Search results

"Auxiliary Power Channels" or APC.

No one likes the name. Keep coming up with ideas for a new one.

That sounds good on the surface, but it could get ridiculous or overpowered quickly. Immagine a chamber 16 blocks longs and 4 high with 64 redundant conduits running to it. It would be more balanced and elegant to rely on putting internal armor around your conduits and other critical systems...

I thought about this too, but at the same time I like that there is some sort of hard limit shared by ships of all sizes and kinds.

Disabling them seems like the simplest and most effective way to prevent a balance nightmare. If self-powered turrets break balance they won't work. If they can be balanced in a way that addresses the concerns above, that would probably be ideal. ...That makes too much sense. *AGREE SMASH*

Whether it will actually do that or not depends on whether we can reshape the box, which I think we can. Make the box flat enough, and a wedge could have turrets along half of its top and bottom easily.

Anything could technically be launched from within the bounding box as long as there is a means to activate its reactor after launch, and a means to get docked onto a rail before its reactor must shut down.

Quite the opposite, actually. A boxy ship will have more hull close to the edges of the bounding box, while a thinner one with projections or pylons can have a larger reactor box compared to the rest of it and STILL have somewhere to put the docked entity outside its reactor box. There are pros...

My dear, Watson! Clearly these "stabilizers" help to mitigate the block stuffing meta by requiring ships with a certain amount of power to have a certain minimum box dimension. Thus, ships such as the saucer-and-rods style from Star Trek can potentially be effective. (And yes, chandeliers if you...

I think it will be difficult to cram that much stuff in and still have power to run it without your stabilizers being way out on hokey-looking, far-too-long nacelle things.

I believe I see how the U.S.S. Enterprise and other Star-Trek styled ships could be made to function reasonably well within this system, and that's a good sign. Systems are compact enough, the nacelles have a purpose, etc. Granted the saucer still wouldn't be ideal but it wouldn't be as bad as...

I rather like this version, except for the fact that gravity will not work, and only the plates on the very edges can easily be built on. The overall shape of the planet fits a cube-based voxel universe well.

Precisely my point.

The game is in a rut now, and will probably go much further down into this rut before it resurfaces. Slow development will hurt the game, yes. The aftermath will plague the player counts for years to come. If the game really delivers in the end though, the game will probably regain its popularity.

Dodecahedrons were an absolutely brilliant choice in theory. The trouble is those edges. They're jagged and they always must be unless you do some weird stuff with partially rendered blocks or dozens of new block shapes the engine shouldn't have to deal with. There's no voxel-clean way to...

I for one really appreciate the attitude that Schine has toward the development of this work of art. When it is complete we'll see it for what it is. If you look at Starmade for what it is now, you sell it short. If you look at what it could become, you get a better picture of the game. Will it...

The reason I would like or at the very least not mind cubic planets is that it's a natural shape for the universe you've created, like a sphere is a natural shape for real world planets. Despite the edges being stark dividing lines, they can be made to look good. On the other hand, I don't know...

Salted mushrooms? HUNGER MECHANIC CONFIRMED!

Excellent work. This is something that desperately needed to be done.

It's likely that "blockiness" will remain the telltale sign of natural generation, sort of a thematic "marker" for nature versus construction.