I'd be fine with Dropships using the Large Blocks... Large Blocks would better to hold the Hover War Tank's Small Blocks more effectively anyway... & Dropships using CV Turrets, yes please... that means more Firepower Brawn! Oh wait, ya suggested to scale the Turrets down... that I can't go along with cause then i'd be using wimpier Weapons. Also seems odd ya'd want Dropships to act like Anti-CV when Dropships might not drop off just stuff like Tanks... might be dropping off Personnel as well... are ya suggesting the Drop Ship should be able to cover the Troops vs Enemy Large SVs but be screwed against an Enemy Soldier's Homer Rocket Launcher or Plasma Cannon? Large SVs are junk cause SVs still NEED T2 RCS, & cause SVs aren't being allowed to put a proper number of Weapons onto the Builds for such a Size. Seriously, we got so many things to put onto a SV now including a big ol' Warp Drive which needs a lot of Size, then we aren't allowed to stick on more then 4 Homers? 4 Homers is for Scout Ships imho... need a REAL number of Weapons for that size with RCS that can do its actual JOB. Also if Ship Classes bit the dust I can't truthfully say i'd mind... the appearance & role of a Creation can often speak for itself. If I made a Hover War Tank outta Large Blocks i'm pretty sure no one's gonna look at my Hover War Tank I build & mistake it for a Capital Ship. P.S. If I was allowed to put CV Turrets onto a SV Build legit vanilla, I would be SO game to try to build a SV that used 4 CV Homer Turrets & make it work. XD
True. They'd take one look at it, scream "World Devastator!" and try to get off-planet as fast as they could .
I'm wondering if it's possible in their implementation of the Unity engine to scale a block's size mathematically. i.e. you could have full size blocks (1.0), half-size (0.5), quarter-size (0.25) and micro-blocks (0.1). The core you put down would determine math/sizing for the remainder of the attached blocks. Any devices you put on could scale according to a table for their abilities. Micro-weapons and micro-turrets have a really intriguing sound to them.
Even if it's not possible to do on the fly, it could be done easily enough via the config file as long as all of the blocks and devices had unique ids for each size.
Damn straight... if the peoples in question have any Sense. This would be cool if it put an end to inanity like Small Block Cargo Boxes & Large Block Cargo Boxes for no reason at all whatsoever having the exact same Storage & HPs but the Large Block Cargo Boxes taking up more space & being much bigger targets. Also imagine if we could do cool things like have actual real big Guns for our actual real big CVs... like 200 Block long CVs toting 20x12x20 sized Artillery with appropriately bigger damages to go with it...
You T...te...tea... ... ... ... Wooooowwwww!!!! Thats incredible! Amazing! Stupifying! I cannot wait to see it when it is finished!
Marines Board things. Anti-CV is a bit strong, the weapons sure, the craft? Not so much. However if it isn't a threat what is the point. And Heavier carrying platform mean heavier weapons. Though I think this should be translated into turrets and ground attack focus rather than anti-cv. Cover troops vs sv? Yes. Be the primary way of taking out SV's? a resounding No. Large SV's are Junk because you have to Point them at things to Shoot at things. That is what I would like to see avoided to be honest. The Maneuverability of SV's with turreted Homing missiles would really be too much or the weapons nerfed to near unsuitability for use which is zero sum as well.
I've watched that video several times... and damnit, here I was thinking I was actually growing as a builder and was approaching "awesome." Now I am feeling inspired, but hilariously inadequate and unskilled... Jenniphur comes along and *smack* *smack* "You are all primitive cavemen next to me!!!" *sigh*
Ahh, so ya were meaning defensive fire... yeah that totally works. 'Can hold ground but not take ground' seems fair. Without T2 RCS to maneuver with. It seriously needs fixed. I'm still working on begging the Devs on it from time to time. I also still think the T2 RCS for everything being 2x2x2 would make sense as well. 'Bulk' is a relevant & viable 'Balance Point' for stuff... the different 'Bulk' of the different Fuel Tanks, Generators, Jet Thrusters, & such proves this point. I wasn't being serious... was just making for 'fun mental thoughts'. I seriously don't think Small Block scale stuff & Large Block Scale plugging into each other & working right is EVER gonna be possible anyway. Yep, compared to that stuff, my stuff's never gonna be a looker by comparison. But I bet my Hover War Tank would beat the snot outta a 'pretty boy' ZeroG Hover War Tank.
i see where u got your inspiration from BUT made it better looking meh, i only like daft punk in that area
Please! Basic gameplay elements are still being added and it looks as though there will be soon be substantial changes to the maps. I have as many wonderful ideas as the next person for improving the game - no, really - some of them need to wait their time.
For those whittling away the pages with features discussion, please remember that this is the "What did you do in Empyrion today thread." I would humbly ask that you move it to either the experimental section or the suggestions area.
That's pretty much how it already works. The entity type determines the scale of the blocks in the grid. If you take something for CV/BA and edit the config to put it in HV/SV, the item will be the same block dimensions, but small instead of large. What we'd need is a sub grid that would allow smaller blocks to be used after its placed
How big is that?! My Archon is not my biggest project. I have another that makes the Archon look small. Not sure how far I will get with that beast before my computer says no more, but when I went looking online to see what I might be expecting in tonnage, thruster needs, size class, etc., I couldn't find anything that big. I was looking for any hints on whether I could pull it off and how something that big might work. Maybe I was just looking at the wrong blueprints, but I really was hoping to find some clues on what to expect on a large build. Now I haven't touched my monster in several weeks other than to make sure I had a place to park my largest SV thus far. I will disagree. Now this isn't the biggest SV, but I present the 188t Space Skimmer as evidence. I think it moves quite well despite its size. I have a prototype slightly bigger now in anticipation of HV-SV docking, and unladen it actually performs better, but the lessons of the Space Skimmer were key to my Haemolymph (not on the workshop). [edit: I forgot to throw in a picture for reference] http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1108045770 I would link its cousin, the Swift Skimmer with even better acceleration, but I plan to remove that blueprint as soon as I finish and post the replacement. Hint: The Swift is the Space Skimmer outfitted with small jets instead, extra fuel tanks and generators, and upgraded to 95 RCS to compensate for the extra tonnage. Now I do wish for T2 fuel tanks and generators for SV/HV builds. My complaint isn't so much the number of RCS I need because that seems to be a balance so I don't make some super spin monster. I might wish that the large and XL jets offered a little better deal. But what I really wish is for better fuel tanks and generators. Make them bigger. That would be fine. But placing tons of fuel tanks is actually more frustrating than the RCS. Someone destroys some RCS and my vessel loses some rotation rate, but tons of fuel tanks could mean one bad hit guts the ship. Sure, I like to isolate my tanks to prevent a catastrophic fuel tank explosion. The more tanks there are, the more tedious work it is place them and the blocks to contain explosions. Larger fuel tanks would make this so much simpler. As for what I did today, a little more work on the all new Swift Skimmer. It is going to need a lot more RCS, but I might want to know what I am doing for the main body to figure out where those are going.
