Search results

Rather than a special rail block, what about a system similar to personal cargo, but for selecting the docked entity to serve as the bridge. Only one could be active at a time, and there could be a cool-down before switching to a new one. This would allow having a secondary bridge (battle...

Why is not duplicating news on the forum such a big issue? I always get my news from the news page. If I want to discuss something, then I make a forum post, or comment on an existing one. Who opens the topic doesn't concern me.

This could be an opportunity to make use of the stabilization buffer, allowing the stabilizer stream to "absorb" hits until the buffer is depleted.

I would also prefer to not manually build conduits all through the ship. Assuming the stabilizer stream is here to stay, I would just like the node blocks to be made indestructible and non-solid like the streams. Having the stream suddenly change its path, cutting through the interior or...

This is to give you a jump-start on designing for the coming weapons update, where you will be able to change the beam width.;)

Well the mass spawn interface needs some major work as well. It's UI is painful. As far as multiplayer mass spawing, I'm really hoping that shipyards and fleet tools get some significant upgrades to allow automated production and fleet assignment, with intelligent rally points, and settings for...

Yeah, my 200M shield test might not have been realistic without the fighters having some support ships to back them up. I imagine if the big ship had working turrets the fighters wouldn't have lasted long, but AI being what it is, I didn't see the point it testing that aspect. I was impressed...

Doesn't it seem reasonable that other things could go wrong with a big ship besides its shields failing? Maybe I am too optimistic, but I predict that systems will continue to be tinkered with until a decently designed ship doesn't self destruct every time someone flushes a toilet during an FTL...

So, as it stands now, with ~140 votes, most everyone agrees stabilizers are imbalanced, and it's split pretty evenly between remove, keep, and don't care.

Maybe not 3 drones, but if it's Wedge, Luke, and Biggs then look out! Perhaps this is the start of a new trend, where building and operating a battleship that doesn't explode is a more challenging endeavor with great risks for hasty design. Back to fighters, anyone have any thoughts on fighter...

I did another test with the reactor 100% stable vs another 100 fighters, this time a mix of weapons (50 Bc, 25 Cc, 25 Mc), and it went more as I expected. The fighters slowly whittled the big ship's shields down. The big ship still suffered minor block damage at some point (somewhere below 80%...

Well, that would explain a lot. I'm not sure how that makes any sense, though. That basically makes shields (and armor) useless on an unstable reactor, which is exactly where you want them to work. Oh well, I'll just retry with stabilization at 90-100% and hope that a better unstable reactor...

I took a stab (in the dark) at a Power 2.0 big ship Vs. 100 fighters. Here's what I used: Test Big Ship> Test Fighter> At first, it seemed like the fighters had no chance, just barely chipping away at the big ships 200M shields. Then, big ship started taking block damage and Reactor HP started...

About 5fps. The ships only had 2 groups of 12 Cannon with 100% cannon support. I tried again with 300, 40RB ships, this time with 2 groups of 50 and 100% support. They still couldn't get the shields down past 97%. I tried to add another 100, but the game ran out of memory and froze up.

The capital ship would need to have some sensible parameters too, I think. I made a 10RB fighter with Cc, 11k Shields, and 2.5TTM, and had 600 of them battle 1 of these: Seraphim/Moloch Class Cruiser Mk II They couldn't do anything against it's 30M shields. What would be a sensible shield...

How did you arrive at 9 RB or less? The current config for full power has minimum stabilization at 25% You can build up to a level 4 reactor (40 RB) before you hit 25% stabilizer efficiency and start losing power. edit: what I mean is that the 9RB limit could be to accommodate simple utility...

I think so. If I get too hot, I might pass out. If my car's engine gets too hot, it breaks. If my ice-cream gets too hot... It's a fairly relatable term.

I thought the OP was just about Stabilizer portion of Power 2.0 Also, my fine print more or less agreed with you.

If I need to put in a screw, replacing a hammer with a screwdriver is not the same as getting rid of the hammer. Though, to be fair, getting rid of the hammer may make me reconsider whether or not I needed to put in the screw in the first place. :)