Search results

Simply use the inverted FP system, that would be better than spamming stations everywhere.

I just copy my statement from here: I'd prefer a carrot-and-stick approach, so there also needs to be a carrot. There should be an incentive to spread out fleets across faction space instead of massing them together. Inverted FP, multiple invincible HBs and unloaded combat could help with that...

I made a similar suggestion, just keep an undocked entity in the host ships's frame of reference with zero relative movement until the game has figured out in which directions that entity could move. Then limit movement to these directions. An internally docked entity without room to move...

That's not a bug, rail transport across entities generally doesn't work. The only solution I know of is to use shootout rails and pickup points to hand over the docked ship from the hangar to the elevator.

How is that different from big fleets? They also cause performance problems and allow for noob stomping. Aux reactors give a linear power growth after the soft cap, which still allows for arbitrarily huge ships. They punish ships with a few aux reactor groups almost as much as ships with lots...

Aside from losing resources, I think it's a psychological factor, losing simply feels bad.

Did you try to redock the turrets?

They are cool if you win.

The suggestion forum is full of people, who have no clue what the devs are willed to do, including me. This doesn't keep us from spamming walls of text, if we think it makes sense. Use formatting, give it a catchy and non-misleading title and hope for the best. If it gets ignored, well, shit...

That's how it actually works, just release the WASD keys.

Both. Ship handling yes, but outmaneuvering not without adding artificial limitations. That depends on whether you can come up with good solutions.

It would already help, if undocked turret parts would remain in the ship's frame of reference for a short while after undocking and move straight upward.

That's right, all core systems have diminishing returns of some sort. Building huge ships isn't really worth it. Also, above 2 million energy per second, you'll need auxiliary reactors to halfway efficiently produce more power, and these explode when hit.

If you want your ship to cease to function after only a few hits, why don't you just build it out of warheads? Edit: Thruster plumes don't go through blocks directly behind them, this includes trigger areas. So you can still put them wherever you want. There's just a bug with that, but crossing...

I have this problem with a different design. If a turret can move upward but not sideways it jams instead of just moving upward. The game can't detect limitations of an entity's freedom of movement, which would avoid collision lag after something undocks in most cases.

Regarding lag, it might be better to make sure turret and base can freely rotate before replacing blocks with wedges and heptas. This probably requires a greater base hemisphere radius. See this thread. Why punching in a radius? Enter the volume and let the calculator tell you the radius. Round...

StarMade is a space game, not a sky-fight game. You seem to expect space ships to behave like air planes. Outmaneuvering mechanics are largely based on limitations due to aerodynamics and air resistance. In most space combat games I played, ships indeed acted more like planes, which probably...

Okay, here it is.

It's difficult, if not impossible to balance a weapon, whose range is dependent on sector size for both vanilla settings and servers with larger sectors. Default beams only have 1km range, which I'd consider almost useless. They might be useful for very small and hard to hit targets, if AI...

It would also be silly, if weapons had ranges, that allowed them to shoot into unloaded sectors. So it's indeed a technical limitation. I suggest to keep x*sector size as upper limit for weapon ranges, but only in addition to numerical values, which are then <= x*sector size.