Search results

Followed your reproduce steps but it seems I'm not getting the issue. Perhaps I'm lucky, or it's already fixed along the way. Do you have logs of the server when this issue happened? If not, can you try to reproduce it again and get those logs? You need to do it in SP or the logs will be from...

In the current dev build, we re-use the shield cap and shield rechargers for this. 2 new blocks would be a bit cleaner but we aren't going to take away the ability to customize the shield HP vs its Shield regen. There's also shield radius now, that's most likely just going to scale with the...

Each shield group has its own radius, its own recharge and its own capacity. Radius is for the local shield group, there's no total shields anymore (unless you use old system). See 1 and 2 No touching required, just that 2 groups need to be "close" to auto link up. We're probably going to end up...

DukeofRealms is correct. That is a feature, which is currently lacking other GUI elements and some other block related systems. It should be more clear what it is, and how it works in the next few builds.

No it doesn't allow for that. A minimum distance only, or a sweet spot would work exactly the same as both scale with reactor size. Stabilizers that are "too far" for a certain sweet spot, can be resolved by increasing reactor size. And if you have 2 identical ships when it comes to block...

While that would give you the most efficient on paper, that does not mean it will be just as good in combat. Adding armor blocks will always make your ship less efficient on paper, it costs more and it reduces your thrust:mass ratio. Whether armor is strong or weak, does not matter in this case...

Depends on how it's made, but if every block change requires the whole thing to be adjusted, then it could definitely be a concern. --- I've got a question about something I've read before, and what I'm seeing being suggested here. Some dislike "forced design" yet for me that is always been...

Break off was mentioned, but it's not a realistic option. While we're sure we can make it work quite well in most cases by expanding upon it and improving it where we go, there would be always some edge cases where it goes wrong. Cutting a 10 million block ship in half comes down to instantly...

Physically connecting every system group with a touching block-line to your reactor is quite a task. Protecting them (shields/armor/good location) requires much more effort. It's hard to see whether you like that or not till you try it out. Also depends on what the consequences are if a conduit...

Hm, that's something we haven't considered but in theory should be possible. Not sure how much effort has to be put in this to make it work though. This may have a performance impact though, as flickering lights will require the lighting of its chunk to be recalculated every time. Not an issue...

Correct. This config is to have those that disagree with me, to see for themselves how the inverted stabilizers would work. So far this is just a thought experiment, depends on feedback what it will become.

All but one, which would be keeping the system count relatively low compared to before. With this config, you're encouraged to fully use your ship's volume for systems. With the previous config, the amount of regen you can get is limited by your ship's dimensions/volume which keeps the system...

The same as it was before. There's the whole "surface area vs volume" argument which would include rotation speed too. I would say that you would prefer as much blocks in front of your reactor as possible where you're most likely going to get shot from.

Altered reactor config

EDIT: This config is a thought experiment, depends on player feedback if it becomes a reality or if we'll need to adjust other parts instead to make the older config work fine. In this config, stabilizer distance is disabled and system consuming blocks were adjusted to allow "fully system...

They will still be there to be used in weapon combination. It's possible that some of them will be removed entirely though when we update the weapons too. We're not planning to keep them unless there are offense related mechanics that do make sense to apply on the whole entity, since otherwise...

I'll make a config, doing what OP suggests. I'll just remove the stabilizer distance efficiency entirely, or do invert it, it does the same thing really in reality so shouldn't matter too much. I'll make sure that the majority of the ships have a small reactor + small chambers in comparison to...

Your point was that the extra build tools (and info) helps overhauling ships and that you're happy with the current process of overhauling ships. Nothing is ideal though, which is why I'm wondering if you will still have the same perception of "this is fine" when we go from a less complex...

Maybe that's why right now it still seems manageable for you? Because the majority of our systems are simply calculating a value based on "block count" or "block count in a single group" which is as simple as it can get. Moving away from that (such as the reactor + chamber system) would make it...

Yes. In addition, the chamber system can exist because of it or else it would be quite hard and a frustrating experience to adjust/add/remove chambers in a ship that's already quite filled.