Search results

Try making that (valid) argument again, but without all the aggression. Because yelling at the devs isn't constructive.

I agree it's working as designed. My issue is that stabilizers should do something other than be a simple block that needs to be in the ship. Brainstorming with some guys, we like the idea of having power generators volatile unless you fully stabilize. Giving you a risk reward for them. But I...

This fits better under: Shipyard Also make sure you upload to: Community Content | StarMade Dock

Boiled down, exactly what diremage said. Stabilizers as a balancing necessity is understandable, but outside of that they don't provide the player with anything useful.

As the second sort of builder, who also knows the previous system very well, this new system is not a step backwards. It's actually a step forward. Even though stabilizers give a restriction, it's eliminated other restrictions and allowed for less blocks to make a function ship. Chambers gives...

One of the ideas I've heard floating around to make the dimension requirement less of on issue (SchnellBier and Ithirahad I think), was to make the "orange" area of the stabilizers larger. If there's more orange area than you can still stabilize, by using more blocks, without having a large...

My impression for those who have criticism for stabilizers is that it's a useless block who's only purpose is to be a limiting balance factor to reactors. Which is true, the purpose of stabilizers is to balance reactors. I think if the stabilizers also did something other than a "block you must...

The new power is on a different power scale. The new numbers aren't comparable to the old numbers. Try to remake the ship under the new system and forget the old numbers. You'll have more power than you can use, unless you have a bunch of outputs like a salvage array.

Its a different scale. Someone at some point said that if you multiply it by 5, you get close to the old numbers for reference.

Dev builds rarely are fun to play, they're fun to test. But at this state its not ready for release, and that's fine. I rather have it done right with feedback now than rushed to release and have everyone pissed and complaining about bugs.

Might be a bug. The docking issues is a known bug.

The distance has been scaled down in the first update of the dev. It's not really an issue now, its the demand side that needs work at the moment.

I think there's still a power drain multiplier that effects multiple outputs of a weapon or salvager, and it isn't adjusted for the new reactors.

I don't know if the correct power drain on thrust and other system blocks have been implemented, and chambers might also help here.

This be a (temporary) place to discuss the new power dev build. Post your thoughts, have those (constructive) arguments! I'll start by saying that everything is changed, don't compare old numbers to new numbers, old mechanics to new mechanics. If you do, you'll get confused.

PvP Anti-Player Research There's a lot of debate and ideas about armor in that thread, but short answer is yes its very useful especially with passive effects. Not that you need to make all of the outer hull advance, but the front and important parts is important.

I personally use the naming conventions from Homeworld. Cannons = Mass Drivers Beams = Ion Beams Missiles = Missiles I'll give'em some made up manufacturer and name thought, I like that stuff.

You're going places. Keep it up.

The complexity has shifted from a convoluted, hard to understand, and overly complicated way to generate power, to a system that generating power is easy and its how you manage that power between chambers (which have set limits, that doesn't make 'larger is better') and what the demands are...

We all make dumb mistakes like that from time to time, glad you found them!