This is a different feed back regarding post damage repairs, after a large battle my CV had some hidden damage (those in-between walls) so ended up at the repair bay I built on my captured Tameric station, and having to turn off power to the CV for repair bay to function caused the death of my entire shipboard plants requiring clean up and replanting. My questions are; is this on purpose, if so I'll learn to live with it, or can I suggest we find a better way to activate the repair bays. Edit: I can see I was a little unclear, my apologize, what I was trying to say is to have the powered up (on) repair bay actually activate and make repairs.
A good idea. And the game already has a Capacitor device. We can even find them on display in Trade Stations with an outrageous price tag and advertised as having a "copper tip" for better conductivity. Too bad that these are still purely decorative...
Thank you for replying. I'll give that a try. edit; ok, tried the switch and it turns the bay on/off, but so does parking the ship over it. My problem is it doesn't repair anything until I shut the CV power off- which kills my plants...is there something in the files I can change?
No, but you can set up your pad and bay as a separate mini-base so the power isn't linked to the main. If you control the on/off, you won't necessarily need a huge fuel tank and gen for the pad
Thanks, I've tried that, good Idea for future locations. It seems the activating mechanic for actual repairs from the repair bay, it turns on but nothing happens, requires the CV (or others) to be powered off. If there isn't away around that, then I'd like to make the suggestion to the developers to find another or additional way to cause the powered up (on) repair bay to actually complete the repairs.
Yes, the CV needs to be powered off in order for the BA to repair it. And that screws your garden unless your base is somewhere with good temp and O2. As far as I am aware, there is no workaround for this, and the other posters seem to have misunderstood your question and given advice that does not apply. I know this is getting a bit off topic, but the entire "oops, I turned the power off, and all my plants died instantly" mechanic is stupid. Unless your garden is only airtight due to forcefields, it shouldn't even depressurize instantly/automatically. Even then, it's not clear to me that brief exposure to cold and/or vacuum should be instant death. But taking the power-down requirement for repairs together with the life support consequences on your garden, the mechanic becomes mostly unworkable if you want to live out of your CV.
Thank you for replying. Hhmm...I will have to decide whether to harvest and remove the plants while repairing, or just stock a lot of food from the gardens at my bases. Both are not too big of an inconvenience; but removing the garden from my CV would leave a lot of free space...lol
When I was new to the game and first heard about adding grow plots to a CV, I was looking forward to that. But, after some firsthand experience and realizing how fast plants die without being powered and the insane power requirements of keeping a CV running at all times, I've given up on the notion. It seems the intention is to force players to settle down in bases rather than be nomads. Having a sizeable farm on a base that is solar powered seems to be the way to go. That, and making (or buying) tons of canned food and emergency rations to carry on our CV.
The last CV I was nomadic with was rather large - could fit ~15 or more SVs and HVs in/on it and still have room left over. If you setup your energy consumption right so you have a *separate* toggle for the ventilator and grow lights in your grow room, you can limit power usage dramatically. I only had ~6 large fridges and 12 grow lights, with 1 ventilator running. I think the CV could sit in space or on the ground for around 100 hours give or take. And if I wanted to shut down the grow lights, I just picked everything, put it all in fridges, and turned them and the ventilator off. It's possibly to be truly nomadic, just have to be smart about where power goes when you're away from your CV.
With the recent changes to food, all a single player actually NEEDS to support themselves are 2 plots. A single grow light with 9 plots is enough for 4 players, maybe 5, comfortably. I have a small CV design I use for my solo play with 12 plots, and most of the surplus I use to make spoiled food, which I refine into biofuel(Acon uses 300 fuel/hour and can refine 90ish biofuel, 900 fuel points, in an hour). It has three t3 fuel tanks which power it at minimal fuel draw for fiftyish hours. It's REALLY not a big deal having a few plots aboard your ship; it can reduce some of the sting of power consumption in space. My plots are taken up by corn, pumpkins, and tomatoes (Corn for plastic, pumpkin for food, tomatoes for fast growing fast decaying biofuel source). It doesn't meet all my needs, true, and I do need to refuel on planets on both promethium and O2- but it DOES serve as a sort of recycling thing to mitigate power consumption.
Not that this game has even remotely realistic physics anyhow... but so much for the law of conservation of energy.
That's just refining it from the spoiled food. It doesn't count what it takes to actually grow it, and if you're already sitting with 1 grow light, you spend as much power growing 9 plots as you do 2. Clarification edit: It takes 2 spoiled food to make a single biofuel, so to actually spend an hour refining you'd need 180 spoiled food to refine, which is considerably more than 7 plots can provide in an hour. It's just a little way to stretch your fuel reserves, not replenish them.
I don't want to be the killjoy, but why bother with Weapon damage and range at this phase of the game anyways? Please don't get me wrong, i'm happy with the changes, but IF energy shields, energy weapons, different kinds of energy generation, bigger playfields and higher view ranges are introduced, everything needs to be rebalanced all over again anyways. So why waste time and energy with things like this right now? (In case i'm completely wrong, i really hope this won't be the last word on weapon ranges and damage...)
It's possible that feed back about existing systems can help with developing a beginning balance to revamped systems...we hope.
Agreed. Tweaking of these values without a consistent model underlying the changes and with the prospect of new equipment being introduced seems like rather a waste of time. I'm currently working on a scheme that can set hp, damage, and range (as well as recipes for armor blocks and ammo) in a consistent manner, to see if it's possible to get a self-consistent set of values.
I think that attempting to balance the weapons that we do have now is still important, both for the feedback it generates as well as helping the devs to understand how to go about such things. I also agree that to date, the approach seems to have been pretty haphazard, so I look forward to seeing what geostar comes up with. It doesn't have to be perfect, especially considering future changes will necessitate further tweaking. But the fundamental mechanics should be sound, and enough balance should be achieved to demonstrate that. I don't think that has happened yet.
Fundamental mechanics should be sound yes - but when you have inter-operating systems, and only half of them have been implemented so far, how are you supposed to balance half a working system-set? The answer is that you can't, and continued calls for balancing with what we have now, end up being a drain on developer time unnecessarily. Rudimentary balance might be useful, but not beyond that.
I get what you all (not quoting everyone, but you know who you are ) are saying, but on the other hand... 1. If there isn't some semblance of balance among the existing content it doesn't really give any incentive to play, and if people aren't playing then the devs aren't getting any feedback. Worse when everything is shitty then people give shitty reviews. 2. It isn't like the coders or artists are likely the ones doing the balance changes, so likely not going to slow development any. I'm sure the people doing this part of dev are waiting around on the coders and artists more often than the other way around. 3. If it is left til the last minute it won't get done right either (if at all).
I see feedback as something given from a tester, not a player. Players want to play, want their game balanced, don't want to see bugs, etc. They aren't nearly as active out here on the forums giving feedback, UNTIL something doesn't work the way they expect it to. Then they get very vocal indeed - sometimes giving negative reviews. Testers on the other hand are out here all the time, trying out new builds, interested in new features, and are rarely interested in continual play of the game without disruption. They know bugs are coming, accept it, and frequently restart without much fanfare. They wait to give reviews until after the game is launched, or until Beta is mostly done. From that viewpoint, the devs (in my mind) aren't as interested in people playing, as they are in testers giving good feedback. I do believe in the value of balance in the game, but we're entirely too near the middle of Early Access for that to be a serious consideration. Certainly not with every major and minor patch. Consider *just* the feature of Shields that's being tossed around - when that comes along it will change everything about combat, requiring a full rebalance across the board. Which renders everything done so far moot.
