Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


Starsector 0.9.1a is out! (05/10/19); Blog post: Raiding for Fun and Profit (11/27/19)

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 - Ghoti

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 19
Suggestions / Re: Show fleet relation to player on Map
« on: September 01, 2016, 09:39:30 AM »
I like this idea. Make more use of the symbology.

Blog Posts / Re: Fighter Redesign
« on: September 01, 2016, 09:37:31 AM »
haha, using cargo space for the hanger hullmod is a great idea. Love it.

I brought up the weirdness a of that hanger hullmod before. I stand by the "sized hangers" idea. That way the hanger hullmod allows you attach drones to a ship, but not launch regular fighters. I don't see any thematic issues with attaching point defense drones to a medusa, for example.

I think being able to swap out drone systems would be awesome. For example. Swap point defense drones on the Gemini carrier for a Sensor Drone, and attach two maulers on it. ARTILLERY CARRIER!

*pew pew*

General Discussion / Re: DLC?
« on: August 30, 2016, 02:55:17 PM »
Lol that would be a mod, since the game isn't done,  but really if the gates were open the game would have no conflict
it would have conflict.

very very rapid conflict.

Blog Posts / Re: Fighter Redesign
« on: August 29, 2016, 01:30:22 PM »
Cik. Look man. This blog post constitutes a change in mechanics, which *requires* a change in balance. Fighters are getting reworked, so they're not going to look and act how you're used to them looking and acting, and they're not going to cost how you're used to them costing.

I know where you're coming from, fighters are awesome... but they're frustratingly underwhelming in current starsector. I firmly believe we're all on the same page on this. You're thinking that fighters have gotten to the state they have because Alex wanted them there, thus, the next update to them won't "fix" them.

If that were true, this rework wouldn't be happening.

I played a bit of the carrier gameplay on the weekend while touching up some fighter sprites


wtb: one time machine.

Blog Posts / Re: Fighter Redesign
« on: August 25, 2016, 02:37:04 PM »
talon on a slingshot.  ;D

Blog Posts / Re: Fighter Redesign
« on: August 25, 2016, 01:26:24 PM »
Yah I wasn't that big on the jammer, but I am 100% on board with fighters bombarding targets with flares right before they get hit with a torpedo. That's exactly the kind of strategy I would use if I could.

That gets awkward with OP costs and different wing sizes being hit drastically differently by the size change.
I don't think that's a good idea either, but I don't think it subdivides your fighters as much as you think it does.

Talons would be medium sized fighters.

Point defense drones would be small sized. With the drones included, you have 18 types of fighters in all.


compared to the number of energy, missile, and ballistic weapons:

~/p/s/d/weapons $ ag -l "\"type\": *\"ENERGY\"" | wc
     24      24     339
~/p/s/d/weapons $ ag -l "\"type\": *\"BALLISTIC\"" | wc
     28      28     368
~/p/s/d/weapons $ ag -l "\"type\": *\"MISSILE\"" | wc
     24      24     346

that said. You've made the game this awesome so far, so I'm inclined to trust your judgment.

Blog Posts / Re: Fighter Redesign
« on: August 25, 2016, 10:20:02 AM »
I love the look of this change, big time!

Did you consider having different sized fighterbays? Large/Medium/Small, just like weapons?

It seems a bit weird to me to attach a hull mod to a mule, which allows it to launch tridents () or xyphose (), even if in small numbers.

Mods / Re: [0.7.2a] Tiandong Heavy Industries v1.1 - Updated 5/15/16
« on: August 24, 2016, 09:05:09 PM »
Fair enough. I thought you might be doing something strange with that station and that's why I brought it here, but turns out it might be a vanilla bug. (Would this be considered modism?)

Anyway. I appreciate the effort!

Mods / Re: [0.7.2a] Tiandong Heavy Industries v1.1 - Updated 5/15/16
« on: August 23, 2016, 06:43:32 AM »
Nah. I haven't messed with settings.json

Though now that you mention it. I just changed this:

	# how far off the average prices have to be to be highlighted red or green

1.5 is not worth it >:\

edit: OH! I should mention, that the crash is happening at the same station.

General Discussion / Re: Strategies for Doom?
« on: August 22, 2016, 05:59:10 PM »
its a good place to fiddle to work out ur kung fuu

doom fuu

Mods / Re: [0.7.2a] Tiandong Heavy Industries v1.1 - Updated 5/15/16
« on: August 21, 2016, 10:04:40 PM »
Yah. I made a new character and when down to the station and it didn't happen again.

Just transferred my character to that world and it still works, which is cool. I think maybe something about my campaign's current state was causing the issue? I'll let you know if I run into this issue again with a younger save.

Mods / Re: [0.7.2a] Tiandong Heavy Industries v1.1 - Updated 5/15/16
« on: August 21, 2016, 05:42:42 PM »
Your vmparams settings are extremely atypical...

Could you be more specific? Because as far as I'm aware, I've merely quadrupled the recommended settings.

And this issue appears unique to you.

so you were able to access the market with the list of mods and that save? Have any suggested courses of action I might take?

Mods / Re: [0.7.2a] Tiandong Heavy Industries v1.1 - Updated 5/15/16
« on: August 21, 2016, 04:03:36 PM »
When attempting to trade at a Tiandong station, the game locks up for a minute, consumes 100% of all my CPU's, and then finally crashes with this error:

java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: GC overhead limit exceeded
        at com.fs.starfarer.ui.s.<init>(Unknown Source)
        at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.ui.marketinfo.oOOO.<init>(Unknown Source)
        at Source)
        at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.ui.marketinfo.D.interface.if$super(Unknown Source)
        at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.ui.marketinfo.D.sizeChanged(Unknown Source)
        at com.fs.starfarer.ui.float.setSize(Unknown Source)
        at com.fs.starfarer.coreui.k.o00000(Unknown Source)
        at com.fs.starfarer.coreui.k.Ó00000(Unknown Source)
        at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.ui.marketinfo.MarketInfoPanel.sizeChanged(Unknown Source)
        at com.fs.starfarer.ui.float.setSize(Unknown Source)
        at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.ui.newsuper.sizeChanged(Unknown Source)
        at com.fs.starfarer.ui.float.setSize(Unknown Source)
        at com.fs.starfarer.ui.P.setSize(Unknown Source)
        at com.fs.starfarer.coreui.publicsuper.sizeChanged(Unknown Source)
        at com.fs.starfarer.ui.float.setSize(Unknown Source)
        at com.fs.starfarer.ui.P.setSize(Unknown Source)
        at com.fs.starfarer.ui.newui.O0oO$5.actionPerformed(Unknown Source)
        at com.fs.starfarer.ui.newui.O0oO.setCurrentTab(Unknown Source)
        at com.fs.starfarer.ui.newui.O0oO.setCurrentTab(Unknown Source)
        at com.fs.starfarer.api.impl.campaign.rulecmd.OpenCoreTab.execute(
        at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.rules.A.execute(Unknown Source)
        at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.rules.ooOO.runScript(Unknown Source)
        at com.fs.starfarer.api.impl.campaign.rulecmd.FireBest.applyRule(
        at com.fs.starfarer.api.impl.campaign.rulecmd.FireBest.execute(
        at com.fs.starfarer.api.impl.campaign.RuleBasedInteractionDialogPluginImpl.fireBest(
        at com.fs.starfarer.api.impl.campaign.RuleBasedInteractionDialogPluginImpl.optionSelected(
        at com.fs.starfarer.ui.newui.super.actionPerformed(Unknown Source)
        at com.fs.starfarer.ui.o00o.o00000(Unknown Source)

I wonder if you can reproduce it? Here's the save before arriving at the outpost:

here is the collection of mods used in this save:

oh, and here's my launch settings.
java -Xms2048m -Xmx4096m -server -XX:CompilerThreadPriority=1 -XX:+CompilerThreadHintNoPreempt -Djava.library.path=./native/linux -classpath janino.jar:commons-compiler.jar:commons-compiler-jdk.jar:starfarer.api.jar:starfarer_obf.jar:jogg-0.0.7.jar:jorbis-0.0.15.jar:json.jar:lwjgl.jar:jinput.jar:log4j-1.2.9.jar:lwjgl_util.jar:fs.sound_obf.jar:fs.common_obf.jar:xstream-1.4.2.jar -Dcom.fs.starfarer.settings.paths.saves=./saves -Dcom.fs.starfarer.settings.paths.screenshots=./screenshots -Dcom.fs.starfarer.settings.paths.mods=./mods -Dcom.fs.starfarer.settings.paths.logs=. com.fs.starfarer.StarfarerLauncher

Suggestions / Re: Interrupting hostile fleets who are in combat
« on: August 20, 2016, 11:18:55 AM »
Personally. I think if you want to have those "Allied against a common enemy" kinda things happening, it should be a faction event on the campaign. "The Tri-Tachyon and the Hegemony form a temporary alliance against the Templars" kinda thing. Once that happens, then the fleets are considered allies, and it just works like normal. That's the place for it. If the Luddic Pathers wouldn't team up with anyone, that just means they'd never negotiate a temporary alliance.

I don't think hostile fleet interruption should be used for it, because it's pretty hard to describe when it should happen, meaning it's hard to program. Also, it's super exploitable. What Interruption fixes is these two situations: Running into two hostile fleets fighting that you want to destroy "I'll just kill you both", and preventing another fleet from engaging your target, or muscling another fleet out of your target. "That's *my* bounty.".

I think we'll likely see faction alliances in game if the campaign ever becomes more dynamic.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 19