Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.9.1a is out! (05/10/19); Blog post: Personal Contacts (08/13/20)

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.

Topics - Techhead

Pages: [1]
1
Bug Reports & Support / 0.9 Startup crash.
« on: November 16, 2018, 01:26:56 PM »
First time launching new version, progress bar reaches full and crashes to desktop.
Last entry in log is this:
Code
ERROR com.fs.starfarer.combat.CombatMain  - java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: com/thoughtworks/xstream/io/HierarchicalStreamDriver
java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: com/thoughtworks/xstream/io/HierarchicalStreamDriver
at com.fs.starfarer.title.Object.updateContinueButtonState(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.title.Object.oõO000(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.title.Object.<init>(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.title.new.<init>(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.title.TitleScreenState.createUI(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.title.TitleScreenState.prepare(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.BaseGameState.traverse(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.state.AppDriver.begin(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.combat.CombatMain.main(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.StarfarerLauncher$1.run(Unknown Source)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Unknown Source)
Caused by: java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: com.thoughtworks.xstream.io.HierarchicalStreamDriver
at java.net.URLClassLoader$1.run(Unknown Source)
at java.net.URLClassLoader$1.run(Unknown Source)
at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
at java.net.URLClassLoader.findClass(Unknown Source)
at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(Unknown Source)
at sun.misc.Launcher$AppClassLoader.loadClass(Unknown Source)
at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(Unknown Source)
... 11 more
My guess is either a bad install or a compatibility issue. Will be attempting a clean reinstall and will post results.

2
Suggestions / Split Escort order into "Assist" and "Protect"
« on: April 12, 2018, 04:16:04 PM »
Escort order has a reputation for getting ships killed, especially non-carriers. To alleviate this, probably best split into two similar orders, henceforth referred to here as "Assist" and "Protect". In implementation, one of the two would likely retain the Escort name.

Assist: Generally follow ally ship around, but outside of that, coordinate fire on ally ship's current target and look out for your own safety. Likely most useful for ordering around those 'hammer' ships that pack noticeable firepower but still prefer to let an 'anvil' ship engage. Default order when assigning right-clicking on an allied combat ship.

Protect: More or less the existing Escort command. Generally follow ally ship around and try to keep them safe. Engage on nearby threats and soak fire as needed. Useful for ordering around ships that can take a licking and keep on kicking, or for protecting civilian targets. Default order when right-clicking on an allied civilian ship.

3
Simple suggestion. See thread title. Add Converted Hangar to the Colossus Mk.III as a built-in hullmod, giving it two fighter wings and a refit/replacement penalty. (I presume the 'can install' restrictions don't affect built-ins. If they do, disregard.)

My reasoning:
  • The carrier capabilities of the ship is anemic, especially for a cruiser. Even a Gemini or Condor-D is more capable.
  • This at least gives it a decent first-strike ability, or the possibility to field some escort fighters for a pirate fleet.
  • The ship doesn't really have much going for it, even compared to its sister class the Colossus Mk.II.
  • The refit penalty prevents it from being too effective.
  • This is makes pretty good sense with the ship's blurb.

And the blurb, for reference:
Spoiler
Quote
The Colossus was first adapted for war by Pather militants, but enterprising pirates soon followed their lead. A similarly haphazard process sees most cargo decks collapsed and re-welded to form thick armour dotted with numerous weapons emplacements. The primary cargo bay was left open, however, and converted into an ersatz fighter launch bay with the addition of a micro civilian forge-vat intended for the manufacture of machine parts hacked to accept fighter LPC chips. The forge is poorly integrated with the hull's base power system, resulting in unreliable overall performance.

The Colossus heavy freighter formed the core of Domain frontier supply fleets before it was outmatched by the brutal economic efficiency of the Atlas superfreighter. Thicker than strictly necessary hull plating provides protection against cosmic hazards both natural and human.
[close]

Did I put way too much thought into this simple suggestion? Maybe.

4
Suggestions / Another officer personality: Protective
« on: July 19, 2017, 03:12:10 PM »
Similar to Steady, but more inclined to automatically escort ships than directly engaging the enemy. Useful for dedicated escort ships, natch. And with its existence, Steady's auto-escorting behavior could be turned down slightly.

That's... about all I have to say on the subject.

5
Suggestions / ITU and DTC in 0.8
« on: March 26, 2017, 11:42:28 AM »
Perhaps a little premature, but I've been thinking on the changes to ITU and DTC in 0.8. Since the topic at large was discussed months ago, I figured I'd split further discussion into its own topic.

According to the upcoming patch notes:
  • Dedicated Targeting Core: reduced cost
  • Integrated Targeting Unit:
    • Reduced cost to match DTC
    • Slightly increased range bonus for cruisers (+5%) and capital ships (+10%)
By my reckoning, this puts DTC at -/-/35/50 percent range increase, and ITU at a 10/20/40/60 percent range increase. On cruisers and capitals, this puts ITU at "must-have" and DTC at "I don't have ITU available".

My suggestion with this is:
  • Make DTC a free built-in for (most) cruisers and capitals. Give it a bonus like -/-10/20 percent range. Exclude it from non-combat ships as desired.
  • Make ITU compatible with DTC, for a slightly more modest 10/20/30/40 percent range increase. Total range increase would still be 40/60 for ships with both.

What I think are advantages of this:
  • Not every build needs range, so builds that don't want to pay OP for more range are a little bit more competitive than if they just have +0%.
  • DTC goes from "that option in my hullmod menu that takes up space now that I unlocked ITU" to a small bonus that players don't have to worry about.
  • Purposefully omitting DTC from certain ships becomes a useful balance lever. (Or conversely, inventing a frigate/destroyer bonus for specific frigates/destroyers to make use of.)
  • Minor, but one less bit of clutter in the hullmod selection screen. DTC can't be installed on the majority of ships, and once you have ITU, won't be installed on any.

What I think are the disadvantages:
  • Getting capitals before you get ITU is gonna have a definite aspect of "man I wish I had ITU".
  • Another bit of clutter in the list of installed hullmods.

You can of course, mitigate the disadvantage by making DTC stronger and ITU weaker. eg. -/-/15/30 and 10/20/25/30 or possibly even -/-/20/40 and 10/20/20/20. (IMO, making the frigate version more expensive with a higher bonus might not be the worst idea either. 10% is just barely noticeable.) This will of course make ITU-abstaining builds stronger as well, possibly turning ITU into a "do I really need this?" hullmod.

(A side note: This suggestion is functionally similar to a 'free range bonus by ship size' present in a certain popular mod.)

Pages: [1]