Search results

Which is why I posted my changed opinion instead. Deal with it.

Isn't a sector-sized behemoth what a station should be if it's protecting an entire fleet?

Fun warnings 4 Friends Despite the amount of salt in this thread, actual examples of how the dock is being moderated are useful to the public. The thread should be re-opened for further replies.

No, like the shipyard code is still trying to build and deconstruct chunk16 ships, and those don't exist anymore.

You may be looking at changing the wrong value then. It might help you more to increase the number of reactors that can be placed without stabilizers. I'd up that to 25 tbh. 10 is a bit low to allow for construction of decent fighters or fighter-bombers.

I think what probably happened is that shipyards were ignored when the chunk32 update rolled around. It stands to reason that everything would break. Nope.

*repeatedly and frustratedly presses the place where the funny button used to be*

When I remembered this, I changed my vote to "completely remove them."

You'll have to give your ship nacelles or a ring or something if you need that much power. Your ship is too large for a fully-internal stabilizer array. If projecting stabilizers make your ship too vulnerable, you'll have to just use very large stabilizers to counter the inefficiency. On the...

This would be the better option, but for now I'd settle for having the ability to control the core remotely.

Spaghetti is bad. Spaghetti is not your friend. Spaghetti is cancer. Spaghetti monsters kill puppies.

This hype train is over two years old. We got hover vehicles last update. Could we please have helm controls next update?

What I'd like to see is an integrity penalty that would instantly disable an entire spaghetti reactor on one missile hit. Get the configs right and possibly add some exponential penalties, and then the changes proposed in that thread should do just that.

LOL In Power 1.0, there was a strong correlation between ship size and power output, at least until sizes where hitting the softcap was easy. Stabilizers attempt to create such a correlation for all ship sizes. It's not just "for the sake of having a restriction" but rather an attempt at a...

Doesn't the recent stabilizer update fix that?

I definitely don't like this. I'm all for changing shield bubble shape, but not by forcing shields to be built in specific shapes.

The chamber system does need a rework. I'm not sure this in particular is what we need. There would be less wasted development time if we just wait for Schema to come up with the full crew system. I do have my own idea for a chamber rework, but haven't gotten around to writing about it yet.

If done right, spaghetti will get totally shafted while sane designs and even organic shapes will be left alone.

I doubt any such thing will happen. Short term, I expect to see integrity get some changes. Long term, I'd look for a chamber rework that would allow for multiple reactors, and possibly some more changes to stabilizers.

I expect the way it was planned to go was: Power (1 year) Weapons (3 months) Fixes & balancing (abut 6 months initially, plus tweaks on through beta) It would have made more sense to release power and weapons together, but whatever.