Search results

Yes, that is was my point. The other thing "exploit" tech does though is encourages fewer but larger factions which creates a stronger community. If a good ship is harder to make, you wont see everyone just making 1-man factions.

Take every "exploit" that was made possible by logic or complex designs that was ever removed and put them back in, then add some more. Then approach the whole thing from the perspective of balancing their difficulty to implement with a reasonable ROI instead. The BEST part of this game has...

This would be a better compromise I think than just going strait ore to ship. At the very least it forces you to build up your industrial abilities such that if you are coming from raw ore, a weak factory might still take a good chunk of time to spit out a ship without being tedious. That...

Programing in lower level languages is a lot more time consuming than using a game engine (Unity, Game Maker, etc). Furthermore, games like this that are super math intensive generally tank if you try doing everything using fancy frameworks and libraries which normally also expedite...

Factions are dying because the playerbase is contracting. There are fewer logistical specialists than there are factions at this point, and most factions don't want to lose their identity by merging. Most factions don't have more than 2-3 ppl now because so many ppl have been chased away by...

I see your meme and raise you an allegory! *Ahem*... In the beginning God made man and woman, and said that this is good. In fact, he liked people so much that he gave them the ability to reproduce. But Eve soon found an exploit so that she could have all the pleasure of reproduction without...

Fielding enough AI to pose a threat to a good player flown ship typically means introducing 3x as much mass and 10x as much lag. Enough drones to begin to threaten a decent 500k battleship is also enough to crash most servers and clients which... I guess is a way to win a fight, but not really...

I disagree, yes, there are players that don't like it, but there are those that do. When that happens, it encourages more faction building. If the game is well balanced then some people will be predominantly system engineers, some aesthetic engineers, some logic system engineers, some pilots...

Actually... that is exactly what it is. The hammer is the wrong tool. It will not get the job done. If you want to go with the tool metaphor, it's like power 1.0 was trying to put in a phillips head screw with a flat head screwdriver. It could get the job done, but had its annoyances...

sooo... escentially, reactors do what reactors do which is make power, and stabilizers keep your ship from just blowing up. This could be a viable compromise. The closest thing to a major problem I see off the top of my head here is those flux/heat streams. If your reactor has a bunch of...

60%... you seem to be looking at that very wrong since "replace" is effectively the same as get rid of them, and "Keep working on Stabilizers" may in of itself include people who were of the opinion that they needed to be replaced before that option was added. So: the approval rating of...

If you go straight from raw to ship, then you eliminate all the logical design & complexities of manufacturing facilities. Basically what this proposes is that building a ship should be as easy as dropping ore into a really big capsule refinery and a fully formed starship drops out the other...

STOP TRYING TO KILL LOGIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Logic based systems are the advanced tech of this game. Yes, resource acquisition is tedious at the start of the game because you are not yet advanced, but good miner and factory design mitigate this a lot. This tedium is the incentive to become more...

The Isanth was never much more than a lot of empty space, massive amounts of armor, and minimal firepower so it's not surprising that you got this result. You ever try to dueling with Isanth's and you'll spend 30min in a fruitless and boring dog fight very slowly whittling away your opponent.

Frankly I think some OTHER mechanic than stabilizers such as heat sinks could be fun, but there is no salvaging the concept of stabilizers as they are. How many ppl voted to get rid of stabilizers before replacing them was added as an option?

If the side effect of a cold medicine is that kills 90% of test subjects but an 80% reduction of symptoms, you don't try to alter doses until it only causes a 30% chance of death and a 25% reduction of symptoms. You ditch the drug and find something else. The things the update fixes are WAY...

I voted yes because almost everything about the new system hurts creative freedom, player experience, and depth of game play. Rather than naming a good mechanic, I'd like to poss the counterpoint of what makes a BAD mechanic. "If you need a strange workaround to implement a new idea, it's...

I did not mean that as criticism of you personally for not taking the time to build big ships in Dev Build, just saying that we need bigger examples to prove anything definitely because so much right now is still theoretical.

One other MAJOR problem with nerfing big turrets is that big turrets cause less lag. A ship with 100k mass devoted to 4-6 large battle turrets is much less laggy than a similar amount of firepower dumped into 20-40 smaller turrets. If you recall the Despoiler or the Salamis, they were laggier...

While this is a fun proof-of-concept, I feel like anything in that size range will not be a good sample ships: it's too small. If you want something that can predict PvP ship architecture, you'd need to design something at pvp scale