stop ignoring suggestions

Discussion in 'FAQ & Feedback' started by GodOfGuns, Sep 21, 2022.

  1. GodOfGuns

    GodOfGuns Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2015
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    2
    welp I see no reason to limit the decon on CV and turrets on SV

    the defense "that will cause abuse" or "that will make X pointless" is invalid.
    bases still need to be made for initial survival and will someday be how we make shipyards for CV repairs and replacements.

    So even if you allow decon AND furnace AND solar on cv you still need bases for some uses and limiting it now before the shipyard concept is working is just rude to your fans. I agree the furnace should stay on BA but be called "smelter" and the reason being the need for gravity slag
    separation. the decon has no lore or feature based reason to limit and same with solar as we already have a simple "angle detect" and "motion detect" that can be used to enable/disable panel output for simplicity.

    as for hv/sv limits; sure limiting shield types to hv OP shields only in grounded mode and a weaker SV type when flying is reasonable. That way when in dogfights in space your small vessel isn't too OP. But the slower hover mode needs higher shields and the turrets should only work when in hv mode or when parked to protect from drones. This isn't hard to code I know this is JUST a dev choice and not a coding issue.

    stop pushing your ideas devs, you want suggestions then accept the ones you are able to add and stop refusing any based on silly reasoning.

    Turrets on a parked sv is REQUIRED to stop destroyed sv after exploration BS. decon on CV WILL NOT LIMIT THE NEED FOR BASES.

    re-add the "placeable at" field to the config.ecf as there is no reason to globally hardcode a specifice device with a large model from being placed on ANY large framework and same with small framework devices
    edit: ok yes wrong file will address below.
    It doesn't cause issues when you ONLY hardcode the FRAMEWORK SIZE based placement limit. I would enable solar and decon on CV for an orbital "mothership" and place turrets on my sv so when I park my sv "carrier" and drive off the docked HV for exploring(or just motorbike) it won't end up dead from a random drone wandering by and starting to destroy my hopper sv.

    These arbitrary limits just simply break immersion and contribute NOTHING to balance. Sure maybe the HV drive is too heavy or has an inertial limiter when powered so it can't easily fly up like an sv. But ai autoturrets being banned from sv's make an sv a kinda pointless thing to build once you have a CV and HV as the constant unattended destruction of my defenseless SV makes me not want to use an sv at all.

    you basically use the excuse "it will make this type pointless" when you are doing the opposite by limiting parked turret use.

    As for decon and furnace and solar;
    A CV has low level power needs when parked in orbit or sitting on the launchpad.
    If you MUST limit solar panels on CV's maybe add the solar capacitor as "backup power" for constructing new fuel when the tanks run dry.

    You can even limit the decon/thrusters to work "on fuel" instead of "on battery".
    Heck I would build a solar base JUST to power CV batteries if that was possible.

    So no these placement limits have NO justification no matter what you think as you aren't considering other future uses people will decide on. Even if you stop limiting placement of any machines we still have good reasons to build each type of major structure.
    A hidden base far off in the orbital zones will be my "battery charger" (or for now just a simple logistics controlled fuel processing plant).

    My SV will enable "self defense parking" when I decide to drop down with only my bike and a packful of supplies

    My CV will keep defenses and life support online when I am planetside from solar

    These limits don't help balance gameplay at all they just ruin enjoyment.

    PS.
    Oh and the stupid "playfield corrupted aborting player connection" is NOT how you do it properly.
    If you must abort connections to damaged playfields, maybe use an auto-backup from last successful connection/deconnection to restore it and send the player a "playfield files damaged attempting to repair connect in a few minutes", and if that occured while in orbit trying to land planetside just kick the player and vessel back to orbit.

    it isn't hard to fix these bugs and balance without limitations you just have to open your close-minded ideas to better ones.
     
    #1
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2022
    etmoonshade likes this.
  2. ravien_ff

    ravien_ff Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2017
    Messages:
    6,395
    Likes Received:
    12,004
    You can already edit the configs to allow placing them on CVs.
     
    #2
  3. GodOfGuns

    GodOfGuns Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2015
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    2
    wrong the "placeable at" line is ignored now there is currently no way to edit the device to ship limits
    sure the max number of an already approved device can be edited as well as the volume and cpu and power stats of any block but if it is not allowed on a vessel type in vanilla there is no way to force enable placement
    my main point is that turrets on SV being blocked by hardcoded settings is not at all sensible as drone AI won't just ignore an unattended SV to remain undestroyed so that makes building an SV for anything other than ship-to-ship or ship-to-base hops or dogfighting is pointless and as building a small CV for dogfighting is better as it has active turrets that do damage even when the main controlled guns miss and better shields it makes more sense to build a dogfighting and lander CV set and dock those to a mothership that does the warping
    so the decision to arbitrarily stop SV turrets basically removes the sensible reasons to build an SV as the fuel savings to get planetside aren't worth the high risk of drone destruction
    and the same goes for hardcoded placement limits for the decon and solar panel systems
    maybe in lore the solar power doesn't run thrusters or rcs's as those need the promethium particles to be ejected as reaction mass but not letting turret servos and O2 fans use the solar energy when parked in orbit/near/attached to a station is just not sensible as we already have an "angle detect" and "motion detect" subroutine in code for getting out of your seat and for base solar efficiency
    and as the decon is a contructor like device and not a gravitationally limited device like the furnace(smelter) is there is no lore/balance based reason to limit placement of that device
    if I got the syntax wrong (I used the old syntax when the line was in the example config) please let me know the new syntax
    I really demand my solar life support and defense on my CV rather than burning up what is effectively exotic uranium just to run the constructor and 02 fans and to be forced to stop by my fuel crafting base after every raid to destroy 100 stacks of steel+sathium plates down into more stackable base materials(plates stack nearly 10x less than base metal ingots and the decon is the only way to sensibly condense them down)
    this doesn't remove the usefulness of a shipyard+smelter base(maybe even siphon off solar battery backup into smaller vessels when added later for EV-like vessels) but it does allow a much less stupid overfilling of containers and wasted fuel taking extra unneeded trips to break down the extra scrap from obliterating a difficult POI
    plus as long as the core remains and "regen poi's" is enabled it can act like an infinite source of money and resources if you are into that kind of grind
    heck game balance is already broken by that very option yet the devs want to limit stuff that has a huge factor less impact in the name of balance? do you guys even understand logical thought?
    so no sir currently there is no easy way to enable placement of arbitrarily limited blocks on a dedi server without 3rd-party tools or base game file edits that will break upon file verification or updates
    and that is just not ok
    the devs claim to want suggestions yet the one major one that was already implemented but later removed is now being ignored for no reason other than dev preference
    the default can still be "limit to intended vessel type" but so long as you don't try putting an HV engine on a base/cv or an atm on hv/sv(that can be hardcoded as resizing block models can cause stability and funtional issues) then I see no legitimate reason not to let us fake in a slower decon for our motherships and a really low output but super high capacity solar capacitor for running life support
    and adding in a copy of a block with stats that only apply when placed on specific vessels would eliminate the issues of balance as an sv turrent can be much less powerful vs "soft targets" but be OP against drones
    same with sheilds
    on an hv it will be tank-like where it is very slow to regen but is a bullet sponge
    on sv it is low capacity but due to the dogfighting style of run in and shoot then run out the fast regen and low capacity would encourage the style of fighting the devs wish
    plus sv turrets could be put in "sleep mode" when moving so they only work as drone defense
    there are so many better options that my post still stands firm and sadly there is currently no easy and safe way to enable placement on the sensibly desired ships
     
    #3
  4. GodOfGuns

    GodOfGuns Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2015
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    2
    you know what you tell me how on the latest major release(not outdated versions as steam won't let you backport unless the devs add it as a "beta" version to modify the placement type limit and not just the count limits
    I tried:

    { Block Id: 1371, Name: Deconstructor
    Group: cpgConstructor
    Material: metal
    IsLockable: true
    ReturnFactor: 1.0, display: true
    StackSize: 500
    Category: Devices
    Mass: 14700, type: float, display: true, formatter: Kilogram
    Volume: 1280, type: float, display: true, formatter: Liter
    HitPoints: 250, type: int, display: true
    EnergyIn: 825, type: int, display: true, formatter: Watt
    CPUIn: 20000, type: int, display: true
    EnergyInIdle: 10, type: int, display: true, formatter: Watt
    BlockColor: "110,110,110"
    BlastRadius: 3
    BlastDamage: 500
    UnlockCost: 15, display: true
    UnlockLevel: 12, display: true
    TechTreeParent: ConstructorT2
    TechTreeNames: Base
    AllowPlacingAt: "Base,MS", display: true
    }
    I also tried:
    { Block Id: 1371, Name: Deconstructor
    Group: cpgConstructor
    Material: metal
    IsLockable: true
    ReturnFactor: 1.0, display: true
    StackSize: 500
    Category: Devices
    Mass: 14700, type: float, display: true, formatter: Kilogram
    Volume: 1280, type: float, display: true, formatter: Liter
    HitPoints: 250, type: int, display: true
    EnergyIn: 825, type: int, display: true, formatter: Watt
    CPUIn: 20000, type: int, display: true
    EnergyInIdle: 10, type: int, display: true, formatter: Watt
    BlockColor: "110,110,110"
    BlastRadius: 3
    BlastDamage: 500
    UnlockCost: 15, display: true
    UnlockLevel: 12, display: true
    TechTreeParent: ConstructorT2
    TechTreeNames: Base
    AllowPlacingAt: "Base,CV", display: true
    }
    as that was the og way to add placement overrides and I tried both options for cv pointers just in case it used an odd syntax for that line
    neither had any effect on letting me place my decon on my CV on the latest update
    and yes those are direct copies from my config.ecf on my server (just the decon but all ones I want are trying to use the line:
    AllowPlacingAt: "Base,MS", display: true
    yet none pay attention to that override line anymore
    maybe someone can discover the new syntax they used to hide the override under a new variable as I see no way to limit the variable overrides to only allowed types in such a type of config override file
    as long as the syntax of a block of variable overrides is readable by the code there should be no easy way to limit any variable from being changed by the override file
    this means the option is still there but has been hidden by changing the name of the variable in the code and then not disclosing the new variable name
    or even has a subroutine added to refresh the value after override as an arbitrary FU to fans who see no reason to limit decon/turret/solar placement on their custom balanced servers
    so if you can discover a working override please let me know as I desperately want my solar mothership and slow cv decon and self protecting SV
    if there is no method that works to this day then please tell me a reason why it should remain limited in this way that has an actual logically supported reason why it should remain arbitrarily limited that doesn't relay on faulty data or missing context
    as the only reason given by the devs/hardcore fan forum trolls is "it will make some vessles/structures useless to remove all esxclusive devices(nobody argues ALL base-only devices be allowed on CV the atm was never asked only mentioned) and the other claim is "turrets on sv's will provide an unfair dogfighting imbalance" neglecting the ability to code a simple (if placed=sv,(thenif is moving=true,set turretdisablesignal=high,set turretdisablesignal=low),set turrentdisablesignal=low)
    sure this syntax of the code example is not accurate but if the syntax and variable names are adjusted it would add basically a few KB to a game into the 10's of GB and fix all concerns over dogfighting balance while still allowing a sensible fix to drone destruction when you are miles away from the SV
    similar code can be added for solar panels on a CV and even swap the power priority on a cv(meaning use the fuel tanks first leaving the solar batteries full until you need to craft more fuel
    or even set up a sorta dual fuel system that allows solar capacitors on docked vessels to act like loads on the parent (even drain from the fuel tanks if set up maybe via a hardcoded signal logic) so you can have battery-powered fighters siphon from a CV's huge battery(heck a use for the currently deco-only capacitor) and the capacitor will act as the highest priority power source for everything and will act as a ghost device load on the parent dock (maybe set to follow spare power by detecting something like (output-load)/5
    the division allows headroom for a couple future ai-driven fighter sv's to dock to your main CV(possibly using a config divisor so you can support more ai fighters)and take power from the CV batteries during a huge battle
    they plan on player-ai and shared battery power as they admitted so we already will have to rebalance space battles for ai-targeting of guns meant for flawed human players so we already have to tweak values someday
    so turrets shouldn't be a "hard no" as they will be rebalanced by server admins/sp gamers anyway
     
    #4
  5. Garaman

    Garaman Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2020
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    669
    Recommend you subscribe to Reforged Galaxy / Reforged Eden on the workshop and examine its config files. They allow decons on CVs, plasma turrets on SVs, and many things you are asking for. Use that as a syntax guide for your local mods.

    You may want to avoid solar on CVs though. RE had issues with capacitors on CVs deleting large chunks of ships randomly.
     
    #5
  6. ravien_ff

    ravien_ff Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2017
    Messages:
    6,395
    Likes Received:
    12,004
    Yes it's possible, as it's been done in multiple scenarios.
    You're using info that is way, way out of date.
     
    #6
  7. TwitchyJ

    TwitchyJ Commander

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2022
    Messages:
    172
    Likes Received:
    121
    Sounds like you are trying to use the outdated Config.ecf file instead of the correct BlocksConfig.ecf
    Because if you use the correct file it absolutely works.....

    Edit
    Actually I guarantee you are using the wrong file because in the BlocksConfig.ecf file the deconstructor entry it looks like this,
    { +Block Id: 1371, Name: Deconstructor

    As opposed to in the outdated incorrect file it it does not have the + before the block id (which your code above does not have the +).
    That indicates you are using the wrong file to me.

    Config.ecf is outdated and you are not supposed to use it anymore. It is not supported any longer.
     
    #7
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2022
  8. ravien_ff

    ravien_ff Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2017
    Messages:
    6,395
    Likes Received:
    12,004
    Yes, please heed this advice. Some people can have it working fine with no problems at all, but you take on this risk as the game was never meant to have solar panels on CVs.

    Just because it needs to be said, modifying any of these files is done at your own risk and nobody will be able to fix it if you break your saves or blueprints.
     
    #8
  9. TwitchyJ

    TwitchyJ Commander

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2022
    Messages:
    172
    Likes Received:
    121
    I also hate to be that guy but it needs to be said.
    Please start using punctuation marks (such as a period) to break your gigantic run on sentence into actual readable sentences.

    It may not seem like a big deal to you, but when you type like that it becomes almost impossible to read.
    To the point that most people won't even bother to try.
     
    #9
  10. GodOfGuns

    GodOfGuns Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2015
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    2
    hmm I will look into it but the lack of the info being posted on a forum or guide is just odd
    and why? is it because of the devs deciding that upon init any vessel with non-standard blocks should have those unacceptable blocks removed? kinda my big issue is the devs thinking they know better than actual players just like microsh*t pretending they know why people never installed updates
    it was never because we had to manually do stuff it was the pointless reboots for every minor update that linux never had to do
    why must I reboot to install a program that hooks into a service that can simply be restarted alone rather than the whole pc microsoft?

    ok but why is it so hard to find? can you just give me the new syntax rather than tell me my syntax is old without telling me the new syntax?

    woah thanks for actually being helpful no guide/forum has told me what file to add those lines to so I assumed the common if aged config.ecf
    why? why do the devs limit this by default and tell us they never plan on changing it? they never gave a logically valid reason why it was a bad idea to even consider making it a default change in future updates after fixing the bugs it has

    but I did use new lines I guess maybe double lines would help more maybe I will edit it now
     
    #10
  11. ravien_ff

    ravien_ff Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2017
    Messages:
    6,395
    Likes Received:
    12,004
    Because, as said previously, placing solar panels and capacitors on CVs can cause entire chunks of your CVs to randomly be deleted because the game was never set up to allow solar on CVs in the first place.
    As for why, that's a question only the developers could answer but part of it is probably that calculating solar on a static base in a fixed location is very different than calculating it on a moving object like a ship.

    It is the way it is and while it would be nice to allow solar on CV (regardless of how much "sense" it would make), it's probably not an easy change for them to add and acting demanding over it isn't going to get them to do it.
     
    #11
  12. GodOfGuns

    GodOfGuns Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2015
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    2
    actually that was not my point of why.
    my point is "why don't they admit it needs to be fixed rather than pretend blocking it is a permanent solution?"
    yes it is buggy now but they have stated similar "no plans to allow this in the future" whern they should be planning to fix it to allow it in the future
    my point is that they outright admitted "no plans to allow this in the futuire" when that very claim is stupid
     
    #12
  13. ravien_ff

    ravien_ff Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2017
    Messages:
    6,395
    Likes Received:
    12,004
    There's nothing to fix. If the devs wanted solar on CVs they would have done so. They can't support custom scenarios, you make those edits at your own risk.
     
    #13
  14. GodOfGuns

    GodOfGuns Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2015
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    2
    so the devs don't care about suggestions then? sounds opposite of what they claimed....

    or do you mean solar (point-point angle based calculations) on a moving device is inherantly buggy?

    ok then but there is still no reason to limit devices in a futuristic space game to consumable non-renewable fuels.

    so if solar is just too difficult to add we need the next best thing done ASAP; rechargeable batteries that charge when docked to a parent.

    but they keep putting off something that is quite easy to code compared to other things they have added since that showed up in polls.

    so again I ask? is solar being ignored for difficulty or just devs ignoring what fans want?
    if it is difficulty then add an alternative, if it is do to dev preference then stop acting like they actually want suggestions if they keep ignoring poll results.

    there is no game balance or lore based reason to ban renewable power methods on any device
    and if you actually consider it the base game has a hyper low renewable set of options as "crushed stone" has no synthesis option by default so you'd have to strip mine planets eventually to get enough crushed stone to get enough iron to get enough plates to get enough hydrogen to get enough fusion cells.

    unless you advocate an aged server be manually reset on stripped playfields(nearly impossible as it just becomes flagged as "corrupted even if you delete the ENTIRE folder so it should just see a missing set of data and realize it is destined to be re-created).

    and even then that is a HUGE pain to strip mine planets down to the "bedrock" just to keep my CV from going dark or have a massive and ridiculous "plant fiber" farm station set just to power the fleet on biofuel.

    if solar is too much trouble then just recode the capacitor to "transfer" power from parent to child when docking and make a mini-model for sv/hv to have a battery pack that can charge from the main CV that collects from massive battery filled bases.

    honestly I am considering reverse engineering the solar capacitor code just to do a parent/child dock transfer.

    or add in a "fuel" window that can pull out battery power by removing fuel packs as a temporary workaround to the lack of transfer options.

    it isn't hard to make a semi-lore-friendly placeholder for 100% solar origin vessels in the code.

    pulling out fuel packs rather than a new "battery stack" item (maybe that uses a persistent variable to say how many Wh it is holding) might seem silly but if balanced correctly it could add in the efficiency losses from charging up batteries calculated to the generator fuel usage to find the actual value of a fuel unit in Wh and so as a placeholder you can pull a certain reduced amount of fuel packs out of the solar capacitor at maybe 80% efficiency(a fairly common loss amount in high-efficiency devices these days and nearly at thermodynamic limits

    so what is it? solar is too hard to allow on a cv and be stable? or the devs want a lore-breaking non-renewable system for the energy economy of the ~24th century lore of the game?
    it has to be one of the two why solar is banned on CV and the bugs of workarounds are being ignored as "unplanned feature".

    what is the REAL explination? no plans for ANY renewable power? or just no good ideas given yet that will fit the arbitrary lore ideally?
    if solar is forever unstable then add a placeholder till you get the ideal solution.
    don't just leave a major hole in game mechanics.
     
    #14
  15. Escarli

    Escarli Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2019
    Messages:
    1,313
    Likes Received:
    1,330
    Solar panels.....on cv's......that 20th/21st century technology in a game that is set in the future? Not very futuristic is it? I am not against having different forms of energy, but solar panels? The same ones look exactly the same as is being used here in rl which in the game's setting would be old/ancient technology?

    Nup, no thanks.

    And in regards to ignoring suggestions how do you know suggestions are ignored? You don't. Just because they don't reply doesn't mean to say that haven't read it.
     
    #15
    Germanicus likes this.
  16. ravien_ff

    ravien_ff Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2017
    Messages:
    6,395
    Likes Received:
    12,004
    You talk a lot about it being "easy" to add the things that you want to add, and make demands, not suggestions.

    I'm the first to criticize the game, as I feel it's important to point out flaws so they can get fixed. But what you're doing isn't helping. You and I don't know how hard it is to add new power features, nor do we know what their plans are, if any, involving power.

    If it was up to me then sure there would be batteries and various types of power generation but it's not up to me. I also think you too easily dismiss how difficult it can be to add new game mechanics especially if they need to tie in with already existing ones such as the power system.
    It's most likely not nearly as simple as you make it sound.
     
    #16
  17. GodOfGuns

    GodOfGuns Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2015
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    2
    well solar IS added to the game and the game IS 24th century lore (in game lore-based text says it) and solar IS basically free energy to the situation and is simple and reliable.
    so why would any future society ignore a proven stable tech that works and likely has been pushed to the thermodynamic limit?
    yeah solar will still be used when we hit the 24th century even if fusion is common by then or even matter+antimatter reactors.
    it will always be an ideal orbital method of stable power in the inner reaches of a solar system and even low-level power source on a planet for running a few tiny devices.

    your claim that we'd al abandon useful stuff just because it is old is a major reason why people legitimately think an advanced alien race actually has subjugated the human race by stifling advancements to keep us weak and stupid.

    tech NEVER gets fully abandoned it only gets replaced with much better versions of the same tech.
    you even admitted solar is considered "old" to US NOW.
    but you forget early solar cells were only about half as good per surface area at making power so it has been updated over the years and is NOT the same as early types.
    sure in empyrion we might want a "quantum RTG" that once you get access to penxuit at high amounts you create a "quantum vacuume power source" that siphons power from quantum effects to keep life support online.
    but would we still use solar in some places in the 24th century? DEFINITELY.
    and as for ignoring suggestions:
    yes if they actually cared about our renewable energy wishes they would admit that;
    "while solar on CV's is unplanned we do want a future alternative that we have not seen suggested yet".
    they outright made no mention of wanting a similar idea even if it wasn't as we thought it would be.
    these devs do tend to mention future wishes for the game even if they don't know what it will look like yet so the lack of mention of renewable power is quite telling.
     
    #17
  18. GodOfGuns

    GodOfGuns Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2015
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    2
    you didn't get my point then.
    the code for "motion detect" and "angle to sun" is ALREADY IN THE GAME CODE.
    if the issue is leaving the system online while in motion there is a way to create a "dumb" fallback to it that is less prone to errors
    the fuel system is also ALREADY IN THE GAME CODE.
    this means a placeholder for removing "batteries" from solar storage exists and can be shoved into the solar system.
    so YES it IS easy as the basic hard parts are already there for a "placeholder"
    I didn't say they had to skip right to the end solution did I?
    my main point is that they don't even mention "testing an idea for battery or renewable power on non-base entities" so as they mention when they are testing new ideas the lack of mention means they aren't testing it at all.
     
    #18
  19. Escarli

    Escarli Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2019
    Messages:
    1,313
    Likes Received:
    1,330
    #19
  20. GodOfGuns

    GodOfGuns Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2015
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    2
    what is not worth the effort? pretending the devs don't have a track record of mentioning ideas they have accepted and need to test before they even make a beta?
    telling me that your pretending is somehow more real than the evidence?
    I must know why everyone pretends the devs have not basically said by actions and lack of metions that they have 0 plans for ANY renewable power system that isn't "mine ore" or "farm plants manually"
    sure renewable biofuel is a great idea but sadly the sheer scale of it for a CV's basic needs basically REQUIRES a team of players to collect almost constantly for a few HOURS to get enough to keep a CV from going dark overnight
    maybe if they added a "crop manager" that would pick full grown plants and place into a defined fridge without user input it could then be ignored as a "need"
    but as-is there is a HUGE issue with keeping a large CV powered as a small team or solo player and even then POI assaults kinda need a bunch of players to make it less difficult
    so a "crop manager" and a handful of user-craftable "security drones" is effectively a "need" and not just a "suggestion"
    do you deny the unmodified fuel value of biofuel to the amount of fibers needed to make it makes fueling a CV almost a full time job?
    if you so deny that I would like to introduce you to a bit of math that shows the amount of time a player in a farm would need to pick plants assuming no travel time between plants and instant harvest into a logisitics contianer to create enough biofuel to operate the CV crafter+grow lights+oxygen fans+ half of the max number of turrets ignoring the resources to make bullets
    and it would come to a value so high that the game becomes less fun as you are spending far too much time farming just to make ends meet
     
    #20

Share This Page