Search results

I'm not sure that splitting things up in this somewhat arbitrary way actually solves the problems of turrets and massive pieces of docked ablative armor and the like. Also, I think it's a bit convoluted. I see what you're getting at... I think. I think you're trying to say that there ought to be...

First off man, you need to chill out. Like, take a step back from the computer and take a breather. Secondly, I think ignoring his other pieces of input simply because he's trying to put things in a perspective of how things work in real life and other games is a bad move. I would also like to...

This doesn't make sense. Having players manage hundreds or thousands of tiny items in a game built around massive mutli-block systems such as weapons, shields, and power is a horrible idea. Think of the micro managing that would require. Think of the tediousness of it all. Think of how much...

As much as I too like the idea of having an applied energistics, or industrialcraft, or even reactorcraft like system in Starmade, I'm not sure that requiring players to wire everything together would work. The first and obvious issue is, with so many many blocks and systems, how are you gonna...

StarMade - Devblog May 22nd 2017

Has anyone thought about just not letting docked entities share power with the main vessel, and removing the power and shield transfer beams from the game completely? It really isn't like the power and shield transfer beams were useful for anything other than getting around power caps in the...

I also think that there needs to be some kind of, at the very least, rough estimate. I agree. Thank you for clarifying this MrFURB!

You have a good point with this. There needs to be a trade-off, not just a buff.

I like this idea, making shields work in this system sorta like the way the weapons have capacity. But, while this also may be a viable idea, I don't think we should get ahead of ourselves. We ought to test and tweak this power system as proposed before we run off applying the same system to...

Would you mind explaining?

I am, personally, solidly in the camp of, this is a really solid update suggestion, and we should go ahead with it. I'm worried that a vocal minority might derail it, but I think the Devs are able to tell who the vocal minority is. And, I hope that even with some of the splitting I can see going...

I want to thank you so much for your post. You put into words an argument that I was only able to guess at, I do agree with you wholeheartedly. Thank you.

I think that this is the single most informative comment on this entire post. I agree with the majority of what you're saying. And, before I say what I say next, I want to add the disclaimer that I haven't played in months and I have never really gotten into PVP, but here is why: The power...

I think this is a good idea, at least in regards to testing. If ultimately they come out to be on the fence with the single reactor idea, and/or with the no reactors on turrets debate, I think it would be a good idea to have these as config options in the rounds of testing, and maybe have...

Wouldn't this sort of spindly-ness be solved fairly easily by making (and, I forget the exact term) the setting for parts breaking off of ships a default, always on, set in stone, option?

It seems that you figured out why the Devs decided that you'd need the square heat boundaries. That makes a lot of sense. Thank you for explaining it.

Seconded.

I agree about not settling for "Good Enough". Thank you for replying.

Seconded. Agreed.

I think that this new system would be important for making the game more fun, and more varied for everyone. The Devs have more experience with this game than anyone else, they *made it* for heavens-sake. Currently, as it stands, it is virtually impossible to easily balance aesthetics with pvp...