Search results

You shouldn't need to do any of this to create a good ship. The bonus would be small enough that it's not at all required, just enough to make systems with complex shapes as viable as cubic systems. Only in the extreme edge cases would a complex system be significantly better overall. If a...

Will there be substantial changes to reactors, stabilizers, integrity, or the chamber system in the future? Substantial enough to require ship redesigns? When is logic interaction with reactors and chambers planned to be implemented?

Why do you think this? It seems to me that there would be many different ways to create an optimally-shaped system given a certain volume. Keep in mind that a block with more than 3 exposed faces would gain no additional performance, so just placing blocks in isolated areas would be the worst...

This suggestion is intended to reintroduce optional complexity and design into reactor construction, and to extend this to most other systems as well. Increase the effectiveness of a system block as the number of its exposed faces increases, up to a cap. With the current integrity mechanics, a...

There is absolutely a layout which is significantly better than others, and it's more than a slight edge. Other designs work because stabilizers have been nerfed to the point of irrelevance, which will presumably be fixed in the future. You could also change that single power line into a cross...

Which mechanics? Integrity? Integrity was specifically implemented to discourage spaghetti ships. Spaghetti ships are still viable, while normal ships are punished. Stabilizers? Stabilizers were supposed to encourage empty space within ships. Instead, it's easy to completely fill your ship...

Holy hell batman. 1-0.3=0.7, not 0.6. 40% * 0.1 = 4% 40% * 1.0 = 40% 20% * 0.7 = 14% 4%+40%+14% = 58% My numbers are correct and your attitude is ridiculous. What is your problem? I was starting to not despise you.

It doesn't matter if that specific combination is impossible. The point is that increasing the percent of heat damage reduces your total average and guaranteed damage. 40%-65% upgraded is still too high. The maximum heat reduction would need to stay under 45% for heat damage to be potentially...

No. Logarithmic is slower than linear. Exponential is faster.

I am fully aware that heat is meant to be a guaranteed damage option, but splitting as much damage as possible between kinetic and EM always gives more guaranteed damage. For a weapon with 50% kinetic, 33% EM, and 17% heat damage against a ship with 40% kinetic, 50% EM, and 75% heat reduction...

The amounts in kinetic vs EMP are irrelevant if the weapon deals 50% kinetic and 50% EMP, as long as there is an average 45% reduction the weapon will deal 55% damage. Taking your example values: 40% kinetic, 50% EM, 50% heat reduction + 50% kinetic, 50% EM damage: 55% total damage dealt 40%...

This makes no sense. A weapon that deals primarily EM or kinetic damage can be made to deal equal amounts of EM and kinetic using the effect modules. Using your 0% and 90% examples, if you shoot this hybrid weapon at shields you'll do 50% EM and 5% kinetic for a total of 55%. If you shoot at...

If heat damage is applied equally it might as well be removed as it would serve no purpose. Instead of just shields/armor, have shields/armor/systems. EM would be strong against shields, weak against armor, and normal against systems. Kinetic would be strong against armor, weak against...

A solid connection is still possible with large enough stabilizer groups, so removing the group merging behavior wouldn't help much. Currently, when any of the connecting stabilizer blocks are destroyed, the stabilizer group is split and exposed streams are created. If you made stream nodes...

There was a long period before power streams were added in which there were no fundamental changes to the stabilizer system, only balance adjustments. Streams could have been added anywhere in this time with the same potential consequences, but were added after the dev team realized islands were...

No offense to you, but I do not believe him. The reason most of the devs did not respond seems to be because they were unaware of schema's intentions or had been told to not reveal anything. If they actually had something planned, the reasonable thing would be to say "We are aware of this...

That's exactly what I did. I suggested keeping the beams for performance reasons, but making them invisible. They would still exist. Simply changing the texture is not enough.

You should doubt this. We had to beg and plead for months for changes to make stick ships less advantageous. For a while, the devs refused to even acknowledge it was a problem. If schema had intended to implement this from the beginning, he would have done so. Similarly, the power stream was the...

I would rather have to put in some extra effort building than have a strange purple glowing tube through the middle of my ship, but this is a valid point. Using build tools makes building conduits much easier. If it's really a problem, perhaps conduit lines could automatically be generated...

Both of these options allow for the stream to be entirely hidden inside the reactor using large stabilizers at each end of the ship, joined into a single group by a 'dotted line' of stabilizers between them which moves the center of mass inside the reactor. There are no downsides to this method...