to form a basic outline. An example: You should be able to make out the crew quarters in the front. I had to add this to hold Mechanics to prevent it from breaking down while under construction. And I can Transform additional framework blocks into more crew quarters as it grows. I regularly refer to this reddit with a chart that associates volume with the number of module slots. In this case, the framework prototype did not have the volume (module slots) I was aiming for. So, I had to start over and create a new, larger framework using larger blocks. Thus, laying down a framework prototype saved me a lot of time and effort. After I'm satisfied with my prototype, I add a few more framework blocks vertically to add some distance. Then I start building the actual ship, using the framework below as a guideline for the shape and size, imagining it as the shadow it would cast. I used a different approach when I designed Tetralenos. My goal was to build a freighter for trade, so I literally built a ship around a single, cube-shaped cargo bay block. Even so, my initial design and plan changed drastically several times. For my latest ship, I'm trying a still different approach. After I figure out the stats I will aim for - shields, power, cargo space, etc. - I'm building a very rough and ugly prototype. For example, knowing that I want to aim for about 120000 HP in shields, I figured out that a 7x7x7 cube of Xanion would give me that and add about 0.34 million cubic meters to ship volume. And so I build a rough outline of the shape with the actual volume of shields, power generators, engines, etc. Here's an early (discarded) version: I'll use this much like my framework prototype of earlier, except it should give me a much better idea of how big the cargo bay will be, how much room I should devote to thrusters, etc. And I'm relying on it more for a guideline on volume and size rather than for the actual shape. BTW: Originally, I wasn't sure how much power I should aim for. A friend on the server where I play said that he aims "to have only a third of the [energy] bar filled." In other words, he tries to have excess energy so that no more than a third of the ship's energy is used, at rest (without modules). Myself, I would only feel comfortable with a wider safety margin, esp. since I like to use Robotic Crew modules. So, I'm aiming to have mine to use less than 1/4'th, at rest. And I may aim for even more power on a combat-oriented ship with power-hungry guns. Such a guideline seems less useful on "small" (less than 5 modules) ships, though, as modules can consume many GW of power and even a few GW can be significant at that size. On large (7+ modules) ships, it seems more reliable.
  25. If that's your only reason for not using Notepad++, then you should check out the news feed on their site. Their latest version checks the certificate validation of a certain Windows file to make sure that it has not been compromised with a fake/hack. The way you wrote that, though, sounds like an accusation that the author of Notepad++ colluded with the agency to include a backdoor they could exploit. I doubt that is the case. At least, that's not what the Wiki/links article in question said. Anyway, if security matters really bother you, then switching to Linux (or macOS) is probably the best thing you could do. Windows is much more vulnerable, to both agencies and malware/viruses. (I say this as someone who still uses Windows, not as a Linux fanboy.)
  • Create New...