Search results

They'd very likely have to kill self powered turrets to do that, and there's no chance of that happening. These aren't new, they're as old as docking, and docks passing power up. Unless the entire, fundamental concept of either docking, or power passing up through docks is abandoned, this...

Agreed, conceptually. But practically, that's how we all first learnt to think of them, and it comes easily.

Or have docked dockers+rails just ignore weapons fire (let it pass through). Like in here: (Another) solution to lag from ex-docked entities colliding

Put in a second reactor entity. So you have your root ship entity A, which is/includes a reactor, then build a reactor only entity B that docks to A inside your ship. Then dock entities that have shields or weapons to B (or build then directly onto entity B), instead of A. They'll be able to...

Actually you explained that you were against removing firing arcs because that would harm the use of "truly massive" internally docked fixed turrets. From that I infer that you aren't against the use of "truly massive" internally docked turrets. Seeing as a "truly massive" internally docked...

"Docked reactor" is a term with a specific meaning. We all know when we see it that it means a long brick that fires a logic power supply beam. We're not talking about those now. You don't call turrets "docked turrets" just because they're docked. It's isn't colliding with the turrets, and...

Is a "truly massive" turret only a couple of hundred blocks? Even an 2 million e/s might be as small as 800 blocks. (And speaking for myself only, I use reactors much smaller than 2 million e/s...) The scales very much depend on the scale of the ships. The volume checked for a titan alone...

There's a new tool for that here: SMBEdit Don't misread it, it's not SMEdit ;)

Naughty, naughty...this is just begging for the the server to be brought to its knees by collisions when it gets shot off its rail! /s :^D:-p

You want the devs to take the time to stop that lag? They won't unless there's a reason to, and if no-one uses multiple reactor entities that reason will be much much smaller. Personally I'd even go so far as to say that they're good for the game - they'll virtually guarantee that a solution...

We already effectively manage our power for systems - when we need more power to recharge shields we stop firing large weapons, etc... You can do this now: Have two reactor entities of the same size, A and B, with B docked to A (which is the root ship entity). Dock your weapons to B, and all...

I like this point, a lot. Ship maneuverability should really help avoid fire, especially from large turrets.

Well that's just not true at all. Coding wedging would be laborious, and would depend on so,e assumptions (e.g. no empty blocks adjacent to the target block on the inside of the hull) but the difficulty is low: you just look at all the adjacent empty blocks and pick the wedge that suits. I...

Base designers eat before ship designers("shipwright")? :eek: Base designers don't have to deal with movement and all its associated problems. Ship design requires more knowledge/skill (in SM and RL), and ought to be considered more prestigious/higher ranked. Warriors eat before ship...

An app that rotates cores was put in CC on Thursday: SMBEdit (not SMEdit)

Someone's just published a new tool that includes a wedging function: SMBEdit (not SMEdit)

This by Bench might be useful:

Lets you use cheap disposable fighters/drones that don't have jump drives.

Larger weapons would still destroy multiple blocks... At the risk of sounding like I'm speaking on behalf of Raisinbat :-p I don't see any hint that his suggestion was intended to avoid min/maxing.

I was wrong when I interpreted the OP before, and could be again, but I think the idea was if damage is equal to or greater than the block type's HP value then the block is destroyed. If the damage is below that threshold then there is a chance of destroying it. Armour behaving differently on...