Alright people, I think we have enough ad hominem to alert moderators. I am sure that while it\'s okay to disagree, calling people retards, criticizing personal beliefs and making dick-wagging contest of \'my turret design is better than your horrible turret design\' is not really encouraged by developers. Thus, I suggest you\'d stop as it serves completely no purpose beyond petty ego-stroking and making the situation worse.
To address some of the suggestions here:
- Shields
I do believe they shouldn\'t be increased. Generally, most of the community agreed in the recent discussion on twitter that AMC are the culprit that has to be severely nerfed and that hull is a bit too much of a papermache in case of bigger ships, while it should be nearly - if not as much - viable defense as shields are (if thick enough, in plenty of layers). Balancing in this direction is not finished, if I am not mistaken.
On one hand, directional shielding or shield weak points seem like an interesting idea, but on the other - I am worried about work needed, breaking the balance and effect on multiplayer in regards to overspecialization. To be honest, I am not sure it\'s worth it - current shielding works fine, sans aforementioned balance.
- Cores and things related
I personally feel no need for multiple cores, it could even create difficulties. However, making different auxiliary control stations for different subsystems of bigger ships, turret override etc would be interesting. I do agree that cores seem to require some work. Not only, as I\'ve repeated often enough, I am not fond of how they work - magical cubes sucking the pilot and tying his life with the integrity of said core - but they seem to be nearly the only one valuable target. Theoretically, one can say that disabling thrusters or cannons is a viable tactic, but when one is at a position to destroy such modules, one can as well just go straight for the core for maximum efficiency.
Fires seem like a synchronization nightmare - I can only imagine how bad it will be when game willtrack temperature and then scattered fire damage for ships participating in battle and then exchange the data with all the clients. Though it also really depends on how the servers will work. I am not overly fond of it as random spreading damage. However, the idea behind the fire suggestions I can certainly support - so far design of too many starships is basically \'make the interior a solid block with exception of some way for player to activate core\'. Having actual need for proper corridors, decks etc and possibly even multiple players per bigger ship for maintenance would be wonderful, though I suspect that many of those who like to fly around in some behemoths on their own would complain.
Ideally, one day I\'d be able to make my character sit in the chair built in a cockpit, with proper console nearby so I can reach it while sitting and join some fight while being aware that said character can be taken out by boarding party, some high-powered projectile that won\'t hit the target itself or - unless dressed in hermetic suit with limited oxygen supply - life support failure. Or team up with a trusted acquaintance in control of the ship which is simply too big for the control of all systems to be performed from a single console (fighters, scoutships and other barely-frigates however should have centralized interface). But I understand it if not everyone want to play game like such.
- Carriers
Carriers should have their uses and fighters/bombers should be of some threat to bigger units, especially in a game where, sadly, bigger units, after being built require about the same the smaller ones do - single guy to utilize their full potential. While quality should be valued over quantity, it makes both sense and is realistic to employ number of short-range, slow, high-payload missile bomber crafts for taking out bigger tactical targets and for said targets to employ interceptors and point-defense turrets to counter such threat.
However, balancing must be carefully tested and taken into account to make creation of big ships and carriers full of combat drones a decent option - I mean costs of production, lethality and things like number of drones that can be activated simultaneously by one carrier, to avoid thousands-ship big lagfests. I certainly wouldn\'t want every and any little fighter to be able to take out actively defending-itself battlecruiser on it\'s own, but I do believe that squadrons shooting a powerful, but \'won\'t reload before sunday\'-slow salvo would an interesting thing to behold.
Let\'s remember though that in case of those fighters - AI controlled ones will probably function far worse than player squadrons would, which is both fair and a bit of balancing on it\'s own.
I agree with the idea of credits and materials being too accessible. As the game is, it\'s very easy to accumulate considerable wealth in rather short time, especially in a multiplayer game, among factions who - I\'d assume - would be utilizing fighter squadrons the most.
