26032 Posts in 4384 Topics - by 9613 Members - Latest Member: Kelarius

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 - Laserzwei

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21
1
Bugs / Re: "The production line you chose doesn't exist. " error
« on: May 13, 2018, 10:59:52 AM »
Since this is
a) still not fixed and
b) is also mentioned in this reddit post,
I decided to publish  the complete fixed file here. (The file is for beta 0.17 , but should work with stable 0.16)

2
Bugs / Re: problem with (broadcast-)invokeClientfunction
« on: May 13, 2018, 10:33:58 AM »
A reminder that this hasn't been fixed yet
Plus a test script

3
Mods / Re: [MOD][mOS] move Asteroids
« on: April 29, 2018, 10:46:12 AM »
Updated for 0.17.x
--0.97b for 0.17.1
  - EntityDescripters are only used as deep-copy, to prevent unwanted invalidation. Can now jump multiple asteroids at a time again

4
Mods / Re: [MOD] Carrier Command
« on: April 25, 2018, 09:32:42 AM »
Thank you very much for providing the extensive bug report !

Script Version 0.10.1
Game Version: Latest Live (not beta) :)

Active Mods are regenerative astroid fields and carrier commands.
I might be wrong here, but it seems weird to me, that exactly this ships name shows up with a "Wreckage found" and "fighters started" note. It has a hangar with mining fighters tho.

Spoiler: show

2018-04-24 21-55-50| New Hope  WD Wreckage find pre
2018-04-24 21-55-50| New Hope  WD Wreckage found
2018-04-24 21-55-50| New Hope  WD fighters started
2018-04-24 21-55-50| New Hope  WD End
2018-04-24 21-55-50| Goin I  WD Wreckage find pre
2018-04-24 21-55-50| Goin I  WD Wreckage found
2018-04-24 21-55-50| Goin I  WD fighters started
2018-04-24 21-55-50| Goin I  WD End


Notice that "WD End" means that the function returned successful, hence the crash is not (directly) related to it.

Those are the logs before the last crash. Strange thing is, that at least one of the ships mentioned here "Goin I" is a mining ship, controlled by the AI. It's set to "Mine" and had no interaction with the carrier command script.
This is intersting in that I haven't thought about both scripts working on the same Entity at the same time. Could be  a hunch

However I would love to help narrowing this issue down, so if I can do anything, let me now.
You could start by replacing these files on the server side:
CarrierCommander_U1.zip
just overwrite both scripts (salvageCommand.lua and mineCommand.lua) with the ones provided here and see if it helped. (It most likely won't though)
If the crashes continue, you can write me a pm (on the left, the speech bubble below the post counter) with your server details etc.

5
Mods / Re: learning to skripting/Moding
« on: April 24, 2018, 10:36:03 PM »
Quote
Gibt es für Anfänger Anleitungen oder Lernhilfen. Ich würde mich sehr gerne einlesen oder Videos anschaun.
Soweit ich weiss gibt's da nichts auf einem solchen Niveau. Was es gibt ist die API (im Installationsverzeichnis /Documentation/), das offizielle wiki: https://avorion.gamepedia.com/Script , und dann die ingame Scripte (in /data/scripts/).
(As far as I'm aware there are no such tutorials. There is however the Documentation (in your install directory /Documentation/), the official wiki and the ingame scripts (in /data/scripts))

Du kannst mir auch jederzeit Fragen (in deutsch) per pm schicken ;)
Was hast du so für Ideen?
(You can ask me questions (in german) anytime via pm ;)
What extensions do you have planned?)

6
Mods / Re: [MOD] Carrier Command
« on: April 05, 2018, 07:41:38 PM »
updated CC to 0.10.1
special thanks to  SnowDrakE  for helping me to pinpoint causes of notorious server crashes!
changelog:
-- 0.10.1 for 0.16
  - fixed server crashes related to Entity():waitUntilAsyncWorkFinished() [contact me asap, if any other crashes occur]
  - civil ships will now only be targeted, if configured to do so
  - added new onJump() and onSectorEntered() events
  - removed onSectorChanged() event
  - removed silent uninstall for old (0.14) CC commands

7
Mods / Re: [MOD] Carrier Command
« on: April 03, 2018, 10:15:59 PM »
...
I have narrowed it down to this specific line in salvageCommand.lua:

`w:waitUntilAsyncWorkFinished()`

I hope this provides some help in narrowing down the issue if you haven't found out already.
...
From testing with somebody else from the community, I came to the same suspicion, but he didn't provide the last logs/run the last tests. So I couldn't pin it down. Good job narrowing it down !

8
Mods / Re: [MOD] Carrier Command
« on: March 28, 2018, 10:55:27 PM »
ja für alle !
I will choose a more reliable way of determining civil ships in the next update.

To all the server-owners, where this mod crashes:
I can't set up a server that is visible to the internet, due to my ISP. Hence I can't test possible fixes. I would be grateful, if you could me help out here. Send me a privvate message and I walk you through of what specifcally is required

9
Mods / Re: [MOD] Carrier Command
« on: March 28, 2018, 10:25:09 AM »
Hallo!
Gleich vorweg, mein Englisch ist leider zu schlecht um Hier zu schreiben.
Darum hoffe ich es macht nicht zu viele Umstände hier auf Deutsch zu schreiben.

Danke das du dich dem Projekt-  Carrier Command angenommen hast. Es ist mein wichtigster Mod und ohne diesen würde ich Avorion schon lange nicht mehr Spielen! Ich spiele ein Einzel-Spiel und habe in meinen Sektor mehr als 1500 Jäger im Einsatz. Es ruckelt ein wenig aber es ist gut zu spielen und bin total begeistert.

Aber jetzt zu meiner Problem/Frage:
Obwohl ich die Chackbox "Attack Civils" nicht aktiviert habe greifen meine Jäger immer Zivile Schiffe (Frachter Händler) an.
Die Funktion "Attack Station" funktioniert einwandfrei!
Vielleicht kannst du mir ja weiter helfen!

lg
Sarok
Gilt das für alle zivilien Schiffe?
Oder nur manche? Z.B. Waffenhändler, Equipmenthändler, Frachter oder andere?

10
Mods / Re: [help] how to add more turrets
« on: March 27, 2018, 11:10:42 AM »
in /data/scripts/systems/
  • arbitrarytcs.lua
  • civiltcs.lua
  • militarytcs.lua
  • teleporterkey<X>.lua

the function:

Code: [Select]
function getNumTurrets(seed, rarity)returns the amount of turret-slots added

11
Suggestions / Re: Give Players More Reason to Explore
« on: March 22, 2018, 10:54:08 AM »
You started it. I'm willing to move this discussion along in a more intelligent manner.
Wrong, who started the topic? I'm still waiting for you
You want to discuss these ideas I've presented in detail? I'm down. Can we do this one by one?
Waiting 5 posts for that already. Order it as you please
You say the first idea is good. If it's a good idea then why should it be limited to a mod?
Finally something to discuss.
Wrong assumption though.
I've never excluded it from the game, getting a mod is just faster. That is, If you can find a modder. I'm not going to mod for such a stubborn person. From there it's much easier to tweak it in cooperation with the modder, than it could ever be via the gamedev. The final mod can be integrated into the vanilla game, if the gamedev likes it. If not, you still have the mod. win-win

12
Suggestions / Re: Give Players More Reason to Explore
« on: March 21, 2018, 10:47:39 PM »
It seems like you were just blowing off steam
That is exactly what I thought about your very first response. I sadly couldn't find any substance in it...
If you don't like my ideas you don't like them. What else can be said? There's no sense in elaborating if you're set on dismissing my ideas.
Maybe you didn't elaborate them enough. Maybe they hold less value for the game, than you're currently convinced? There is a lot to be spoken about and I'm open to find out, are you?
I like the general idea of increasing the amount of gameplay in Avorion. If you've read my 1st response you must have noticed that.
Do you really want me to elaborate? Or are you just arguing?
Yes.
Arguing is the process of understanding someones point of view. Nothing to be afraid of
Tuning your aggressive tone down will likely help though

13
Suggestions / Re: Give Players More Reason to Explore
« on: March 21, 2018, 10:04:19 PM »
I find your responses unintelligent and overly dismissive. Obviously, implementing my ideas would require rebalancing the game. 

Why is offering ideas complaining?

If the game has more challenge added to it and it becomes too challenging for you then you can play on a lower difficulty. Don't force your play style onto others please.

The game has a clear direction? Edge to Core? Did you read the title of the post? The whole point of my post was to offer ideas on ways to change that linear approach. You don't like my ideas? Fine. Don't whine about it.
Ask yourself: Did this answer help support the points you brought up in the first post?

I gave my opinion about your ideas and explained which and why I like/dislike them. Now you're offended, but I don't care.
So anything productive you want to add here?

14
Suggestions / Re: Give Players More Reason to Explore
« on: March 20, 2018, 10:16:24 PM »
There's this huge, beautiful galaxy but there's very little reason to explore more than a very small amount of it. I've come up with some ideas:

1)Give reclaimable wreckages boosts to performance that can't normally be built into ships. These boosts might be associated with the root block of the wreckage, or, if the boosts were big enough the wreckage might be uneditable or partially editable. If these boosts were varied enough and substantial enough then it would entice players to explore the galaxy in order to find these powerful, reclaimable wreckages. Don't concentrate the better ones near the center of the galaxy. Make the better ones more expensive to operate. If an early game player doesn't have the ability to reclaim the wreckage they can mark the location and move on to find one that's more suited to their current abilites then come back later.   
Could be easily done with a mod, balancing would literally be the hardest part.

2)Have captains and generals give boosts to ships. Create white/ green/ blue/ yellow/ red/ purple captains/generals and pepper AI factions with them. Don't concentrate the most powerful captains/generals in the center of the galaxy. Instead, have the more powerful captains/generals require a much higher salary. Create random events in which players can destroy very powerful ships and obtain its captain or a general upon destruction(SPAZ).
Not currently moddable (only the boost part is, the rest would require changes from the dev). But I like the general idea of different highly specialised Crews.

4)Make better use of the "worshiper" sectors. Make them extremely rare, no more than one for every AI alliance. Greatly reduce the availability of resource rich asteroids in general but make these "worshiper" sectors extremely rich and well defended.  Give these sectors the ability to slowly regenerate resources, not so fast that a player doesn't have to move on but not so slow that the sector doesn't have use in the future. This would have the added benefit of giving players something to PvP over and would also give players a good reason to make enemies with AI factions. Currently, as far as I can tell, there is no good reason to make enemies with AI factions. Mid/late game players might head to the outskirts looking for these sectors because the ones closer to the center are too well defended.
All Asteroid-field sectors actually regenerate some asteroids already. I don't think the worshipers need more detail atm.

6)This idea would require the ability for new AI factions to seed as well as more advanced game mechanics but maybe it's something to think about. Create "cosmic" upgrades. These cosmic upgrades might only be obtained by eliminating an AI faction's adversary completely. If adversarial relations shifted and not every faction had an adversary then finding these upgrades would require a lot of exploration. Since AI factions in the center are more powerful this would give mid/late game players a very good reason to explore the outskirts of the galaxy.
Giving the player a god module, especially with 5) would absolutely break any attempt for any kind of balancing. More Dps/HP =/= more fun (not even in pvp. Especially not, if your opponent gets them first!)

7)Most importantly, make the game a lot more challenging so that players have a reason to explore for these things.  Increase the cost of building turrets. Make enemies more powerful. Make resources less plentiful. Decrease the efficiency of salvage turrets. Reduce the player's ability to gain credits. Nerf shields. Make the core a ruthless, nearly unbreakable place for truly powerful players who have invested hundreds of hours in the game. The game is just way too easy at this point which pretty much destroys the need to do any large scale exploration and shortens the lifespan of the game. This game is good enough to keep players interested for a longer period of time than it currently takes to master the core.
So you say you want better/best upgrades/turrets (that is what 1,2,5,6,8 can be summed up to) and then you complain here (7) that the game is too "easy" to beat. Right after that you want to nerf every aspect of the current gameplay into a hellish grind.  Avorion is already very grindy for new players and especially at the start. Your proposed changes would keep lots of players away from Avorion. Therefore I have to disagree with  your improper "balancing" proposals.
There are the "Bigger is Better" mods that can give you harder enemies, if you're after that. But don't force your playstyle onto others.

Generally you seem to have two metas here:
 - "make everything harder to obtain, but give (inbalanced) rewards for it"
 - "pull players away from the core"

I'm against the 1st and already stated why.
For the 2nd I have to state that the game already has a clear direction: From Edge -> Core. This is literally the main plot of the game. And that plot actually includes traveling away from the core back into the Edge and then back into the core. The only improvement I can see here is putting interesting sectors along that path.
Also you seem to be worried about missing content after beating the Guardian? Well the official roadmap has you covered.

15
Beta Patch Notes / Re: Beta Branch Patch 0.16.4 Patchnotes
« on: March 19, 2018, 10:13:09 PM »

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21