Yep. I'd say they've got the balance pretty well dialed on the default scenario. Yes, if you just slog it out with the lowest-risk approach: gather natural resources and use what you get to progressive up your tech and tools, it can be pretty long drawn out affair. But if you work in some exploration and "rate multiplier" activities (such as exploiting ruins, or even armed POIs) then the slog is (a) not so slow; (b) more fun; (c) more rewarding. If folks honestly just want "easy street" or "fast lane to building their dream stuff" then there is creative mode, easy mode in survival and either creating an appropriate scenario that is dialed just right (or convincing someone to do it) is a possibility.
I agree. It's not exactly overpowered as it's a pain to line up anything but "realrock"..and you get crushed Stone from mining *anyway*... Can't guess at the purpose of this change
Are you guys going to keep pretending you didn't change the factory to throw away unused resources from blocks? This is a monumentally terrible change for me and the total lack of acknowledgement it ever happened is rage inducing.
!!? I'm unaware of this change... Please Bug Report this! This can't be Intended... & if it turns out it was, it shouldn't be! Resource Waste is retarded!
There's been a mismatch between blocks in and blocks used for quite a while. I tested it a couple of versions ago using the actual material cost to build a vessel vs the amount required by the factory. The amount of mismatch varied depending on the vessel type and size. It was not significant in any case. That may have changed so if you have numbers then a bug report may be in order.
It's not a matter of mismatch, although that may also be the case. If you drop, for instance, a XL capital ship engine into a basic blueprint that only requires iron, silicon, and copper, the cobalt, sathium, neodymium, zarcosium and erestrum will be completely destroyed, not placed in your inventory or made available for future builds. Put simpler, if you drop combat steel into a design that does not use sathium, it keeps the iron and the sathium goes bye-bye. It is intended, this has been screamed at the devs several times in threads they were definitely monitoring and replying to over the last month or two.
Please, could you rework the resources in the default random gen. I'm having to restart because the resource progression and new costs are completely out of line. So, you unlock CV RCS at level 5 or something. Ok, thats cool. I can now build a small CV to carry my stuff around in. And I did so. But in Alpha 8, the following problem arises: CV RCS unlocks at level 5, but can only be built in an advanced constructor, which requires Z & E ores. So, no CV until you have explored the sector. Ok, I'll get around it by making my low level CV in a factory! Got a nice low level 10 CV and wait, what's that? It requires *substantial* amounts of Neodyminium. Ok, that's ok the moon and no it's not. I have to waste time and time and resources building a: HV to start the game. SV to fly around. Bigger, warp capable SV to go to other planets and Build a second HV because my first couldn't go on the SV. To mine the materials To build a CV To carry my driller around To finally build the CV I wanted. It didn't help that the planets are larger, and ores are more time consuming to find now. It's actually not fun flying around looking for ores. This progression is so horrifcally catch 22 it's unfun: I need a HV to drill, but can't take my HV to the planets with the resources because I can't build a CV because it requires resources (Neodymium!) that aren't on this planet. Lets rework this progression properly. 1. Survival game, up until you get a base, an hover vehicle, a t2 drill. 2. SV game. Get SV, explore planet, go to the moon. --- Up until now, the game has used Iron, Cobalt, Silicon and Copper. --- From now, Sathium and Neodyminium are included in devices. Thankfully, there are some on the moon. 3. Small CV. We're level 10+ish, we're exploring other planets, working up our stores of resources, maybe even going and getting some Z+E ores. 4. Big CV. We're level 20+, looking at the top weapons, combat armoured CV, and SVs/ HVs with real POI cracking potential. 5. Free play. But no, I'm stuck here on a planet far too big for the speed of an SV, with only small ore deposits, (on medium richness), basically unable to build a CV, and with most SV designs requiring the same sathium / neodymindium, I'm going to have to go into creative, build something, get this low feature warp sled, jump half way around the sector, find the dang minerals, and then come back to actually getting my actual gameplay on track. Just put neodyminum and sathium on the moon of the basic planet in the default random scenario. I've got 400 hours in this game, I'm well annoyed, imagine how a new player would feel.
I thought so too, except that even the most basic of CV designs require at least 100, upwards of 200 often neo ingots worth. I cleared out the abandoned reactor, xenu manframe and a supply dump on the moon. No luck getting the neo ingots worth. It's actually pretty dicey to even attempt that. You're asking for searching for POI on the new, larger playfields (boring), then assaulting them with craft made from plain steel blocks (fragile). Or, we could just go back to the very workable old style of resource distribution.
Yeah, getting enough neo for a decent capital ship in the starting planet/moon is a severe challenge. Used to be doable salvaging the Titan/other crashed Capships and/or buying it from a trade station, but my current game I had to knock over a carrier in orbit and jack its engines. But anyway you're meant to build a warp SV first. Refusing to accept the intended progression is cool, but that doesn't mean it should be easy. And if you're so worried about attacking a PoI with a steel ship - I could do most of them on foot - just salvage some combat steel from the Titan and drop the plates/blocks into the vehicle factory. Sorry for shooting up your suggestion but I feel like you're blaming the devs rather than exploring options. Exploring is a lot more fun than crying. Which is why I was crying just above your first post. They took away a major option. Getting a CV Thruster XL in PoI loot used to be awesome to get a CV constructed since it has so much neodymium, but not if the erestrum and zacosium is destroyed.
Well . . . I think this is quite intentional on their part: make it a survival game, not just a "Creative Mode Pretending to be a Survival game." If you don't want to grind, there are lots of options: 1. use the console: type ~ then type changemode. You will now be in Creative and can give yourself any components you want (you will often have to save and reload after the changemode to get it to function). After you are done giving yourself what you want/need, do the changemode again, save and exit and reload again and back to survival but with what you want and grinding much reduced.; 2. play a scenario that doesn't involve so much grinding (Dawn of Galaxy for example); 3. make your own version of the default scenario (or convince someone to do it for you).
There's another idea: Set the resource / level / tech / gameplay progression to be in alignment. For example, if the devs wanted you sv warping around, then have it level 1-5 survival, 5-15 SV, 15+ first CV components. But by making it seem like you can build a CV at level 10, yet having access to none of the resources needed, there's this large disconnect. Starting planet: Iron, Silicon, Copper, Cobalt. Prometium. Survival gameplay. Starting moon: Same as above, but also pentaxid. SV gameplay, getting all set up and ready for migration to other planeys. Other planets: Varied resources, larger deposits, allowing the player to prepare for and research tech for CVs. CV gameplay, levels 15-20+ for basic, 25 for advanced, large resource requirements, grinding required. I don't mind grinding, I dislike having to do a bunch of stuff in a backwards seeming order, or have my gameplay kick me about. The game should support a certain path, and until A8, it did. Maybe it's supposed to support a different path now, but either way, resources, resource costs, and tech levels of devices need to be brought back into alignement.
I explored my options, I even went to survival and attempted to build a low level, low cost capital warp sled, but the neo in the RCS was the killer. It's just such a *bad* feeling to go "oh, hv miner, gone are the days of terrible hand mining, then have to make an SV with warp where you can't take the miner, can't make it into a real long term base, and go explore, feeling massively tethered. Then you come back, laden with supplies and make the CV you wanted ages ago. If the CV items required level 20+, then it would be much more fun, I couldn't make a CV, so not having the resources wouldn't sting.
Greeting's! Got A-Couple Complains To Share! #1--None Of The Constructors Make Small O2 Bottles Anymore!!!... The Only Place To Acquire Small O2 Bottles Is Buy Those At The Trading Stations!!!... #2-- Ya-All's Upload File Area Will-NOT-Allow Uploading A Log File At All!!!... #3-- Where Is This SSG/Solar System Generator At???... I Have NOT Been Able To Locate/Access/Use-It!!!... And! Remember Sharing Is Caring!!!...
Don't even have to change to creative. Just type in itemmenu and use the H key to open/close. And of course, to turn it off, just type the command again in the console.
I really do dislike that there are lots of seemingly arbitrary limits like: cannot dock an HV on a SV. But that is something to argue for on a "case by case" basis: hey Devs!? Why did you take away the break rocks functionality on the HV harvester module!? Hey Devs!? Why cannot we dock an HV on an SV!? Very different from: hey Devs "could you rework the resources in the default random gen." Like I said, I expect they did this very intentionally: to make it feel like a survival game, not just a building game. Many folks like it being more constrained in terms of not being able to build a CV without extra steps. If you can address specific incongruities in the design that make it particularly aggravating then maybe I can get on board with that, but just saying "rework the resources" is likely not something very many folks will agree with, and certainly not something developers will take seriously. They probably put a LOT of time and effort into this specific design.
There's actually a good reason why HV-SV docking isn't in the game. The current docking code only supports docking a small-blocks child to a large-blocks parent. Docking would have to be recoded to enable same block size vessels to dock to each other. I'm guessing that this is a huge effort because folks have been clamoring for it forever and it's not changed. Be of good cheer, if it can be done it will be. Just maybe not soon.
So rewrite the code! Give me an NDA and pay me $1 so I'm a legally bound "contractor" and I'll tackle it for them! I don't have much exposure to C# (mostly all C++) but fixing one of their problems would be a welcome learning exercise. Now, obviously I'm being facetious; no sane developer hands out their source code to just any guy on the Internet who says he knows some programming and wants to "fix" something for them. But the point is: code can be rewritten. Code monkeys can be found. Were there is a will there is a way. I am guessing that they do not WANT HVs to dock to SVs because of their conception of how the game should have hard-engraved design elements which promote players going through a fairly clearly defined "developmental" process as they advance from "newly crashed survivor" to "Hovel Base liver" to "Yugo-Grade HV driver" to "Cessna-Grade SV" and thence on to warp-drive SV and finally, eventually CV. . . . and this mostly comes from the interest to "keep multiplayer balanced," which is frankly a bit silly given that the owner/admin of a server can do whatever they like (except overcome functionalities which are not exposed for modding with external files).
