Has anything changed with respect to the way vehicle weapons are calculated? I'm seeing "Quad Quad Laser Cannons" in ship weapon complements now.... Example being CR92a
Another Character Generator
Has anything changed with respect to the way vehicle weapons are calculated? I'm seeing "Quad Quad Laser Cannons" in ship weapon complements now.... Example being CR92a
I thought I had seen something like that myself, but then I decided that it was just my brain being tired.
I’m glad I’m not the only one!
Heavy armors (i.e Laminate, Protector 1 combat armor) are no longer reducing their encumbrance while equipped, they are showing the same amount as when carried without equiping.
Heavy armors (i.e Laminate, Protector 1 combat armor) are no longer reducing their encumbrance while equipped, they are showing the same amount as when carried without equiping.
Really?!?
Edited by Dakkar98
Heavy armors (i.e Laminate, Protector 1 combat armor) are no longer reducing their encumbrance while equipped, they are showing the same amount as when carried without equiping.
Really?!?
No kidding how many times do we have to say he knows and he has fixed it but not released yet
You should really add a list of known issues and planned feature changes to the original post. It'll help cut down on some of the repeated posts.
Has anything changed with respect to the way vehicle weapons are calculated? I'm seeing "Quad Quad Laser Cannons" in ship weapon complements now.... Example being CR92a
I thought I had seen something like that myself, but then I decided that it was just my brain being tired.
I’m glad I’m not the only one!
This happened after language translation was added. Before, I was actually looking for the linked qualifier text in the name of the weapon and ignoring it if it was found. So, for "Quad Laser Cannon", it would find "Quad" (the linked qualifier for Linked 3) in the name and not bother adding it to the description. You can't do this with language translation since the "Quad" qualifier won't necessarily be "Quad" in all languages, and even the name of the Quad Laser Cannon might be different as well. After, I just didn't look for anything special, so it was seeing the Linked 3 and prefixing "Quad" onto the front of the weapon name. Hence, "Quad Quad Laser Cannon"
So... what I'm doing now is subtracting the Linked count of the base weapon from the total Linked count of the vehicle weapon and using that as the linked qualifier prefix. So, since total count of the Quad Laser Cannon is 4, and the Linked count of the base weapon is 3, it now prefixes the 1 qualifier, which is nothing.
Of course, if you override the Linked count of the Quad Laser Cannon with, say, Linked 4, the description will come out as "Twin Quad Laser Cannon", which is technically wrong. However, that's to be expected if you change something called a "Quad Laser Cannon" to have five laser cannons
Heavy armors (i.e Laminate, Protector 1 combat armor) are no longer reducing their encumbrance while equipped, they are showing the same amount as when carried without equiping.
Really?!?
No kidding how many times do we have to say he knows and he has fixed it but not released yet
At least one more time it would seem, wouldn't it? The link would have been just fine. You and Dakkar being a **** at the same time seems like more work than you wanted to spend on your responses.
Edited by yugwen18Sorry it's taking me awhile to get the next release out, but I've been busy and just decided to add Lead by Example and forego the next bug fix release. I still have vehicles and droids to go, but everything else is in.
To the people who keep asking about things I've already discussed, it's cool and I understand, because I know this has become a very long topic and it's not always easy to find this stuff. What you might want to do, however, is scan the topic back to the release date in my signature to see if someone has already reported the bug. Once you reach the introductory post for the current release and still haven't found your bug reported, then it's pretty safe to assume that it hasn't been reported yet
If you want to start at the intro post and work forward, you can do a search for "Release 1.6.1".
Of course, I would much rather you report a bug that's already been reported, than not report it because you assume someone else already has
I like bug reports. Well, not really, because it means more work for me, but I really do want to fix every problem you guys find. So... if you find something you think is wrong, do some due diligence by searching back in the forum, but don't be shy about reporting it.
OggDude, you don't ever have to apologize, what you have already done is so amazing. I highly suggest that anyone who has used it make a donation to him. You know for a fact you have paid plenty of money for way worse apps. That's right... I'm talking to you Mr. Candy Crush Fruit Ninja Summon Wars Castle Crush dude.
At least one more time it would seem, wouldn't it? The link would have been just fine. You and Dakkar being a **** at the same time seems like more work than you wanted to spend on your responses.
Sorry, but the question had been asked and answered multiple times, Most recently in post 5827.
Then in post 5849 (on the same page and just 4 posts before your question in Post 5852) I made the following suggestions:
Please read through a few posts before asking a question that was already answered last week or so.
The fewer repeat questions we have, the more likely the answer to those questions will be in a lot more recent post and easier for everyone to find.
Subscribe to the topic, that way you'll get an e-mail when someone asks the same question you were thinking of asking, thereby eliminating the need for you to ask the same question a day or two later because you are not willing to scroll back a page or two to read the answer already provided.
I'm not trying to be a ****, just trying to fight the laziness of people who can't be bothered to click "search", type "encumbrance" and scroll through the post to read the answer to their question before they even post it.
The less often Oggdude has to stop what he is doing and answer the same question for the four or fifth or fiftieth time, the more time he has to work on the next update.
In order to make this post actually useful to Oggdude, I do have a possible bug/suggestion to bring to his attention.
Lightsabers do not have a basic ilum crystal in their attachments to begin with. When you add one so the hard points are actually used, it increases the cost of the lightsaber. The price of the lightsaber includes the ilum crystal in it's cost. Is there a way for you to have the ilum crystal already in the attachments when the lightsaber is to the acquired in the character generator?
Obviously, it is just easier to use the hilts, and that is what we are doing for the one Force user in our group. However lightsaber hilts are not ® (which is correct). Lightsaber crystal attachments are ®. Shouldn't adding an ® mod to a weapon make the weapon itself ®?
I was hoping for the bug fix release soon (I know it's not coming until you are done with Lead by Example). We have a game on Sunday and everyone needs to print new sheets. The Armor Encumbrance issue is going to throw all those new sheets out of whack.
Thanks for all of your time and effort Oggy!
Ogg,
I found another bug. When you add superior to an armor in the data editor, it doesn't work right. I think that this is because armors lack the interface that weapons have that allows you to add or remove qualities like stun, burn, superior ... etc. When you add the superior quality to an armor that way, it adds the soak in an invisible manner. It changes the character's total soak, but it doesn't show you where it is coming from.
For example:
Custom created armor: Base Soak 2 Defense 2, spent 2 Triumphs to add Superior Armor Customization Attachment in a free hard point at no additional cost.
1). When you add the Superior Mod in the Data Editor, is does not increase the soak of the armor itself, but it does affect the overall soak.
Total Soak increases by 3, but it doesn't add up. Brawn 4 + Armor 2 = Total Soak 7.
2). Temporary work around is to add the +1 Hard Point and manually add the Superior Armor Customization Attachment in the Character Generator for the 5K. It shows the soak of the armor itself increase from 2-3.
Total Soak increases by 3, and it adds up. Brawn 4 + Armor 3 = Total Soak 7
It works, but I don't want player's thinking that they can remove the superior and add another attachment in it's place.
I hope this makes sense.
Help us Oggy. You are our only hope.
OK, not a bug or a problem, but I'm OCD and this would 'bug' me if it were mine. This doesn't bother me as of yet as I just use this to keep track of all my players characters, but if I were to use the printed sheets... It wouldn't stop me from utilizing such a great program, but it's there none the less.
When you take talents that add bonus class skills like Well Traveled, Basic Combat Training etc, the description on the printed character sheet after the brackets begins with a double B. "[bBonus Career Skills: Melee, Ranged - Heavy". Also there are no ending brackets.
Don't know if you're as much a perfectionist as I am Ogg (I've been known to throw away an hours worth of work on a character sheet because I miss-spelled one word in pen *shrug*), but if you wish to change it cool, if not, cool too. Just thought you'd wish to know.
Keep up the great work. Wish there was something more to do to help, but I haven't programmed since GWBasic.
At least one more time it would seem, wouldn't it? The link would have been just fine. You and Dakkar being a **** at the same time seems like more work than you wanted to spend on your responses.
Sorry, but the question had been asked and answered multiple times, Most recently in post 5827.
Then in post 5849 (on the same page and just 4 posts before your question in Post 5852) I made the following suggestions:
Please read through a few posts before asking a question that was already answered last week or so.
The fewer repeat questions we have, the more likely the answer to those questions will be in a lot more recent post and easier for everyone to find.
Subscribe to the topic, that way you'll get an e-mail when someone asks the same question you were thinking of asking, thereby eliminating the need for you to ask the same question a day or two later because you are not willing to scroll back a page or two to read the answer already provided.
I'm not trying to be a ****, just trying to fight the laziness of people who can't be bothered to click "search", type "encumbrance" and scroll through the post to read the answer to their question before they even post it.
The less often Oggdude has to stop what he is doing and answer the same question for the four or fifth or fiftieth time, the more time he has to work on the next update.
In order to make this post actually useful to Oggdude, I do have a possible bug/suggestion to bring to his attention.
Lightsabers do not have a basic ilum crystal in their attachments to begin with. When you add one so the hard points are actually used, it increases the cost of the lightsaber. The price of the lightsaber includes the ilum crystal in it's cost. Is there a way for you to have the ilum crystal already in the attachments when the lightsaber is to the acquired in the character generator?
Obviously, it is just easier to use the hilts, and that is what we are doing for the one Force user in our group. However lightsaber hilts are not ® (which is correct). Lightsaber crystal attachments are ®. Shouldn't adding an ® mod to a weapon make the weapon itself ®?
I was hoping for the bug fix release soon (I know it's not coming until you are done with Lead by Example). We have a game on Sunday and everyone needs to print new sheets. The Armor Encumbrance issue is going to throw all those new sheets out of whack.
Thanks for all of your time and effort Oggy!
I don't support items already pre-modded with attachments, only vehicles. Even if I did, the cost would still be added up, since you wouldn't be able to remove a built-n attachment. Plus, the total cost is technically accurate since you would still have an extra illum crystal left over.
I'll ponder on the restricted thing. Does anyone think there's a benefit in keeping them separate, assuming I add the fact that an item is restricted in the Attachments description, or should I just make the base item restricted? Either way is about the same amount of work
Ogg,
I found another bug. When you add superior to an armor in the data editor, it doesn't work right. I think that this is because armors lack the interface that weapons have that allows you to add or remove qualities like stun, burn, superior ... etc. When you add the superior quality to an armor that way, it adds the soak in an invisible manner. It changes the character's total soak, but it doesn't show you where it is coming from.
For example:
Custom created armor: Base Soak 2 Defense 2, spent 2 Triumphs to add Superior Armor Customization Attachment in a free hard point at no additional cost.
1). When you add the Superior Mod in the Data Editor, is does not increase the soak of the armor itself, but it does affect the overall soak.
Total Soak increases by 3, but it doesn't add up. Brawn 4 + Armor 2 = Total Soak 7.
2). Temporary work around is to add the +1 Hard Point and manually add the Superior Armor Customization Attachment in the Character Generator for the 5K. It shows the soak of the armor itself increase from 2-3.
Total Soak increases by 3, and it adds up. Brawn 4 + Armor 3 = Total Soak 7
It works, but I don't want player's thinking that they can remove the superior and add another attachment in it's place.
I hope this makes sense.
Help us Oggy. You are our only hope.
It makes sense
This wasn't so much a bug as it was a condition I hadn't thought of. Basically, I hadn't expected anyone to add Superior to a piece of armor, rather than just add one to the soak and call it Superior. But there is a subtle difference, mainly that such a piece of armor shouldn't be able to benefit from a subsequent inclusion of the Superior attachment.
Including the add/subtract soak mod to the base is still kind of silly, but it can be done. Also the add melee/ranged defense mod can be useful if you want your armor to have different values for melee and ranged defense.
Anyway... I now take into account armor with base mods including Superior, add/subtract soak, and add melee/ranged defense. The base armor will now show these figured values in the description. If defenses are different, both of them will be displayed separately. If not, it's shown as "Defense", same as always.
When you take talents that add bonus class skills like Well Traveled, Basic Combat Training etc, the description on the printed character sheet after the brackets begins with a double B. "[bBonus Career Skills: Melee, Ranged - Heavy". Also there are no ending brackets.
Don't know if you're as much a perfectionist as I am Ogg (I've been known to throw away an hours worth of work on a character sheet because I miss-spelled one word in pen *shrug*), but if you wish to change it cool, if not, cool too. Just thought you'd wish to know.
Keep up the great work. Wish there was something more to do to help, but I haven't programmed since GWBasic.
Already found it and fixed it awhile ago, so your character sheets will soon be OCD-free
Hi! Since I've upgraded to 1.6.1.0 I can't access any force powers when a character has only 1 force rating, and only Battle Meditation and Bind when the character has Force rating 2+. Is this a known bug or something only I am exposed to?
It is, and has been address in the next release (I believe). The simple fixed is to just clear your cache from the Launcher tool. That should clear it up and allow you to see that Force Powers as intended.
Lightsabers do not have a basic ilum crystal in their attachments to begin with. When you add one so the hard points are actually used, it increases the cost of the lightsaber. The price of the lightsaber includes the ilum crystal in it's cost. Is there a way for you to have the ilum crystal already in the attachments when the lightsaber is acquired in the character generator?
Obviously, it is just easier to use the hilts, and that is what we are doing for the one Force user in our group. However lightsaber hilts are not ® (which is correct). Lightsaber crystal attachments are ®. Shouldn't adding an ® mod to a weapon make the weapon itself ®?
I was hoping for the bug fix release soon (I know it's not coming until you are done with Lead by Example). We have a game on Sunday and everyone needs to print new sheets. The Armor Encumbrance issue is going to throw all those new sheets out of whack.
Thanks for all of your time and effort Oggy!
I don't support items already pre-modded with attachments, only vehicles. Even if I did, the cost would still be added up, since you wouldn't be able to remove a built-n attachment. Plus, the total cost is technically accurate since you would still have an extra illum crystal left over.
I'll ponder on the restricted thing. Does anyone think there's a benefit in keeping them separate, assuming I add the fact that an item is restricted in the Attachments description, or should I just make the base item restricted? Either way is about the same amount of work
I am for: When you add a restricted attachment to an unrestricted item, the item then becomes restricted. That way it covers adding restricted attachments to weapons other than lightsabers (like Blaster Suppressors or Under-Barrel attachments for example).
Lightsabers do not have a basic ilum crystal in their attachments to begin with. When you add one so the hard points are actually used, it increases the cost of the lightsaber. The price of the lightsaber includes the ilum crystal in it's cost. Is there a way for you to have the ilum crystal already in the attachments when the lightsaber is acquired in the character generator?
Obviously, it is just easier to use the hilts, and that is what we are doing for the one Force user in our group. However lightsaber hilts are not ® (which is correct). Lightsaber crystal attachments are ®. Shouldn't adding an ® mod to a weapon make the weapon itself ®?
I was hoping for the bug fix release soon (I know it's not coming until you are done with Lead by Example). We have a game on Sunday and everyone needs to print new sheets. The Armor Encumbrance issue is going to throw all those new sheets out of whack.
Thanks for all of your time and effort Oggy!
I don't support items already pre-modded with attachments, only vehicles. Even if I did, the cost would still be added up, since you wouldn't be able to remove a built-n attachment. Plus, the total cost is technically accurate since you would still have an extra illum crystal left over.
I'll ponder on the restricted thing. Does anyone think there's a benefit in keeping them separate, assuming I add the fact that an item is restricted in the Attachments description, or should I just make the base item restricted? Either way is about the same amount of work
I am for: When you add a restricted attachment to an unrestricted item, the item then becomes restricted. That way it covers adding restricted attachments to weapons other than lightsabers (like Blaster Suppressors or Under-Barrel attachments for example).
I'm against. I cite the numerous unrestricted vehicles with restricted weapons (e.g. proton torpedoes).
Here's something you guys can help out on. Lead by Example has a section on field equipment. Field equipment really aren't gear so much as they are stationary vehicles. There's precedence in doing this before, plus the two batteries are already statted out as vehicles.
What I'd really like is for the rest of them to be vehicles as well, but I'd just be making it up using the two batteries and descriptive text as guidelines.
So... you guys up for sending me what you think the stats should be? They'd all have 0 for speed and handling, obviously, but silhouette, shielding (if any), armor, system strain, and hull trauma are all up for interpretation, plus things like sensors, crew, consumables, etc., that you deem make sense for the unit.
Even though we'll be making up vehicle stats for these things, nothing will go against the book, since most of it is just fluff text, and the stuff that isn't will be added as a vehicle mod. For the modular bases, the big things are estimating silhouette from the descriptions, as well as any reinforcements like armor or shielding.
I'll need the following statted up:
- Heat Sink Power Generator (my first take on this one was Sil 1, no shields, no armor, 2 HT and 2 SS)
- Multipurpose Sensor Suite
- Planetary Shield Generator (I guess the 2 "ranged defense" can become 2 shields on 4 sides, since I'm thinking silhouette will be at least 5, if the scale from RotJ is accurate)
- Tactical Data Network
- Modular Command Center
- Modular Reinforced Bunker
- Modular Motor Pool
- Modular Hangar
- Modular Barracks
Thanks everyone
Here's something you guys can help out on. Lead by Example has a section on field equipment. Field equipment really aren't gear so much as they are stationary vehicles. There's precedence in doing this before, plus the two batteries are already statted out as vehicles.
What I'd really like is for the rest of them to be vehicles as well, but I'd just be making it up using the two batteries and descriptive text as guidelines.
So... you guys up for sending me what you think the stats should be? They'd all have 0 for speed and handling, obviously, but silhouette, shielding (if any), armor, system strain, and hull trauma are all up for interpretation, plus things like sensors, crew, consumables, etc., that you deem make sense for the unit.
Even though we'll be making up vehicle stats for these things, nothing will go against the book, since most of it is just fluff text, and the stuff that isn't will be added as a vehicle mod. For the modular bases, the big things are estimating silhouette from the descriptions, as well as any reinforcements like armor or shielding.
I'll need the following statted up:
- Heat Sink Power Generator (my first take on this one was Sil 1, no shields, no armor, 2 HT and 2 SS)
- Multipurpose Sensor Suite
- Planetary Shield Generator (I guess the 2 "ranged defense" can become 2 shields on 4 sides, since I'm thinking silhouette will be at least 5, if the scale from RotJ is accurate)
- Tactical Data Network
- Modular Command Center
- Modular Reinforced Bunker
- Modular Motor Pool
- Modular Hangar
- Modular Barracks
Thanks everyone
Perhaps you could start another thread for the discussion for this?
Here's something you guys can help out on. Lead by Example has a section on field equipment. Field equipment really aren't gear so much as they are stationary vehicles. There's precedence in doing this before, plus the two batteries are already statted out as vehicles.
What I'd really like is for the rest of them to be vehicles as well, but I'd just be making it up using the two batteries and descriptive text as guidelines.
So... you guys up for sending me what you think the stats should be? They'd all have 0 for speed and handling, obviously, but silhouette, shielding (if any), armor, system strain, and hull trauma are all up for interpretation, plus things like sensors, crew, consumables, etc., that you deem make sense for the unit.
Even though we'll be making up vehicle stats for these things, nothing will go against the book, since most of it is just fluff text, and the stuff that isn't will be added as a vehicle mod. For the modular bases, the big things are estimating silhouette from the descriptions, as well as any reinforcements like armor or shielding.
I'll need the following statted up:
Thanks everyone
- Heat Sink Power Generator (my first take on this one was Sil 1, no shields, no armor, 2 HT and 2 SS)
- Multipurpose Sensor Suite
- Planetary Shield Generator (I guess the 2 "ranged defense" can become 2 shields on 4 sides, since I'm thinking silhouette will be at least 5, if the scale from RotJ is accurate)
- Tactical Data Network
- Modular Command Center
- Modular Reinforced Bunker
- Modular Motor Pool
- Modular Hangar
- Modular Barracks
Is there anyway you can mark stuff like this as homebrew? There are people out there who tend to take your awesome program as the authority without realizing some stuff in there is not in the book. Basically, since the generator is a "one stop shop", people start there and only go to the book if they have questions.
I'm not saying statting these things out is bad, but for the sake of full disclosure it would be cool if they were flagged as something not found in the book (the additional stats, that is).
I am for: When you add a restricted attachment to an unrestricted item, the item then becomes restricted. That way it covers adding restricted attachments to weapons other than lightsabers (like Blaster Suppressors or Under-Barrel attachments for example).
I'm against. I cite the numerous unrestricted vehicles with restricted weapons (e.g. proton torpedoes).
It needn't affect vehicles necessarily. Although, it may well apply to everything if it applies to anything.
I'm torn. A functioning lightsaber hilt (i.e. one with a crystal installed) should definitely carry the ® tag.
Ultimately it is your call Oggy.
So I have a feature request for the Business/Homestead management for Groups in the GM Tools.
My players are working for Black Sun, and have been tasked with taking care of some of Black Sun's interests on a shadowport space station. Essentially, they have a space station homestead and 3 businesses they are in charge of. However, I didn't want to grant them the free career skill from everything, I allowed them to choose one. Is there a way you could add an option of "none" on the career skill drop down? I understand my request is outside of RAW, but I thought it might be something that would be easy to do. My current workaround is to manage the things they did not get a career skill from in a standalone group, but that requires more manual bookkeeping for funds and such when upgrading.
EDIT
Did not realize I could modify these things in the data editor! Thanks for the great program.
Edited by rowdyoctopus