Cosmoteer Official Forum

ConnCraft Thanks, i will fix it for the next update.

Atarlost Suggested solution: If fighters can inherit the charging status of the ship mounting the pad transporting them they wouldn't be able to jump before the carrier.

I will try to do something like this for the next update.

Atarlost Speculative solution: I don't know if it's possible, but if the mask was hollow with only a half or quarter tile's width around the edges needed only for connections the pad would interfere far less.

Sadly it's not possible to do hollow parts that can also be attached to other parts.

Atarlost 3) The pad (test) cannot be overlapped with engine exclusion zones. This is unavoidable given its purpose, but makes putting engines on impure carriers more difficult. The easiest place to put landing pads on mixed use ships is at the back in the exclusion zones for the engines. The parts having the same name implies that if the test version works out the old version will be discontinued. I would urge you to not do that.

I'm not sure about this, i never liked that the thrusters could be placed over landing pads.

Atarlost From a not-so technical standpoint, the cheapest pregen carrier is too expensive to have both it and a useful fighter the first time you have to make a jump. A more minimalist carrier with a fighter scale cockpit, reactor, and jump drive and no factories would be more useful.

I'm thinking in adjusting the cost of the landing pad to 10k and the 1x1 FTL to 5k to make landing pad more useful.

Landing pads don't reload modded launchers, and they seem to just void ammo if there's no ship above.

ConnCraft Landing pad should reload any part that uses normal ammo or HE missile parts, can you tell me which modded launcher are you trying to load? Also there is no way to avoid the waste of ammo if there is no ship to load.

OK, just the Kroom's missile launcher. Torpedo's seem to work OK. Not playing with any other mods right now.

ConnCraft Can you send me a save where this happens?

Weird: i saved, swapped to an older autosave, then swapped back, and it works. Will go look for any save where it doesn't.

Also the forum doesn't like uploading saves. Are you on Discord?

Kroom I'm not sure about this, i never liked that the thrusters could be placed over landing pads.

If you can't solve the UI issues with landing pads, which it sounds like you can't, I for one will never use the new version of them. The inability to order ships directly onto the pad or select them individually when on the pad are deal breakers even for designs that don't hang landing pads in engine exclusion zones.

Kroom I'm thinking in adjusting the cost of the landing pad to 10k and the 1x1 FTL to 5k to make landing pad more useful.

It's more about the cost of the ship than the cost of the parts. If you don't have the design saved it's a lot more awkward to get a carrier than to slap on an FTL drive. Carrier0 would still cost almost 100k and more than half of that would be extraneous for a first carrier. If you build a minimalist carrier and a sufficiently optimized fighter to the remaining expected post-first-system budget beforehand in sandbox mode it's doable to at least start with nothing but fighters, though I'm not sure fighters alone are viable in the long run.

ConnCraft OK, just the Kroom's missile launcher. Torpedo's seem to work OK. Not playing with any other mods right now.

You may have crew priority problems. If you have two pads served by the same factory your crew will only load one pad unless its full while the fighter on the other pad will only get the ammo in ready storage. You have to turn off loading/repair on all pads that don't have unloaded fighters on them. I don't think teleporters have this issue. They dump ammo into space if it has nowhere to go, but they don't waste ammo when there's a valid destination.

Another issue I've run into is fire. I've had fighters burn to death while on a landing pad being repaired because a cannon started a fire. Repair can sometimes keep up with small fires, but if the fire spreads before the fighter gets back to the pad it can burn faster than it's repaired, and since only repairing with credits can put out the fire, if the carrier is in combat the fighter can't be repaired, rearmed, and returned to the fight even if the damage that caused the fire wouldn't significantly impair its combat capabilities. I've had a surprising number of burning fighters reach a landing pad with nothing unrepairable but the fire itself and some cosmetic armor or RCS structure damage.

Atarlost Good advice. We hammered it out in Discord

PSA: Invulnerable ships can't be reloaded by landing pads due to how they work.

what do the test landing pads do?

Guy_Person Read de update notes please.

Atarlost I'm having trouble getting the repair drones to work. They are running a firing animation, but I don't see any projectiles and repair is not happening. I've tried them both internal and, even though they don't look like it should matter, externally mounted.

Can you send me a save with the repair drone problem?

Atarlost Also, are there any plans to update the bounty hunter mod with stuff other than the Kilrathi ships?

Yes, i want to update the bounty hunter for the commercial version of Cosmoteer.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jgswues1e6dctzx/repair_bot_not_working.savedgame?dl=0

Atarlost The repair droids can only be used to repair the ship that has them, they are supposed to walk over the roof of the ship and can not move in space (there is no way to do it properly on cosmoteer right now).

Kroom Yes, i want to update the bounty hunter for the commercial version of Cosmoteer.

bounty hunter will not be in the commercial version, Walt want to replace it with a single player campaign

kwhwwymwn I know, what i meant was that i want to do my own campaign.

I like to balance the mods I use with the vanilla version, and I must say, this mod does it the best among the big mods out there. Warhammer mod also has cool stuff and visuals in there, but the power of everything there is over 9000.
Still, I now find myself nerfing half of the stuff from the Forge. Fighter weaponry and engines are simply OP. Like, price is usually not an issue, as most just play sandbox, and should not be the only limiting factor - size, weight and ammo consumption are other variables that should also play a role. Ideally, a weapon or part of a smaller scale should only be good enough for a small ship - try spam it or use on a bigger vessel, and a bigger weapon usually has to be better. Also, higher tier weaponry of the same size (i.e. plasma and such) actually makes the lower tier obsolete and unnecessary. What's the point of having those other than just more stuff? I bet there's quite a number of weapons that no one ever uses simply because there's a better alternative in this same mod.
Anyhow - this is not to criticize, but rather to suggest some balancing. I can try and help with that if interested.

Raufbold I think that price is the major balancing point.

Sure, playing in sandbox gives you unlimited funds, but if you are designing ships for other modes (MP or BH), then you will need to impart some level of budget. This is the main challenge of building IMO, even in sandbox, as trying to design a ship with the highest effectiveness and lowest price is a good goal.

If you impart no budget limit, even vanilla can become "OP" as nothing prevents you from simply spamming as many parts as you please.

Worth noting that there are differences between the different fighter weapons. The better ones have more damage, but often different projectile speeds, shield vs. armor damage, cost, and power use per shot (basically ammo).

Astrum well, I'm just saying that price shouldn't really be the ONLY factor. Look at reactors for example:
Standard reactor: produces 0.375 power/ton/cubic metre
Medium reactor: 0.5 power
Large reactor: 0.84 power
reactor 1x1 (Forge): 1.52 power/ton or 0,38/cu.m

Even without prices, you can see the logic with the vanilla ones: if your ship is large enough to house a bigger reactor, and you're ok with putting more eggs in one basket/provide more defense/allow for optimal distance, you'll be way better off with a larger one, so no need to spam standards. With the 1x1 here though, I would pretty much always prefer spamming it to almost any other alternative. Not only it is simply better in all aspects than the standard reactor - I would almost surely prefer it to the bigger ones as well since its 1/4 of weight per energy generation would allow me to save weight elsewhere and either have my ship be faster or place fewer engines. Same goes for many other parts.