Well they're on HVs and CVs . I don't know this for sure but it seems like the Devs want SVs to just be fighters and maybe transportation ships. I'm guessing HVs will be the mining repair and tank vehicle. I agree it would be nice to have a Repair and drill turrents for SVs.
Am I the only one who loves the new Depth of Field effect? Taking amazing screenshots in this game continues to get easier. These flowers look very realistic.
To me it wouldn't even need to be a SV turret. Since you could build a specialized SV and park in in your CV hangar, when the game actually requires you to have a long range ship if there are x amount of star systems to explore. In contrast to a CV, you could build specialized SVs for each task (mining, Repair and so on) whereas you can't just switch your CV. I also think the devs seem to want SVs for Combat and CV be just transporters to carry your SV around (I'd hate that, tbh). I would prefer to have the choice which vehicle to use for a certain task. I'd probably use my CV as my main ship, i.e. using it in combat and have several SVs as specialized ships for mining and repair (whereas i would also prefer to have an on board sollution (repair to BP) instead to have to zip around my huge CV to find each single damaged Block (=not fun at all)).
That would make the SV the perfect all-purpose vehicle. Unfortunately it would also be another reason to skip HVs.
I've been splitting my time between playing on the survival server when my buddies are on, and design runs in SP creative. I realised we were going to progress faster than I was designing, there was no way I'd be able to make a CV I was happy with before we went inter-planetary. So I hit up the workshop until I got a good one that was cheap, highly practical and had automation/logic systems, or space to add them. Then, while I was on my mad design run yesterday (3 ships, 2 bases & half of a new UrgiCorp chart) I also designed a custom Landing Pad for the LCV-1 Belafonte, both to spawn it and as a place to park it between outings: It isn't UrgiCorp without large signs. In this case since the public may see it, Neon-lit since it's effectively free advertising. Better come back later When the pad is inactive the power will last 106 Hours, when all the systems are on it is 76 Direct passenger access. Me being me, a single power saving switch wasn't enough so I decided to add in a passenger safety light. If anyone is in the embarkation zone a red light will turn on, warning the pilot that some silly sod is in danger of being flattened. The only disadvantage is that Precision parking skills are required to land just right. However, landing gear positions are marked and the rear of the Belafonte does make landing correctly relatively easy. My goal today is to finish that chart and upload those ships and bases to the workshop while I wait for our server admin to wake up and update the server ^^
Grey-goo'd the base and hovers and High tailed it to the stargate with the matter-packs... Someone must really Disapprove of the Xirax I think they dropped a moon on the planet.. no video of that... got shot at a bit arriving on new BoO.. Let the nanos loose and was up and running again the following afternoon. A good 24 Hours work done an I decided to grab a sammich and go watch Brothers Alpha and Bravo sing the 30mm Gosphel to our new neighbors... I don't think they were coming to borrow a cup of sugar....
Very cool! I am honored that you've seen to it to construct a dedicated pad for this ship. Let me know when you put it on the workshop! Does the ship spawn OK with the passenger access area in place? Thanks also for your feedback on the version mismatch issues a couple of days ago - I would not have known what was wrong without your input. The game version problem should be all sorted now.
Please explain how having just one SV fixed tool will make SV the perfect all-purpose vessel and a reason to skip HVs? Because now the HV becomes a wannabe all-purpose vessel, but not actually very good at any purpose... HV - hovers, tank, defense tower, miner, harvester, multitool... SV - flies, shoots...
"Not very good" is strictly an opinion, but if we compare the facts of each vessel: -HVs have limited options for offensive weaponry - only a few turret types and only one fixed weapon. -HVs have limited thrust - lower acceleration profiles and a substantially lower max speed than SVs. -HVs cannot fly: they cannot leave planetary playfields without docking to a CV. -HVs have utility devices: Mining / Harvester / Multitool -SVs have extensive fixed weaponry options, though no turrets. -SVs have higher max-speed caps and substantially more powerful thrust options. -SVs can fly / warp - not only can they maneuver in three dimensions, but they can leave planetary playfields and even systems without support. *Cargo capacities are the same for both. What this means is that while HVs cannot fulfill a combat role with the same versatility or offensive capability as SVs, they can act as utility vessels - something the SV currently cannot do. Giving any portion of that role to the SV lessens the HV's value in this role. It means that someone who would build a HV to fill that role, would instead construct a SV. And furthermore, due to the SV's already superior maneuvering and combat abilities, the builder would likely use that same SV as a combat vehicle. A multi-tool "gun" by itself doesn't make the SV a "perfect" all-purpose vehicle, but it would impact the HV's already limited niche.
What I'd like is a way to transfer all cargo (Filtered, or designated containers) from one vessel to another, or to a base. Then the hassle of transferring stuff from your utility vessel to the place you're likely going to use the resource would be a sinch. Less people would care about being limited to a HV for decent mining/harvesting. Cargo Bay block similar to Repair bay, but not limited to 1? On a side note: In defining UrgiCorp further I've decided to write a Design tutorial, so process has slowed, as has ship production & release.
Don't underestimate the use of (defensive) turrets. For CVs whose Turrets are badly nerfed on Planets, deploying some defense parameter vessels like the Scorpion AA are always a good idea. Also some might disagree in offensive capabilities too (not me, I'm a pure SV lover) - that's the reason ThunderTanks, Diablo Gatos and what others are around have a reason to exist. Now how will you use this special HV Role (Repairing) in Space when you want to repair your CV? You cannot. You have to build a Repair-CV. Good idea. NOT. How will you use the Dissassembling Tool in Space against Bases? You cannot. Not really. Build a CV-Tooler. NOT. How will you use the Mining Role of the HV in Space? You cannot too. Not really again. Build a CV-Miner (when your Class 153 Battlecruiser isn't capable of doing that). Only to consider. (that post wasn't meant to you @Kieve, only as a starting point.)
Finished is just an outward appearance besides the Nostruk ... There is still nothing in the interiors of the necessary components for a good flight The number of power generators and RCS is already stable
I won't discount their use, but this is not a role exclusive to HVs - BA pop-up turrets can also be used. And with the spawn-pad requirements, it's no longer quite so easy to pull even a stationary HV-turret out of your pocket. -You wouldn't use HVs in space or on-planet for this. That is the role the BA repair block fills. -That is the role of a CV MT-Turret. Of course, you can undock your utility HV in space, but it's not the most effective option. EDIT: This isn't limited to bases, you can also dismantle Freighters or foes' PvP ships (what's left of them). Since CVs can mount repair blocks as well, I won't say much about repairing HVs or SVs. -You said it yourself - that's what CV mining turrets are for. HOWEVER, to reverse all this, it would be highly inefficient (and by that I mean you'd burn a whole hell of a lot of fuel) to bring a CV down and start dismantling POIs or repairing vehicles, or mining out ores on-planet. HVs are ground vessels and are well-suited for use as a planet-side utility vehicle. In space, the CV fills the turret-user / utility role (as well as a mobile base in its own right). And ending point too, really I know what you're trying to say, but there are already options in place here, so they're not terribly effective points to raise, if you'll forgive me saying so.
You will have these onboard with the CV. I'm talking here Survival Game ;-) where you're on your journey to where no one has gone before. I've done this journey in 6.0 to 6.7, always having my Mobile Base-CV with onboard Defense Weapon plattforms and Assault-SVs on site. Putting down BAs will cluster the planets, it you don't dissassemble them when leaving. Yes in SP this would be irrelevant, nevertheless. When you're playing a nomadic role, you won't have BAs around. (besides on the starter planet of course.) Where is this "play like you will" again? Are we going away from that? REALLY? In 6.x it was NOT possible to move the HV even in closed environments with gravity gens in space. Edit: Again, you have to see the bigger picture. We're not talking one system with a few planets, but MULTIPLE SOLAR SYSTEMS of hundrets of planets. I don't want to build a Mining-CV every system I'm in - because my Class 153 BattleCruiser isn't a good option to mine in Space, and building every System a BA either - because these pesky new Pirate-AI-Drones shooting Holes in my Ships... We need MORE options. Not less! Nah ;-) you seem me too short sighted. Did you ever imagine to really fly around in a huge universe?
SV's have 6 weapon options. Total armament = 26...however only 1 group can be used at a time. HV's have 5 weapon options. Total armament = 21...however last I checked all guns can be fired at the same time. POI raiding is done much faster, more secure with HV's, or against drones. HV's can act as mobile defense turrets while farming, SV's can not. HV's only go 5ms slower than HV's for top speed. SVs being faster does not make or break the purpose of the vehicles. I completely disagree. Think outside of the box. HV's offer more specialized roles (which the game should enforce) and in combat they specialize in taking on POI's. A well built HV (with current mechanics) will always out perform a well built SV designed to take on POI's. HV's have a role here more so than SV's. SV's are better at anything space obviously, but even then not the smartest choice for taking on CV's. Even the most stout SV will get shredded by a CV in space. So their role here is diminished. I would argue that SV's have less offering to the game right now and allowing them to have some utility with a multitool fixed weapon makes a hell of a lot more sense than with HV's, due to their ability to move on all three axis. HV's are cumbersome to use the multitool with and are restricted to planetside ventures. Hell I would even go so far to say that CV's should lose all their farming utility. Makes more sense for a special built SV to do farming. Fly up to an asteroid in your CV, dispatch the SV harvesting crew while the CV stands guard and bam you created more reasons to build specialized machines. CV's are too large to maneuver tight spaces. You can make a CV small, but to make them small enough to maneuver tight spaces like an SV you need to lose warp, gravity, etc etc. The issue is CV's cant dock with CV's. I should not have to explain this any further. Restricting "utility" to HV's or CV's makes no sense. What makes perfect sense is allowing each vessel to have their own utility, reinforce the idea that there is no such thing as a "one size fits all". Giving SV's a multitool in no way shape or form diminishes the utility of an HV. The REAL issue is that most people skip HV's because "why go ground when I can fly", and they do not fully realize just how potent a well built HV is. HV's have the capability to be gnarly death machines, much more than SV's. We have a water world now, what if HV's could operate as submarines giving them even more utility. NOTE: I used to think SV was the way to go...boy was I wrong. I am a complete HV proponent now, but the utility of a multitool makes more sense on an SV, if for the only reason that you can operate ABOVE a structure, which is where one should start when dismantling anything on a planet, else the structural integrity takes over and does the job for you. Bottom line is that each vessel should be able to perform multiple roles, but do those roles best when purpose built. A combat SV should not work as well as a harvest SV, a combat HV will not perform as well as a farming HV (due to how hover engines are set). But all of this is pointless when you start to balance for XYZ but you skip over the main point of a multitool on a vehicle, which is to dismantle objects in game and in this regard the SV can be more purpose built for this action and perform better at the role.
@rucky We're getting off-track. The question is what sets HVs apart from SVs. "Gnarly death machines" with less maneuverability, that require a CV to pick them up afterwards or be left behind. It really doesn't matter what "reasoning" you profess people use when deciding to use or skip HV, because regardless of what you're assuming the thought process is, it still happens. Look, you both make some good arguments in favor of what HVs have. That's great. But the real bottom line is, the more things you give to both, the less people will bother with making the HV. Hell, just look at the workshop. As of this very post: Code: Capital Vessel (11,083) Small Vessel (14,724) Hover Vessel (6,397) Base (6,560) More than double the number of SVs than HVs. And that spread would be even more profound if HVs had not been given mining ability. The fact is, people would rather build a Jack-of-all SV and skip the HV. Give the SV even more new toys, and that disparity only grows.
Exactly. That's the reason you would always have to build a NEW Mining-CV each Planet you visit. Now what was the reason again most Servers restrict the amount of different structures a player could have? ... Good idea! +1 +1
You're suggestions base on the number of submitted workshop objects? You can do better. Heck look how few Base submissions we have? Was that the reason for armored concrete in the end? I hope not. No, the Question is, why should a SV not getting a fixed variant of the Multitool.
Your entire point is moot for two reasons. A. I already explained why HV's have less numbers, its because of the PERCIEVED ROLE in game, but that perception is based on its "combat value" because a bunch of men playing a space game like things that go pew pew. Spaceships by their nature are psychologically infinitely more "COOL" than hover vehicles. Not hard to understand. B. SV's still do the job better. If HV's have a role dilemma that will not be solved by adding a multitool turret. They already specialize in mining (the primary means of obtaining raw materials to make anything in game) and GASP we still only have a low number of HV's being offered to the workshop. Giving the HV more utility in this regard is not going to change anything. Giving the SV more utility will create ANOTHER option of ship type to make, which is a good thing. I will stress again. SV's are more capable of perfoming the roll of dismantling better. It makes so much more sense in fact that I am actually amazed that SV's do not have a fixed gun for this, or EVEN a turret. I am more amazed that the brainstorm session by whomever thought of this idea got as far as it did to have someone code all this stuff. I get that HV's might need their numbers boosted, but this is not going to do it. Bottom line again, is that having a CV perform this role makes no sense at all. HV's fail at the role. EDIT: I am not debating that HV's could use more utility or something to get people to use them more, I am just saying that giving a vehicle that moves in two dimensions to dismantle an object that resides in three does not make any sense. SV's win in this regard by default. EDIT 2: Perhaps people do not make HV's because for the longest time they did not operate correctly. Perhaps people do not make HV's because they are more complex/difficult to make work effectively. HV's take more "skill" from the builder to get to work properly than SV's do. People are like water, they take the path of least resistance.
