Search results

We are not accepting fleet updates. It would be a nightmare getting that sorted from the 60+ submissions. I believe that even more were accepted. We already have issues getting correct update files from the previous station contest, this would only compound the problem and significantly slow us...

Off the top of my head, I could name all the ships now, including the other two factions. And we've only know them for the past week or so. I don't think it will be too bad. With the inclusion of the player submitted fleets, yeah it will get complicated then since we need names for those as...

Yes we've done that. The drone is a 105, the frigate is 190. These are just small ships (under 140 meters) and so when we have a titan TG ship it will be in the range of 700 meters and we can name it 900 something. I honestly thought you scrapped that idea and didn't know the 2 second digits...

It's mostly size. The higher the number, the larger the size. Or, perhaps the larger the performance in a certain area. We tried correlating the number to say, system count, or damage and whatnot but it ended up turning into weird and inconsistent numbers. For now we will use the 100's, 300's...

Well, I am sorry you think it's horrible, but I think this is what we are sticking with. This was something we discussed at length among the team, at least for the TG ships. Let's break down one name for one ship. The TG frigate - Bahtra 190-17 The only two things you see that mean anything...

That is a brilliant idea. I will have to take a look at that now that we support it.

I have neglected this thread for a bit too long, and so I have two ships to show off today, as well as some information regarding the naming scheme for our Trading Guild ships! First, we have the Kestros. What's that? It's a scout, and yes, that is it's name! We have begun the naming...

Sand in your jump drive? On second thought that might not be such a great idea. Fantastic work Kupu!

And we didn't deny that, but the council was more active in the last few weeks, and Toast takes issue with the fact that the community does not know anything still, hence why we would like to evaluate and ensure something of substance happens in future terms. I guess this is the last I will say...

Nobody told you to stop talking, I just checked to be sure. You were told that you absence from the council leaves you with a gap in information as to what the council was actually doing. You left chat when Andy said, and I quote, "I also dont want to hear more offenses from you toaster, you...

Don't look into the word "If" there. I am just trying to get a point across.

I am not saying anyone is lying, he may very well feel that way about us and interpreted our conversation that way. We explained to him what had happened in his absence, and simply put, it was not good enough for them. We lacked the procedure and workflow that allows council transparency and...

Well, as I expected, this news has led to inaccurate information. We did not tell anyone off. Toast here resigned, and since then the council pulled together and we set up meetings to discuss their most important issues. We set up a new workflow for tracking their suggestions. When the meeting...

Oh god, Dave was not supposed to bend those ways!

Yes I will change the tag.

Docked reactors are likely built inside the ship for protection. When they undock they can collide indefinitely inside. Turrets and other docked objects are usually not as large, or are built externally and float off into space fairly quickly.

Unless you have discovered an exploit that just doesn't make sense in any practical way. A capital ship will likely have layers upon layers of material to chew through and would need to be fired upon by something much stronger than an astronaut laser to break shields and most blocks. Assuming of...

I have yet to see another solution for docked reactors that wasn't essentially some form of what we have just implemented. This is over the course of at least, the last 6 months of time where discussions on the subject were taking place, and repeatedly brought up. I will say this. If we are...

Considering it explodes, slowly, over the course of minutes instead of instantly in a single moment, yes. Let me suggest this. Let's give it more than an hour or two before we completely throw the idea out the window alright?

They were also never intentional. And until players en-mass started bringing the lag to our attention, we didn't mind. We need to able to actually fly the ships in our game without lag for this entire thing to be considered successful.