Search results

(somebody disagreed with my full-stop....how very odd) anyway, here is another quick thought: re-tooling stabilizers for power 1.0: in this scenario capacity and power 1.0 is kept - now stabilizer function like capacitors, with both regn and capacity determined by rules based around power 2.0...

.

there are of course various benefits to making a solo 'faction' as well (fleet,diplomacy,trade-control,mining bonus). not having your ship stolen would be the key reason for most new players on a server i guess> and yes I am looking at you B :) Perhaps we could try an alternative term or idea...

But lets try a more productive approach: >> make armor / HP of any docked entity additive to the the cumulative total of the main entity it is attached too (while it is attached). in that way docked armor just becomes pointless, as it is identical to actual armor on the ship (as i believe is...

I am on-board with the overall goals, but I am not really liking the implementation of all parts of 2.0. Going down the stabilizer route could be done in a few alternate ways - this one feels really flat and uninteresting:/ I can see that removing capacitor blocks gives more room for chambers...

Good thoughts Coyote27 - sometime-back somewhere similar ideas we thrown around. Something previously mentioned was making checks for potential turret rotation at build or other times of low CPU-cycle, creating bounding boxes or similar, to limit calculation in combat. I like the idea about...

in steam? something like > steamapps/common/starmade ...etc (i think)

i think you should be able to manually copy the bluprint folder (or individual entity-sub-folder) > look in starmade/..(something)../bluprints if they are from a very old build the ingame-bluprint-update process might get buggy when you do start up a new world - idk

that might be true Jojomo: the thing is shields 2.0 just seems dumb and pointless overall when shield radius is so damn huge... :/ what about the fundamental concept of having an actual/more defined 'main ship/entity/etc' as a basis for working through several issues with 'docked builds' ?

Point about drones noted - but do you conceptualize your drones as 'just a collection of blocks grouped together' ? Or as 'My Drone' ? Drones, shuttles and 'independent-but-docked' ships etc might be exceptions to above rule > ie no sharing of numerical characteristics via ship/drone docking...

So there seems to be a general feeling here that docked hull and floating turrets, while legit design challenges, often exist as fixes for ease of building and to gain benefit through combining results of mechanics, potentially with powerful effects. Docked engines are also possible, although...

[edited a bit]. . .yeah, nothing problematic about that :/

sigh... the conceptual issue is "what is an entity?" + "what is a Main entity (ie a 'ship' ?" it is clearly daft that i can add 100 armor blocks to my Main entity at 100m distance and loss HP when destroyed, but place same armor on nominally separate-but -permanent-docked element and lose no...

no; you are right i suppose - not too exploity, just ugly and used in situations lacking fun (except for that pilot) - on you go then, what could possibly be problematic about that ... :/

... and your point is ? JinM is trying to get back to the OP...and obviously theorizing, to highlight why docked armor is exploiting fundamental assumptions of the game and making a mockery of what a 'ship' should in fact be. I am not going to spend my time building these things either, let...

I wonder why people wanted to ignor you or Vaygr ? Batavium (and others) choose to ignore some people, because 'playing' with them is no fun. there is no challenge - i myself, just let them smash up the place a bit until they get bored and go away...the main tedium is all the chat and alerts...

being aware of 'cheats'/'exploits'/'wonders-of-engineering' is not the same as devoting gameplay to maximizing actual builds in those directions! devoting gameplay to 'exploits' and stating that in future gameplay will be devoted to finding more 'exploits' can only take us so far - and there...

no artificial mechanic to control behavior ! action = consequence... would need additional tracking of who/what is declaring war perhaps, or perhaps have AI 'war declared' not be quite same as player initiated (that might be useful as a feature on its own, AI defends, but does create war on its...

An idea: EG: faction point generation and everything else stays exactly as they are now, but when you declare war/maintain war by not accepting peace, there is a check against current relative faction ranking > if you attack a similar or more ranked faction, then maybe no cost to your faction...

ok - what is the fundamental issue we should be talking about? (last time i checked, door blocks contribute nothing to ship-HP just armor-HP, so destruction of a sacrificial 'force field' slab still leaves ship-HP intact....did that change? )