Search results

This is just as much guesswork as you see in my post. Because if there is a conflict of interest, it makes sense that the side that only has to adjust by a few notches does so instead of the side whose functionality would be fundamentally broken. Gravtubes are fast, and if you absolutely...

Noone is stopping you from building your stations the way you want. You just might have to adjust to the the 30 seconds it takes for a gravtube to travel that distance, since your need for zapping around a giant station would hardly outbalance the wish for functional boarding a substantial...

You are aware though that boarding is a planned mechanic, as are crew elements? If you "hate" them or think they "have no purpose in the game", then you'll be surprised that the game is developing in a direction you "hate".. If your station is extremely large, then you would have to come up...

I like keptick 's suggestion for handling that - always also backup-connect everything vital with emergency stairs and regular doors (2x1 suffices), and have the epic rails transportation for the players. The extremely glaring issues intra-entity teleporting creates still don't go away, so the...

These concerns are critical (since they make planned features impossible) and cannot just be "accepted" by being weighted against how helpful this would be. I don't even think that they should be this "helpful" - they are just a very lazy way to avoid intelligent interior design and rails- or...

Holy shitballs, that rail segment missile mode.

This is probably controversial, and yes I know balancing them will come later - however, if this isn't removed early on, people will have already built for it, and "the damage is done". I would argue that entity-internal transporting should not exist at all (not even with chargeup times, power...

Better at block removal still means it changes the optimal configuration though (yes it would be more damage once the shields are down).

Yes, that's why there is IMO a clear line to draw between config changes that make sense and those that are detrimental: YES: Warpgates, jumpdrives, sectors, thrust,... NO: Power generation/usage/penalties, shields, weapons, armor, This would ensure a more fun config but without changing...

Time for two entirely different turret paradigms - that filly disjunct roles!

Weapon damage is better left untouched precisely because of how smaller ships scale against large ones otherwise. Even reducing the multi-output penalty is wrong IMHO - because it changes the optimal configuration! A ship built elsewhere would not perform as well as a ship specifically designed...

Speaking of which - how many salvage beams would you consider ok? Working on a salvager right now specifically for this, and it currently plans for 500 beams.

Sorry, as a BSG fan I have no other option than to tack my like onto this post.

A battlestar? Liked! I'll follow this thread. (But yeah, the engines are a bit subpar - I understand the use of placeholders though)

Have a thing, while the larger project is still ongoing!

I think after the procyon was decomissioned, there was some change to power consumption, but most importantly, the ship was never made to fire all weapons simultaneously like the AI does - but instead, to provide weapon solutions for different situations :) Nice that you refactored it into an AI...

Go right ahead! Starmade is all about getting inspiration to kick off a creative process.

Well, any changes that would strictly be upgrades to any ship built elsewhere are fine: better turret accuracy, better thrust (with same power consumption per block), etc.