Search results

That does not follow. In fact, it doesn't even follow that ships would become less compact in terms of capability, only volume. Capability-per-volume is an easy variable to tweak.

Yes, fuel, if implemented, would be mandatory for competitive PvP. That is sort of the point. What you're describing, whatever it is, clearly has a different purpose from what I'm picturing. I'm proposing fuel as a means of rewarding a steady infrastructure, or introducing a maintenance cost...

This falls well in line with my general idea of what fuel is supposed to be. An optional, but highly useful, means of rewarding resource production. Though, for the love of god, don't make it something you mine, at least not primarily. There must be some sort of one-time investment that...

Correct. Making ships less compact is an explicit goal of this update, which we're seeing in action here.

This is a useful idea. A minor nitpick is, there no longer is a "power per shot" as such, there is only "active reload consumption" and "passive consumption". Of course, you could just multiply the former by time to get a fixed amount, but it's not a very useful number in this largely...

I'd say it's not. Anyone experienced has grown used to it, of course, but when I thought back, I realized something interesting. The "fill your ship with blocks" paradigm was the first thing in Starmade that ever annoyed me. I was a new player, once. It was just after the yogswarm, I suspect...

It is relevant, I think, that basically everything besides guns was practically like that already. Power is generated continuously by reactors, and drawn continuously by systems. Only weapons, as far as I can recall, actually ate power in big chunks at a time as opposed to tick-by-tick. Thus...

Well, yes. Lots of ideas are widely agreed upon as good, alas, we're not here to vote on the matter. We can make a fuss about it, hope we're seen by higher-ups, but that's about it.

Heavens no. The distance is the sole reason we have stabilizers. If you had to add thirty meters to your miner, by the philosophy of these new mechanics, it was too small for the amount of equipment you wanted.

The "is there actually a rail under me" check doesn't work like that. Insofar as I can tell, it operates on the game already knowing which rail the entity is supposed to be docked to or sliding across, and checking if that exists. Generalizing this to work in a cross-entity fashion as you...

Forgive me but, using active linking seems redundant and counter-productive. Either way, we have to run the adjacency check. Meanwhile, we loose a great deal of flexibility and modularity. I would go as far as to argue the linking mechanic has the nature of a stop-gap measure. It gets the job...

The foremost reason this hasn't been implemented is probably technical. To us, it may seem natural for rails to connecting like that, but the game has no idea that rails from different entities look like they're connected. Though, it shouldn't be all too hard. Checking whether two rails are...

This is a known weakness of the USD standard. It is a difficult one to resolve, too. The USD standard is designed around minimum requirements. A small amount of walking space, dockers just barely enough out of the way. This isn't very different from ship to ship, since astronauts don't change...

Certainly, there are other factors, most of all the very large number of systems a ship has, but I do maintain this is the central nature of building with blocks. Unaccounted-for variables might help, but I don't see how they could turn the whole concept around. In either case, given the...

Nightrune, thank you for responding. I will note, if only for the record, that I'm also anxious about having chambers create functionality from nothing, as opposed to altering functionality provided by other blocks. More positively, if "behavior, not stats" means we get to keep jump drives as an...

Essentially, I wish to express a fear regarding the upcoming power system, with regards to the sense of building. Firstly, something like chambers is probably necessary. Systems like weapons and shield effectively multiply each other. Doubling shields or weapons will both double the amount of...

This should be tagged as implemented, seeing as the feature has been available since the thrust update. If it doesn't work, it's a matter for the bug tracker, not the suggestions forum.

Keep in mind that this is only half the problem. If ships can only aim forwards, we'll still be stuck shooting in each other's faces like fighters. Turrets, unless they can draw on the blocks of the mothership for firepower, are capable of fighting another ship of the same size by themselves.

So long as we keep in mind that we're - at least - doubling ship size, it is an idea with several merits. Though, I should personally prefer better systems for compact logic and such, and I suspect Schine is very vary of adding these sorts of "hammerspace" locations.

Well, you can activate specific turrets, now that AI takes logic input. Not so for fighter recall, though.