Search results

That would be why there are restrictions in place, Dire. Because otherwise the lunatics get more destructive tools to blow things up with.

Well, yes. That's why I mentioned that it would be controlled by the core beam. Which also prevents you from doing some sort of hundred-meter-long warship attack based on using large numbers of thrusters to hook onto the enemy ship and just blast the same spot repeatedly, before firing a...

Random idea I had earlier. A cursory search revealed a couple of two-year-old threads for the topic, however they differ in one or two important ways from my suggestion, so here it is: Give players (Probably not NPCs, simply because the pathfinding would get murderously complicated) the ability...

Those are all great changes (Except for the human factor---you may eventually need to force a slower speed on players, because humans can't physically track fast enough to make good combat use of most ships that size) for my computer, but I'm literally concerned about just being able to reach...

Ahhh! He's one of those CASUALS! Shoot him! Shoot him now!

Sorry, but I'm not going to read all the replies, so I don't know if this was mentioned at all---how about allowing a ship to "align" to another ship with the use of a core block beam, but it only works IF the second ship is faster in all dimensions that the target ship. Basically, the...

The problem is that I like my battleship-style turrets, super-efficient or not! But yeah, these people practically make a living killing people and taking their stuff working the in-game math---listen to them. Sadly enough, ball turrets (That make the turret "casing" part of the BARREL, rather...

Salt was real. I definitely sit between the two majors camps in this argument/these arguments: I think Schine has made mistakes (Sorry, they're only human, just like the rest of us), and I think that I'm going to keep watching this game as it grows. As for the publicity, it was really summed up...

Wow, you go away for a few months and forget about the game, and somebody has a neat idea. It's too bad I'm playing only on a decent laptop, because I have serious doubts about the ability of this thing to run SM...Ah well, never know if you don't try. Anyway---color me interested, even if I...

I like it. This is the basic, but spelled-out version, of the ideas I've promoted in the past. In order to bypass the whole "Ship docked to turret dock: What do?" thing, just add this requirement: If the object in question has a means of propulsion (Push pulse or thrusters, not jump drive)...

Another request for "BIGGER BOOM LESS HARDER". Ah well. Anyway, I would like to see a revamp of explosive so that cannon shells detonate on contact like a weaker, faster-travelling missiles.

What you might try is literally making just one half of the ship. Then, using the "replace" tool's functionality, you can duplicate it piece by piece using the mirror tool. Of course, that does make it harder on the receiver's end, but you know what, that's fine, and it's not that much work...

I am really starting to dislike this idea, honestly. I thought it had good parts starting out, but I do not like the replies given in the answers section. I'd want to see multiple reactors per ship, with docked entities capable of carrying their own power. No bounding-box silliness. However...

The weapons-capacity thing just means that there will be no intermediary. No more power capacitors, just straight draws, which changed based on two things: Full/not full states of weapons and damage sustained to systems. Except for thrusters and shields which are, as always, constant-draw systems.

Perhaps, instead, skip the idea of points entirely. Make them take power entirely. So, you have only so much power to spend (It's a reactor, after all) on anything you want to spend it on reduces the amount available. Then, make multiple reactors a possibility for logic and also balance. Makes...

I find it funny that they proposed a revamp of our entire power system....And the backlash is almost entirely about a single name of a single, perhaps poorly chosen, design element. Not bad, Schine.

Quite lengthy, not all comprehensible right now (Need to catch up on sleep....again). I quite agree. Good thing this is a proposal. NO TECH POINTS. Please. Any name but "tech points". Illogical and silly-sounding. We might be a cubic sci-fi game with vacuum energy, but no "tech points". Perhaps...

Jolly, you've basically listed out the devs' goals for the game. Also, it's already been stated: The developers don't want a rush of people right now. If they did, they'd use one of their Steam "publicity rounds" that puts them on the front page of Steam wherever, they'd set up ads on YouTube...

You have to have a simple, non-rotating, no-AI, non-turret docked plate between the two units, but its possible. Just somewhat inefficient as far as entity counts go.

You are looking at the same arrow. It's got three sides and three different colors. But it's the same arrow. I fail to see why you are confused.