Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Suggestions' started by Siege Inc., May 26, 2017.
I wish we had these
spotlights, horizontal and diagonal...
An autopilot device for SV and CV. Planets are larger now. Hitting forward for minutes in a large planet takes time. Would it be nice to be able to have a device that can allow a SV/CV to follow waypoints with some altitude input from player? It should be able to navigate over mountains (like drones do with changes in elevation). And if ever they do implement this, it should only use thrusters/RCS that are currently on during time of autopilot.
Also, maybe the vessel should stop if player is "overboard"/fell off/outside. This should stop players from sending ghost SV/CVs to POIs/bases to attack.
Add "stop and lower to terrain" if player outside while on autopilot.
Add "stop, lower to terrain, turn off thrusters/rcs, announce arrival" option.
But before this, a feature to enable walking inside a moving SV/CV should be in place.
It should be a device so that it can have an unlock level.
I wish for the new boarding ramp to be able to be placed on bases.
For the love of everything EGS can you please add a 3 x 3 x 1 or 3 x 3 x 2 or 3 x 2 x 1 or something odd flavored version of the gravity generator, and with that a debug option to see what it is covering please.
Would love to see a 3w x 3l x 2h boxish with console version. ANYTHING in addition to the version we have now.
PLEASE x 1,000,000,000
I would pay for an expansion to EGS that ONLY had this 1 item change.
I'd simply love for the grav-generator to have an adjustable zone (like you can do with spawners and motion detectors).
The recent Release Candidate 2 update (Build 2159) mentioned this:
Why must this functionality be so limited as to ONLY be available for CREATIVE building - that is, to create POI's for NPC factions? Why can't players have something really nice like this to build their own bases in SURVIVAL mode?
More importantly, why can't players have an option to hollow-out or leave terrain-free the interior of a base blueprint that is intended to be built underground? This seems easy enough to accomplish with designing a POI for an NPC faction:
If there is some technical reason why it is not possible to allow this for player-built bases, then I have a compromise suggestion. You could change Explosive Block (Self) so that:
(1) These can be created by the player in a Large or Advanced Constructor (preferably, by using Carbon Composite),
(2) The use of these in a blueprint would not restrict them from being placed in a SURVIVAL game,
(3) Sending an "On" signal to an Explosive Block (Self) in a player-owned (i.e., Private or Public) base, via a Lever Switch or some other method, would actually cause them to detonate, and
(4) Detonation of an Explosive Block (Self) would remove or eliminate any terrain that the block occupied.
Doing this much would allow at least one way for a player to build an underground base without having to manually dig out all of that terrain. As someone who has built several large underground bases in Alpha 7, I can say that this is a mind numbingly dull and tedious process that I really want to avoid. And I think it's safe to say that I'm not the only player to feel this way.
This might seem an odd item, but it's one that would be not only useful but potentially a lot of fun too:
A Searchlight Turret.
Just your basic carbon-arc light on a gimbal, that could be operated like any other turret, or left to autonomous operation.
What does it do? It shines a really bright light on something.
Why would this be useful? First off, it makes identifying targets much easier. Extremely useful for night-time attacks. But wait, it is the gift that keeps on giving. In addition to lighting up an enemy, enemies using night vision will find the sudden wash of extremely bright light quite disorienting. Good fun in PvP situations! It's also useful to find whatever might have been shot down somewhere in the dark that could be carrying valuable resources. Would be great in BA, CV, SA and HV variants as well.
Exactly what they sound like, blocks that are soft. Blocks you can fall onto from reasonable heights without breaking your leg. Quite useful around tall structures and ship-construction sites.
They were work like landing gear, attaching one magnetic block to the other, or if matching polarity, pushing one block away from the other.
Great for making mag-lev trains to connect distant locations, or "weapons platform vehicles", which are little more than a core, generator, fuel supply, cockpit and a turret of some sort. These make great defenses!
Could we please get a bigger variety in CV thrusters? Currently, CV's only have 4 engine types to choose from: Thruster S, Thrusters M, Thrusters L, and Thrusters XL.
Compare this to the wide variety of shapes and sizes of thrusters available to build an SV: 2 thrusters (Thruster S and Thruster M) and 8 thruster jets (Thruster Jet S, M, L, XL, and XXL as well as Thruster Jet II M, XL, and XXL), for a total of 10 different thrusters.
In particular, I am still depressed about how energy-hungry a CV is when in a planetary atmosphere. It is distressing to see how quickly a CV's fuel tanks will go empty, even with half a dozen T2 fuel tanks that were just topped off!
As such, I propose that 3 or 4 new, late-game CV thrusters are added that either produce more thrust, weigh less and/or use less energy for their given size. I suggest that the existing 4 CV thrusters be kept as is, but - at least for Thrusters L and XL - be made available at a lower level and require no Zascosium or Erestrum, while my proposed "CV Thruster (T2)" S, M, L and XL would all require Zascosium and Erestrum and only unlock at level 25.
You may think this would be a hassle, especially as this would necessitate making more 3d models for new devices. However, perhaps you could use the old 3d models for CV thrusters for the Tier 1 thrusters and the new 3d models for the Tier 2 thrusters (or visa versa)?
An alternative to more types of thrusters would be thruster modifications or modules that plug in like we have for Armor.
Another alternative would be components that attach to the side of thrusters, like we have with modular cargo.
Could you please add the ability to turn off the air tight force-field on Doors and shutters so they can be used on showers toilets and windows without having a blue tint in the view. Thanks a bunch.
I couldn't find this suggestion when I searched so if this is a repeat I apologize.
On a simi related note it would be nice if the forcefeild on the shutter doors were at the block edge not slightly offset. It makes useing them for vertical passages difficult as the feild is floating in the air just off the floor.
Even useing shutters of different sizes together and haveing the feilds not meet up is kinda odd.
Radar and improved HUD system.
When you land in your escape pod, you have a basic HUD: POIs show up at 500m (or whatever they're set at in the playfield).
When you are holding a Detector, POIs show up at 750m (or 1.5x what they're set at in the playfield.)
When you're holding a Suit Radar (new item), Drones, CVs, SVs, and HVs show up at 500m.
When you're holding a Bio-scanner (new item), Creatures and Players show up at 150m.
There should also be a higher tier "Omni-scanner" which functions as: a detector, ore sacanner, suit radar, and bio-scanner, all in one.
When you're piloting a HV, SV, or CV with a detector, POIs show up at 1000m (or 2x what they're set at in the playfield).
When you're piloting a HV, SV, or CV with a radar (again, new item), Drones, CVs, SVs, and HVs, show up at 750m.
When you're piloting a CV with a T2 Radar (CV only), Drones, CVs, SVs, and HVs show up at 1000m.
Not a bad idea. Perhaps they could use the Radar Dish for this? AFAIK, currently, the Radar Dish doesn't actually do anything. Technically, it's a decoration. People place them on BA's and CV's, not to do anything, but to make them look like a proper base or capitol ship - this, despite the fact that the Radar Dish uses a large amount of energy.
I don't usually put a Gravity Generator into my BAs and CVs. Floating around in these structures in a Zero-G environment is frustrating because of the shape of doors. Rather than float through head first or feet first, you have to square up with the door frame as if you were walking through. It would be nice if it were big enough to go through in any orientation.
Could we have a 3x3 door that acts like an Iris? I suggest this size because I tend to make octagonal hallways ... suitable for walking for flying.
Maybe something like this...
There really is no need for 3x3 ... given how the player 'fits' in a 1x1 BA/CV cube. Any direction should allow passage, and thats what they should fix.
However given that, an 'iris' type door would be cool to have (so long as its moving parts dont FLOAT OUTSIDE THE DAMNED FRAME like all the current BS doors do).
I get to 3x3 as for a BA or CV where I intend to float in Zero-G, I tend to make a larger corridor than 1x1. Usually it is a octagonal 3x3 or a hexagonal 3x2 hallway. You see lots of builds by folks with hexagonal 3x2 hallways, but I like 3x3 octagonal because they can transition into vertical corridors at a 6-way intersection.
A 1x1 iris doorway would be useful too, of course. But when I'm jetting around in a hurry I appreciate the extra room to allow for less-precise flying. Still, a 1x1 iris doorway would better allow for a vertical exit from an elevator than currently turning a standing door onto its face, which looks silly.
Gotcha, makes sense, and wouldn't have anything against multiple door sizes (like we got with shutters and hangars).
Yes.... something for 'shafts'... I tend to use shutter doors now since door doors look so silly flat (plus they extend outside of their frames, horse, stick, beat). So an iris in a frame for those would be wicked to have (and probably end up being used a LOT in zirax/legacy POI).
Sounds good to me. That would be very sci-fi-ish. And I'd like to see more variety in doors. Though, perhaps we could also get an Armored version with extra hitpoints?
All it should require is an adjustment to the door 'hitbox' or whatever. Considering how large a 1x1 BA/CV door is and how comparatively small the player character is, there's no excuse for it being difficult to go through the door, regardless of the orientation. A character is only 2/3'rds the height of a 1x1 block. Here's a screengrab to illustrate this:
Judging by the link you provided on how an iris-type door should look, I doubt that a 1x1 iris door would be big enough for the player character to pass through. (A large part of the surface area is taken up by the iris mechanism on the perimeter of the door.) At least, if it was big enough, it'd probably be difficult to orient the right way to pass through and it'd probably only work either feet-first or head-first.
A 2x2 iris doorway, on the other hand, should be big enough.
Taking your image as an example, just think of that 'frame' in a circle. And if you can float through that current frame sidways (since the player is short enough), then floating through a 1x1 iris door would be just the same. And that frame as is is pretty 'fat' for an iris frame, which could be more streamlined.
I would think. Plus they could fudge the hitbox a littlebit to allow 'feet' and 'helmut' to clip through if need be.
Respectfully, I disagree. The way an iris door works necessitates that the frame be rather large compared to the door opening itself.
Here's my image from earlier with part of your example iris door superimposed on top of it via Paint:
While I am no expert, I have taken some engineering courses and I believe that there would not be much allowance for such a door to be streamlined from the 'fat' frame as portrayed. The iris "leaves" or blades have a certain surface area and they just won't fit inside a very thin frame.
On the other hand, I could imagine a design such that the overlapping "leaves" or shutter blades of the iris could retract into or around the wall - much like how the door panels of regular Automatic Doors retract either into/overlapping the walls or ceiling when they open. But that's about the only way that I can imagine a 1x1 iris door could comfortably accommodate a character passing through in any orientation other than head-first or feet-first.
Well, yes. If clipping was allowed and the devs wanted to fudge the hitbox, nearly anything is possible. But then, the current hitbox on the Automatic Door is very strict, so such a contrast would not seem consistent.