PTE build 78071 now up

I have not checked, but I would guess the restriction is just UI side anyway. A very tiny mod will get rid of it if you want.

If they could stop being selected with my "combat" units though, that'd be grand.

Ok, so what line of code will I have to change to lift it? And will it cause the games I host to be tagged as modded? I haven't done any modding so far.

Also reiterating that there's a pretty strong sentiment among system creators that the editor is already too arbitrarily restrictive (see: water coverage, orbits close to sun, gas planet minimum radius), so I would urge you to consider just removing all these unnecessary limitations to increase the creative freedom. Let it be up to the players to make maps balanced or silly.

Please no, I want them selected with my combat units.

There should be a mod in PAMM that does this.


I think this one might


though the description indicates on the other side of the spectrum of values.

No modded flag. You basically only need to change a single number in this file: "media\ui\main\game\system_editor\system_editor.html" Most limits in the editor are only UI side.
As an alternative you can also export a map as pas file and edit the numbers in it, then reimport.

If you're looking for a less restrictive set of editing tools, you may be interested in this mod I've made. It allows you to edit everything that shows up in a .pas file, within the system editor. You can make pretty much any planet that doesn't crash the engine.

Which may not make it in for this build depending. Worse case, it will show up later in the month.

What we have with adv. combat fabber now?

1) Have cost like 10 combat fabbers and need for t2 factory.
2) too hard for spam and useless for "treeconomy".
3) Dying fast like a normal fabber.

So i have suggestion.

You can remove some things from building list. Adv combat fabber should have same buiding list with t1 combat fabber(mines,teleports and walls), but give to them a real HP boost.Up to 500 for example.
It can make them a really useful on battlefield.

All I want to say is that it is really cool to see the Uber employees talk to us. I do not usually see the game developers talking to players on other forums.

So, Thank you!!

I would suggest that indicates you're using them wrong. Maybe this will all change with the mine detection thing, but I doubt it, you'll send Skitters.

That's really nice, great job! But I'd prefer if these options were in the editor by default, since any version update might break a mod, especially in this phase where editor features are still being worked on.

Making systems is one of my favourite things about PA, but the many bugs and limitations result in the online game list being filled to the brim with the PAX Prime system and single planet systems because people just don't want to bother with it. There's so many fun and innovative things you can do with this game because of the flexibility at its core, that's why I'm doing my best to draw focus to the editor. It has so much potential waiting to be unlocked. And yet this PTE only serves to lock it more.

The "lock" of the planet size really isn't even made of paper. It is one number in a clear to read file. It only affects the editor. The lobby doesn't care what planet config you load. Well unless you load one that demands a planet with a negative radius. I wonder what happens with that. Probably a crash.

The way the mod is structured, it should be robust to changes to the editor. It would break if something broke Floating Framework, and parts would become less functional if fields were removed from the planet spec; however, I can't see many potential updates that would break it completely.

Can confirm this crashes PA.

I'm briefly seeing something to the effect of RUNLOCSCRIPT on the connect to game screens. Probably my slow computer again.

Also, notice that the Idle factory count stays the same after a build order is given for a factory out of view, and it doesn't change unless that newly active factory comes into view again.

So, I'd like to point out (using a different example from my earlier post) that without the ability to de-select units by "sub-selection" category, there is no efficient way to separate T1 units from T2 Units. In the example below, you can select a group of bots (using various methods now, which is great), but to just select the T1 bots, you would need to weed out the T2 bots one by one, which can be very tedious and worst of all, time consuming. At the very least, I would think that the unit icons for T1 and T2 could be grouped together, to make them easier to de-select manually.



The same grouping technique could apply when selecting groups of multiple unit types. As seen below, there doesn't seem to be any logical grouping of units in the new unit selection area, so we are forced to spend more time looking around for where units are in the list to de-select and exclude from the group.

Also, given the new focus on Combat Fabbers, shouldn't they logically trail behind the other combat units that they are moving with? I would think that they would adjust themselves based on the direction of movement to somewhere within range of the front line, instead of leading the charge. The example below shows them leading the way, much like Infernos currently do in a group of tanks, but that is not a good position for a Combat Fabber.