No problem. But what's wrong with having on-board "damage control" when you're out of reach of a base. At one time I had a base on every planet in a system, my own or a captured base. We now have a galaxy (yay!) and it's possible to go pretty far afield before establishing a base. What it comes down to is options. The old argument was that such things precluded the need for bases, just as adding certain weapons/tools to SVs would eliminate the need for HVs. Crap! It's an option! What works for one may annoy the hell out of another. I like building bases. I also think a Repair/Resupply Ship would be cool as well. Now, how I would work that as a single player, I don't know. I still like the idea.
I will not stop repeating, that the only issue of this game is - the lack of the ability of proper balancing the game. And that is another great example. That is the root of all artificial limitations. In this particular case, it is not needed to explaing that logically SV cannot replace HV. Simply because HV should have an ability to carry much larger weights, its propulsion system is limited by moving on the surface only, and of course it drains a lot less power than thrusters . And that should give this "class" all possible opportunities as result - less power drain, more weapons to carry, more ammo to carry, better armor to carry and so on. As a further result it would be simply pointless to create SV with the same amount of weaponry and armor. It simply will not go anywhere or end up crashing in front of the enemy base with such a power drain. But instead of this, we receive silly limits. You simply cannot place turret or armor on SV. "Because I said so.". Your SV is still able to carry enormous amount of cargo on its back. But it cannot take that turret which is 10 times light. And if we talk about that, I want to mention that this balancing disability also made SV Wings absolutely useless. Nobody uses these for real. Yeah, there are designs with wings here and there, but you can simply remove them, add a couple of thrusters, and here you go. Your SV is now better in all terms. As a conclusion - if developers will not start balancing their game, we will end up with a game full of such artificial limits. Of course real fans will just deal with that, facepalm a couple of times and play further. But majority will not tolerate annoyance indefinitely. At the very least, this will shorten the time spent in the game for everyone.
We can "balance the game" any way we want. We can't "balance the game" for all contexts and situations. If we want to stick to the game's initial "definitions and restrictions" we can't pretent to aim at a different set of rules : we agree to be bound by the initial rules. If we want another set of rules, we take only the content we need that will work with our new rules. For specifics, just mod your BlocksConfig.ecf : { +Block Id: 1131, Name: RepairBayCV, Ref: RepairBayBA AllowPlacingAt: MS, display: true MarketPrice: 94888, display: true EnergyIn: 20000, type: int, display: true, formatter: Watt HitPoints: 500, type: int, display: true Repairs: "SS,GV", display: true << change this to Repairs: "MS,SS,GV", display: true RepairPerSecond: 200, display: true UpgradeTo: RepairBayCVT2, display: true Mass: 9225, type: float, display: true, formatter: Kilogram Volume: 800, type: float, display: true, formatter: Liter StackSize: 250 UnlockCost: 17, display: true UnlockLevel: 15, display: true TechTreeParent: RepairStation TechTreeNames: Capital Vessel }
I know how to edit configs, but thanks. Didn't mean to offend anyone, I am just pretty straightforward. And I am not agree that we can't. Yes, we can Everything is possible.
I think, in the end, that Xtended's point is that the game ignores the reasonable and obvious limitations that *should* be there, and instead places strange and illogical limitations. And I think that there's a lot to be said about this honestly. I'm not a fan of balancing things based strictly on realism, realism isn't generally a good metric for fun, but there's a balance to be struck between arbitrary and realism. You have to have enough realism for it to make sense.
Sure, I am against "the goal for realism only, which makes game not fun" type of things. I dont want trees to grow for real-life decades, I dont want planet to be 40000km in equator, or be unable to lift a single concrete block. All simplifications are there to make the game fun. But artifical limitations mentioned in this thread have nothing to do with realism or not realism, or even with simplifications. And they are definitely not making the game fun.
Well, this is my first attempt at CV to CV repair: The "Repair Ship" XBC is a stock prefab by @XCaliber It struck me as a perfect choice for the job. As you can see, the ship has been seriously "holed". I selected "repair to template". Some blocks remain damaged. Select "repair blocks". I didn't know it was a 2-step operation. All fixed! The damaged ship appears to have docked to the phantom blocks of the turrets. This raises some concerns due to the limitations of how the repair bay can be placed which I may explore later. The repair bay is mounted just to the right of the turrets.
Good job!) Yeah, I also think the repair should be done in one step. Still, some player may want to have a single operation only for whatever reason. Like repair damage blocks, but do not repair to template, or vice versa. That means that current modes should be combinable. Checkboxes instead of dots in the UI. So the player could select both modes. About the repair bay, as far as I know there should not be any blocks higher than repair bay itself, because they will interfere with repair area, and the process will fail.
I've just discovered that the "repair resources", while added via the repair console, can be dropped when retrieving a repair bay. I think this is wrong. I had already concluded that the console should be linked to the bay like a constructor is linked to a container. I now think a container should be linked to the console as well. Linking the console to the bay should allow having more than one bay per BA or CV. Used to be, once upon a time, you alter the allowable quantity in config. I gather that's no longer the case. Another question of balance? s
@Kassonnade Has editing the config changed? After successfully adding CV to the CV repair bay list, I decided to go into the config.ecf to make my usual adjustments, primarily, adding "Planet" to allow use of all CV weapons everywhere (a pet peeve of mine). However, after making said changes, I find they had no affect. I don't think any of my changes had any affect. What's the deal? Next to cross-hairs, not being able to use my big guns to decimate enemy strongholds is my biggest annoyance. One of 'em, anyway. I'm going back to fiddle with the repair ship for now.
It might be that you made a small typo or something, and the game simply fetched the default item setting instead. You included "Space,Planet" in quotes ? You can try simply changing things in the itemsconfig.ecf of your scenario directly now, and you will avoid these problems.
} Yeah, I discovered that last night. I haven't tested it yet. Yes, I did type "Space,Planet". So, I no longer make a copy of config.example to make these changes? It seems things are listed in multiple files now. Very confusing. And tedious. And time consuming. Thanks for the response.
