A stasis pod for CVs. You can go to a stasis pod before loging out, and the next time you log in, you'll still be in that very pod, even if CV moved to the other end of the universe. If the stasis pod gets deconstructed or destroyed while you're offline, you'll "die" the next time you log in. Right now it's complicated to use CV as a faction mobile base, because to move it you'll need all the faction members online, or somebody will be left behind.
Constructor Storage Unit I would be a huge improvement (at least from my point of view) to have storage Units which you can link to constructors / smelters. That way you could for example storage the metal bars in one crate and all the constructors of the base / CV could access it and take the required materials for construction. The other way around you could set specific crates for specific types of produced goods (for example energy cells or ammo), so the constructors could place them there automatically. Also you could allow the smelter to access one crate and take the ore and place the produced bars in another. It is a real pain that you have to split the materials manually for every constructor, especially when you are playing online with a group.
Would be much simpler to just put all stuff somewhere, let's say some kind of "factory" and just choose some kind of template (lets call that a blueprint), and everything is automated this way. Wait... this sounds strange... When I saw this was to "save time" on MP I thought : this is exactly the contrary of what MP tried to do with blueprints. So I shall use the same arguments used against blueprints for all features asking for "time saving" and "work skipping" since this is immersion-breaking, rendering survival "too easy"...
I'm sorry but I don't see how my suggestion would be "work skipping" or "immersion-breaking". At the moment you have to split the materials in your inventory, open every constructor and put the materials into them manually. If you have multiple constructors used by a group for several tasks at once it can get really chaotic. All I'm asking for is a central place where you can store your materials. That way you could easily monitor how many materials are left and it would not be such a hassle to split them equally. Something like this is already in the game if you look at the drills for HV /CV. They also store the ore in a specific box automatically. Also the “Factory” is a complete different story. I’m not asking to link the crates to some kind of machine that does the building of complete ships or bases for me.
The reason someone would want to use many constructors is surely not because he is surviving in the wilderness with a minimal base. What you ask is some kind of industrial management, which has not a lot to do with early game. One of the things that were asked a few times was to allow the constructors to work despite the player leaving the playfield, to have some tasks completed upon returning from some adventure. Now we have to stare at our constructors while they work, and to have them go through a building queue can be long, so the solution seems to populate the game with many constructors which is not very performance friendly. Imagine if all players on a server could make dozens of constructors working non-stop. Not for multiplayer? Then why can't we just have 1 constructor (and grow plots while we're on the subject) keep working while the player leaves the playfield? As for "splitting stacks in inventory" the player can as well split stacks in the constructor interface. And frankly, how many times in the game will the player require usage of many constructors? If you answer "all the time" then when are you playing? If playing time is important, than let the constructors work autonomously and not requiring the player to be standing by. Compensating with making manufacturing facilities will not solve the problem and will only clutter the game with machines. I also see the next logical step you seem shy to ask for : why not link constructors directly with the drills? Why not? What is the reason to use a logic (management made easier) just half of the way to the objective (make all things automated) ? Fear of having expectations deceived ? A constructor already has good storage where the player can put material, and they are big for a reason : as they are made (the models) they already have "boxes" attached to them : in and out. Why would the players require that this storage be duplicated? Why put materials in a box and ask for the constructor to get materials there instead of putting materials directly in the constructor?
It seems like many recent suggestions made in this and many other suggestion topics have everything to do with "time saving" and/or convenience. I've been seeing a lot of complaints and suggestions about making mining easier, making building easier, making defense easier, removing the Tech Tree entirely... Is there something wrong with making such suggestions? Shouldn't it be up to the developers to determine whether or not it would hurt game balance to implement some of these changes? They're the game designers, after all. And they have far more insight into how the game is designed and how it actually works. Can you give a more specific reason why this particular suggestion breaks immersion? Does it break the laws of physics beyond what the game already breaks, like having a dimensional pocket to carry around literally tons of Iron and other resources without even slowing down? If anything, shouldn't that be considered immersion breaking? Or, how about how blocks are either airtight or not, depending entirely on type and regardless of the shape or size. (So, we can make a room airtight with a Wood block that is nothing more than a row of small spikes.) Anyway, H2ODestroyer's suggestion sounds similar to certain mods (which I could name) for other popular sandbox games (which I could name). And even if a certain design decision is less immersion breaking, that alone does not mean it is the right decision. Game balance and other things must be taken into account. I still don't understand the problem. If this type of convenience should only be available in mid or late game, they why couldn't they limit this functionality to, say, the Advanced Constructor? Yeah. Having to stare at constructors while they work is very boring. And the whole point of playing a game is to have fun... which is the opposite of boredom, frustration, and work. Making things a bit more convenient (as opposed to too easy) helps in this. But, I still don't see the problem. How does H2ODestroyer's suggestion of having a central place (or menu access) where you can store your materials relate to that issue of multiple constructors working while players are away? (Anyway, if having too many constructions work simultaneously is an issue for MP, then they could either make it SP-only or they could make it an option that servers could turn off or restrict to a specific number on a faction basis. Or, you know, it could be a server-specific rule.) This is not what he's asking. Haven't you ever gotten tired of having to constantly shuffle materials from containers to furnace to constructors? Haven't you ever gotten confused by having a great many containers, forgetting where you left certain items? It's hard to speak for other players. But, judging by the videos I've watched of other people play and judging by how many Workshop items (including many "starter" bases) have more than one Constructor, it's safe to say that it's not at all unusual for a player to have at least two Constructors working simultaneously. At least, I know Lift Pizzas does this. He usually uses the one just to make Ammo while he uses the other to make other stuff.
I may answer a message but not bits and quotes picked in a whole text. If you don't get the idea in a whole text you can mention it, but answering the multi-quote with another yet more complex multi-quote doesn't interest me. If you want me to answer bits and pieces you can ask one at a time, but I don't want to spend an hour editing quotes to address many questions at a time, especially if they discriminate the information and context given in the whole message they were extracted from. Players can suggest whatever they want, and I guess other players can agree or disagree, with or without justification. What the devs decide is another story altogether. Players who don't want to brainstorm their ideas or just accept positive feedback and brush aside objections are not here to truly discuss, they just want their feature in the game, regardless of balance or other issues. The devs published a "to-do"list last year, and there are many things on that list we haven't seen yet. I am pretty sure most of the players making suggestions don't even take a little 5 minutes to search the forums to see if their incredible suggestion has not been made before, how it was discussed, if the devs or anyone actually answered something, etc. How is this proposal here supposed to make life easier if the players just have to make a deliberate choice to put materials directly in the constructors instead of storing them (for what reason?) in a box, to decide later they want to make them into ingots, and then into something useful? The squirrell instinct to gather food for the winter ? Plans to make the biggest baddest ship / base ever seen while we don't even have any clue about the real utility of such a thing (and material gathering to ridiculous amounts) in the final game state? If players wish to have the creative inventory and the creative building abilities in the survival part, that's ok, but I don't see any reason to make these changes mandatory now as there are many core features we have yet to see, and I honestly think the more players suggest little secondary "life & comfort" things, the less we are likely to see the main features announced some time ago in a timely manner. If you feel otherwise it is your choice and opinion, but seeing what the negative reviews on Steam are based upon I think the picture is clear: players are not leaving this game because they don't have inventory management and my little pony texture added to paint tool, they leave because core features are not in the game yet and game is badly optimized for the amount of content they plan to add, game has long standing bugs not addressed, etc, and still they waste time patch after patch on nerfs and buffs for ship and base weapons, while we don't even have shields...
More blocks I wish for: Round Wall - We have Wall, Wall Half, Sloped Wall, Sloped Wall Bottom, Sloped Wall Top, Round Corner, Round Slope and many similar shapes. But, what we do not have is a Round version of Sloped Wall to go with these Round shapes. Two Parallel Walls (shape) - When I build stuff, I'm frequently stymied by how I can't find the exact shape I need, because it does not exist. One of the shapes that I miss most is like Wall blocks, except it's two parallel walls. "U" Shape - Another shape that I sorely miss is like Two Parallel Walls, but with a perpendicular floor/ceiling to connect the two walls. We already have Wall 3 Corner. Aren't Two Parallel Walls and a "U" Shape the logical progression to make the set complete? Shutter Window - We are only given a limited variety of these. There are Transparent (Airtight) and non-transparent (non-Airtight) versions of Vertical and a few Slopes. That's it. What do I use if I want a non-transparent block that allows air to flow through? (I'm really curious.) And why can't we have a Shutter Window that takes up an entire 1x1x1 cube of space instead of only a thin Shutter on one side? Can't we at least have Vertical Shutter Windows that are opaque on the outside (instead of opaque on the inside)? That, and maybe Two Parallel Shutters (transparent and non-transparent)? Doors (a little more variety) - I really like the variety of Doors we are given, except... Why is it that if we want to use a non-Airtight door, it must be transparent? Why can't you duplicate the variety of door shapes/models already present so that each shape has corresponding Airtight and non-Airtight versions? (I wanted to add a non-Airtight door that was non-transparent so I could give a little privacy to bedrooms. Having see-through doors to bedrooms seems a bit silly as that lacks privacy.
Suggestion brought over from the Steam Discussions: http://steamcommunity.com/app/383120/discussions/0/1482109512322151008/ Blocks who's models are offset from their block space. The diagonal railing sticks out a bit from it's voxel space to connect with the other railing pieces, so this ought to be accomplished easily. Take the L-shaped thin wall and offset it by almost 1 block upwards. This would allow for a thin wall that can have something both in front and behind, as with The Sims's style of walls. The image shows how this wall/floor could accommodate a pipe. You could then have 2 rooms directly next to each other, stacked wall-to-wall, and would eliminate 1 block on total build size per wall where this is used. A ship with 5 adjacent rooms would need 4 blocks between them. Using these, a builder can remove up to 4 interior walls making their ship/base slimmer.
Why in the world do "Ramp Top Double" blocks have half the hitpoints and weight of small volume blocks like Slope, Corner, Corner Long D and Ramp Bottom? Ramp Top Double is nearly the volume/size of the full cube. It merely has one edge shaved off a little. Personally, I think the hitpoints and weight of block shapes as a whole should be examined and reevaluated.
Searched the thread before making my own wish, and sure enough, here it is. This is exactly what I want. Currently, I loot space drones by clipping my CV through them so that I can loot them from the comfort of the bridge. A lot of people have already covered pretty much everything I could think of, and then some. Still, here are a few: iris doors (Steam image) customizable door open/close sound effects keypads (even if they just bring up the "Enter lock code" dialogue) "repulsor field" landing gear: low-profile landing gear that reaches one block further than a docking pad without looking like a dorky robot foot, accompanied by a minor particle effect more shapes, types (thin/no bezel, alien bezel, etc.) of glass blocks; color-able glass (the actual glass color) customizable thruster exhaust colors position-changing/toggle-able blocks to create advanced mechanisms with circuit logic; trap doors are a precursor to these
It so happens that I was recently thinking about how nice it would be to be able to build a large base such that I could park my CV in the garage. But then I realized that Garage Doors are much too small for that to be possible.
Awesome! Even better - Console Command : Create Window 21 X 17 That's one window to fill a given opening.
In principle, I love the idea of being able to have Window Blocks and Hangar Doors even larger than what we can make currently. However, there is one aspect about Window Blocks and Hangar Doors that I already take issue with in a major way - an issue that would only be exacerbated by allowing players to make them even larger. That would be how the hitpoints do not scale up very well, if at all. Some block and device hitpoints: Window Blocks L: 250 [always, no matter how large or small] Armored Window Blocks L: 1000 [always, no matter how large or small] Hangar Door (5x3): 950 Hangar Door (10x5): 1500 Hangar Door (14x7): 2000 Steel Blocks L: 500 Concrete Blocks: 600 Hardened Steel Blocks: 1000 Combat Steel Blocks: 2000 Armored Concrete Blocks: 2200 Yes, placing 2x2 Window Blocks is faster that placing 1x1 Window Blocks. This looks better, too. However, why would anyone use 2x2 (or even 1x2) Window Blocks at 250 hitpoints each, when one could place 1x1 Window Blocks to fill the same area, but with more hitpoints? Having four 1x1 Window Blocks at 250 each equals 1000 hitpoints. Compare that to a single 2x2 Window Block at 250 hitpoints. Armored Window Blocks may have more hitpoints, at 1000 each. But, again, the player is much better off placing four separate 1x1 Armored Windows at 1000 each, for a total of 4000 hitpoints, compared to one large 2x2 Armored Windows for a total of 1000 hitpoints. Now, compare these numbers with surrounding Steel and/or Concrete blocks. Surface area is a major factor, because the larger the surface area, the more likely a device or block is to be hit. And the more hits a block or device takes, the more likely it is to take too much damage and get destroyed. Logically, the larger a Hangar Door or Window is, the more structural integrity (i.e., hitpoints) it should have. At least, that's usually the way it works in the real world. The choice is clear: If defense is any sort of concern, a player would always go with the smallest size Windows and the smallest size Hangar Door that they can get away with. (Actually, in PVP, they'd try to completely avoid windows - and Hangar Doors, if they don't absolutely need them.) To clarify: I have no problem with Windows and Doors being structurally weaker (i.e., less hitpoints) than surrounding blocks. Indeed, that's the way it should be. What I do take issue with is how they don't scale up very well. Larger Windows should always have more hitpoints. And none of the Hangar Doors, from the smallest (5x3) to the largest (14x7) have enough hitpoints. The devs could double the hipoints on Hangar Doors and it still wouldn't be enough, especially for the larger ones. Keep in mind the surface area: 5x3 = 15 square blocks, 10x5 = 50 square blocks, and 14x7 = 98 square blocks! Edit: Also, why is it that there are not any Armored Hangar Doors? We do have Armored Automatic Door Blocks. Those have quite a bit more hitpoints than the regular Automatic Door Blocks (200 vs. 80). I wouldn't be quite so disappointed in the hitpoints of Hangar Doors if we had an Armored version. But then, I also feel that Automatic Door Blocks should have more hitpoints. Again, I have no problem with doors and windows being weaker than surrounding blocks. (They should be.) But 80 hitpoints is so incredibly pathetic compared to 500 or 600 for Steel or Concrete. And 200 is quite pathetic compared to Hardened Steel, Combat Steel or Armored Concrete. I think it'd be more fair if Automatic Doors had something like 100 or even 150 and Armored Automatic Doors had something closer to 350 or 500 hitpoints. Then there are the the Shutter Doors. At least these scale better than Windows or Hangar Doors. But, still, for the surface area, the scaling is pathetic: Shutter Door (1x1): 200 {Surface area = 1} Shutter Door (2x2): 300 {Surface area = 4} Shutter Door (3x3): 400 {Surface area = 9} Shutter Door (4x4): 500 {Surface area = 16} Shutter Door (5x5): 600 {Surface area = 25} The surface area increases logarithmically, but the hitpoints barely increase linearly. Realistically, the hitpoints should increase logarithmically, too. Also, it would be nice if there was an Armored version of Shutter Door Blocks.
if the repair block could also reload ammo for SV/HV could be very nice.. with setting to choose specific box in BA/CV for that purpose
Spotlight blocks for Bases. It would be nice to have some lights on a Spacedock. Btw, would it be possible to increase the light beam range for these blocks to 1 KM or more? (god i hate that everything needs to be focused on small scaled stuff.)
