You can build any base and never fill it with anything meaningful that isn't decorative. There's simply nothing to put IN a base, or a ship. It's why PvP ships are nothing more than a room for a pilot surrounded by masses of generators, fuel tanks and ammo storage, followed by meters of solid armor. You don't need crew, or living spaces, housing, nothing. Diminishing returns are impossible with the current system mechanics. There's no basis for an cumulative system that reduces as more objects are added. Extenders need to have hard limits in order to not break blueprints. While I can increase the limits on how many and considered doing just that for just the T4's (which would double as diminishing returns, since they're very expensive). Ideally, there would be only a single type of CPU extender (1x1x1), without tier, that would give either a fixed or diminishing return. You gain CPU for each extender you add, but each one consumes power, is heavy, takes up space. But you also end up with progression and balance issues since build cost becomes a factor since it needs to be available earlier in order to improve the earlygame player. Which means multiple extender types with hard limits. Your typical Tier 2 Extender, which you can make early from cheap materials but limited to 1, so that players don't just use hundreds of them and never use the T3 and T4. You say that CPU is in the way. But where and how? Give me actual data. Show me your ship's CPU page and statistics. It might just be that my calculations for CPU were too focused. On the other hand, it could be that you're just not willing to make the trade-offs on your ship that you demand. There are several ways to rework CPU. With and without extenders, each one has drawbacks. Without extenders, ships have a fixed CPU amount and devices have much smaller CPU values to fit inside those limits. But once again you end up with upper limit performances and people unhappy because they cannot and will never be able to use X number of turrets or X number of thrusters because there's a hard cap on CPU. With extenders, you have expandable CPU like we have here in RG. Of course, you have the same people being unhappy because they still can't use X number of turrets or X number of thrusters because there's another hard cap. If you take away the hard cap, you end up screwing up the endgame as players no longer need to make choices on specialization and you end up with multi-role spacedrones. The device cap can be kept, but lifted for the more expensive T4 extenders allowing further expansion for the much higher build, space and power costs. CPU extender limits could be removed completely if diminishing returns on extenders was possible, but it's not. Or... you can go with Eleon's CPU tier model. Where everything's made up and the points don't matter. That's right, they're just like the talent portion of a beauty contest.
Here's a small update to Reforged Galaxy following feedback. Well, what little i've received. Everything is subject to change. So don't blame me if your blueprints end up broken with the CPU system changes. Changelog: Laser weapons now have almost zero recoil - They're still guns with moving parts, so there's a barely distinguishable amount of jiggle when firing. Epic Minigun has reduced recoil, but not zero since it's both heavy and has some very large moving parts. Epic Plasma Rifle now uses Plasma Charges. It has increased recoil and damage since it's now classed as a plasma weapon instead of a laser one. A plasma cell will still refill the full ammo count. Epic Plasma Cannon no longer consumes SV plasma cells for alternate fire mode to avoid buggy ammo feed. Anti-Ship mode now fires a beam like the regular plasma cannon. Reload times for handheld weapons are standardized. Pistols reload fastest, followed by magazine-fed weapons like the pulse rifle, assault rifle and laser weapons, with rockets taking the longest. All tiers of weapon reload at the same speed (excluding rockets). Reload times for mounted weapons are standardized across all types, with some variation between HV/SV and CV/BA sizes. Unified HV/SV plasma turret and plasma cannon damage and range. Halved their RoF and doubled their damage. Fixed some mass inconsistencies between ammo types and turrets. Increased power draw and CPU given for Tier 3 and Tier 4 extenders. Increased the maximum amount of Tier 4 extenders that can be used on a structure from 4 to 8. You should not need more than 8 for anything. This may be reverted, so don't whine that you don't have enough CPU for some stupid ship that was never gonna work. Changed sound effects for player sentry guns because they had repeating problems due to low RoF while AI controlled. Removed Herobrine. Someone go into zirax territory with ground patrols and tell me how you do.
Yes, PvP ships are utterly ridicules but you don't fix that by telling PvPers they cant build their coveted giant armor cubes because reasons. You fix it by giving them a clear and valid reason to want to build more then just a giant armor cube with guns. Not that they are likely listen but still. If the game systems that would properly fix this aren't in place yet then just leave it be for now. A delayed game may eventually be good but a rushed game will always be bad. The same applies to any set of systems. Also keep in mind that right now blast damage is applied uniformly within the blast area. Armor doesn't actually protect whats behind it unless it is thicker then the blast radius. Hence the 20m of armor blocks. I personally would consider how explosions currently work to be a game breaking bug. That said, I build with the idea that this will eventually be fixed in mind. IE almost never with more then one layer of external armor and usually with an internal structure of plain steel or even carbon fiber in some cases. Not quite what I meant. The idea is that you achieve a system of diminishing returns through balancing mass, energy cost and physical block size. More devices means more extenders, means higher power usage, means more generators, means more fuel, means more thrusters, means more generators means more fuel .etc All of which require an ever increasing amount of mass and physical space in a structure. But your already "breaking" blueprints by allowing HV turrets and drills on SV and SV fixed weaponry on HVs. And its not as though it wouldn't be a simple matter to spawn the blueprints into creative and remove any forbidden blocks. I do it all the time when I come across a base or CV that use SV cargo boxes and ramps. Working on it. I Haven't had a huge amount of time and I ran into an issue that corrupted my steam install and was preventing it from launching. I Would put forward that there are better way to balance thruster and turret count then with CPU. Turrets are heavier and more complex then mounted weapons and would tend to have a great deal of drag in atmosphere, the ammo to feed the turrets is heavy and (should) be volatile, and the ammo boxes to store that ammo take a space and should be positioned carefully. You know what happened to the HMS Hood when its magazine was hit by the Bismarck? It pretty much blew the ship up. Thrusters are power hungry. At full burn these thing should absolutely guzzle fuel. Thrusters along with shields, teleporters and possibly gravity generators should be by far the most power hungry devices in the game. An actual throttle system would go a long way toward balancing thrusters. They would also tend to be explosive when hit. Then of course there is the generators and fuel needed to run the thrusters. Generators are big, heavy, (should be) relatively expensive to build, and relatively fragile. I actually like that generators are damaged when overloaded and believe that the system should be further refined and then expanded. Maybe destroying a high power consuming device (like an active thruster) causes a power surge that damages not only generators but also other devices in a semi random fashion? It would explain why the consoles in Star Trek are always exploding. And then there is the fuel to feed the generators to consider. Again it takes up space and until its burned is just dead weight. And just like with generators and ammo, fuel is an explosion hazard. Bottom line is that poor design choices should be a liability NOT in impossibility. Try not to explicitly dictate that people only build the way you think they should build. Let people learn what works and what doesn't for them self. You cant force creativity but you can encourage it by clearly articulating the problem that need to be overcome. The problem isn't that people don't specialize, it is that there are no end game challenges to overcome beyond artificially imposed restriction. There is no reason to take away player agency over an endgame that doesn't even exist yet. Especially when proper balancing can be used to achieve the same thing in a far more subtle and believable way then a hard cap. That's the thing with mods; they provide a working prof of concept that you can take to the devs. A working prototype is always more persuasive then a technical document. If you believe that your ideas work better then the devs ideas, than show them. I realize I'm probable being annoying but I really do appreciate all the work you put into this. Im looking forward to giving the new version a try when I get a chance.
I'm not trying to limit PvPers with RG. I couldn't care less about what they do, because chances are they'll change or disable half the system. If the game changes, they'll either quit or adapt. Whining the whole time about how the game was better when their ships were so laggy they couldn't hit each other and it was nothing more than a competition to see who lags the least and how long their ammo runs out. The fact of the matter is that there is no possible way to give people a reason to want to build more than a giant cube with guns. It's a physical impossibility, so give up on that idea. Though... I do have a concept for required crew on ships to augment/substitute the CPU system. But it's presently... impossible. Or at least extremely difficult to achieve without developer assistance (probably not gonna happen) and a complete rework of several systems. But it would require a complete rewrite of the CPU system. For now, crew give a fixed CPU bonus. Also missing from the update post. CPU is the only viable method available for turret balancing outside hard limits. Mass constraints have an upper limit, since if you give a turret a mass of 500T, it's unrealistic and you end up with the pre-A12 stupidity by the devs where thrusters weighed 80% of a ship's mass despite being mostly empty space, which ran completely counter to the building system and mass balancing part of ship design where devices dictated mass distribution instead of ship design. Ammo boxes were already volatile and would take out a fair section of their surroundings when destroyed. They're more... energetic in RG, but their placement doesn't change. Their explosive strength is fixed as well, so making an empty box deal too much damage would also be unfair. Similarly, CPU is the best candidate for limiting thruster and turret count since there's no possible way to scale ship mass with CPU limits. Although not documented in the initial post, Thrusters, generators, fuel tanks, turrets and other explosive devices all explode with much greater force in RG. A T2 generator, warpdrive or XL CV thruster if destroyed will take out a huge section of the ship. Turrets explode with the combined force of the ammunition type they use. But having overload systems explode randomly or connected devices is impossible. Additionally, increasing the fuel consumption of thrusters and other devices produces a worse system where passive drain kills fuel time on all ships and bases making more people unhappy. No i'm not. No existing blueprint uses these in the current way. When you take away or restrict the limits on something that's used in every blueprint you break blueprints. For the same reason I can't just remove the existing CPU Extenders. Every ship since A11 uses them and removing them would render them either illegal, pointlessly expensive or cause errors in the factory. Most people don't spawn workshop builds in creative and remove illegal blocks simply because they have no idea what those parts are. If you or anyone else can come up with a better limiting system that prevents players from flying indestructible spacedrone ships and CVs that move like SVs with an excessive number of weapons, i'll switch to that. I'm not like the developers who stick with a bad idea no matter how much it's hated and then proceed to make everything worse in order to make that idea seem like a good one. I do however, have absolute rules that I won't drop. Heavily-Armored ships must always be slower than lightly-armored ships. The heavier the ship, the slower it moves and handles. The devs failed spectacularly at this by producing a flight model in which all ships handle the same. Trade-offs must always be equal and make sense. If you add armor, you must also add thrusters to keep your speed the same, which takes away from your ability to afford weapons. Similarly, if you add weapons you must either give up thrusters or support devices. Ships must be limited in their total weapon and damage output, relative to their conceivable size. No "Moar Dakka!" it looks stupid, it functions stupid and it ruins the game for the player doing it by allowing them to beat POIs with minimal effort. They "finish" the game in the shortest amount of time and complain that it's too easy, or there's no endgame. Every block and device must have a use. If a block has no use, it may as well not exist. It's a waste of time, materials, effort and an ID that could be better used for something else. Yet another thing the devs have failed in. They have hundreds of blocks and items with no use, but they won't get rid of them to replace them with something better, or at least useful. There'll be another version out later today that fixes some bugs and adds the Assault Mechanoid to the game. Adrenaline Boost will need to go again since the infinite loop has re-emerged under certain conditions that ignore the restrictions placed on them and several attempts to contain it did nothing.
Today's update: Changelog: Disabled Adrenaline Boost since it's breaking all the rules i've put in place to stop it from looping. Reduced stamina loss from Broken Leg and Closed Fracture. Added Zirax Mech Units. They can be found in ground patrol units leading groups of Combat Mechanoids. They're about as strong as a minigun drone, except they walk on the ground. They drop 15mm rounds, various components and energy cells. Changed Ripper Dog's death sound since it's too long and loud. Increased travel speed of Ballista Bolts because they were comicly slow. Vanilla needs to do the same. Reduced infliction rate of some status effects from zirax weaponry. Reduced maximum firing range of Flamethrower Zirax so they don't open fire when they're miles away from you. Increased rotation speed of troops so they don't turn really slowly when you shoot them in the back. Various bugfixes and minor changes. Also included in this post is an alternative BlocksConfig, that reduces HV/SV armor block mass by roughly 47% and increases the thrust of CV thrusters by 18%. Those numbers are very specific. Seems like a small change, right? No. It's a change that ripples all the way through the tech tree and gameplay since everything depends on those values. You now need less thrusters, which frees up more CPU, allowing more secondary systems for the same performance. Just download the blocksconfig and overwrite the one provided from the main file. Please test both (if you want) and provide proper feedback. Because I can't make changes and improvements without solid feedback, and not just "I don't like it", because that's probably why so many of empyrion's features are bork. No actionable feedback.
Hi there, tried the Reforged Galaxy and while Version v1.1 would me allow to start and run my saved game (EGS A12.4), v1.2 will open the box with "send mail......, conitnue and so on" right after the start. After pushing continue nothing else happens. The loading screen stays there forever. Also I think the CPU limits on CV are too harsh. Even if I put all possible CPU blocks (1xT2, 2xT3 and 8xT4) they are way over the limit. One is a class 4, which would need 3.000.000 CPU (Vanilla = 7.700.000 CPU, mainly because of the 2xRCS2), the other one is a class 5 with 4.400.000 CPU (Vanilla= 9.00.000CPU). I admit, the class 5 probably has too many turrets, but the class 4 doesn't. Just my 2 cents.. Thanks for reading
Send me your log file. Also are you using any other custom config or alterations? Also, if there was an update or even a hotfix by the devs it'll overwrite one or more of the files that will need to be replaced or else the incompatibilities would throw a CoQ. RCS aren't the problem. Their CPU value is comparitively tiny, it's the turrets or generators that would be. Though without seeing the ship I have no idea where your CPU is going.
ok, the freeze is solved. It seems RGv1.2 is just an update to some of the files of RGv1.1 and not a complete set of configuration files. Since I was not aware of this, I replaced the configuration folder instead of replacing the files within the configuration folder. The class 4 CV, I had updated for RG-A11. Then I needed a couple more and more powerful thrusters (XL) to keep it going. Now it seems this is a major problem with CPU. Some screenshots
RG contains a set of configuration files, it doesn't replace the entire config folder since there are several config files it doesn't touch, like the Galaxy and solarsystem configs. Also, that's a lot of thrusters. If you're trying to get 100m/s2 acceleration on all axis in a CV... yeah, don't. It's not possible with a big CV, only with a small one. I might re-do the CPU system again though. Put more CPU into generators and less into thrusters, by bringing the CPU costs on bigger ones down further. So it's always far more efficient to use big thrusters over small ones, and the limiting factor would be the generators. Of course, that means that the T4 extender limit will probably end up back at 4.
Ok, thanks for the answer and reconsidering the CPU thing. As I said, the thrusters were neccessary with RG-A11 as otherwise the CV didn't move and even with the amount it has now, then it was barely faster than 35m/s2. And as you know, speed has to be over 30m/s2 to be able to jump. If you think there are too many thrusters, I don't mind removing some of them. I don't want or need a speed over, let's say 50m/s2. And on planet side even less, may be only 25m/s2. Although there most of the time I run it well below 20m/s2. Anyhow, I will play with RG a little more and see how it does on release of A12 and if I can get my idea of a CV to work. Oh, I almost forgot. Thank you for the Reforged Galaxy.
That's an interesting idea. Assuming the devs don't absolutely mangle it like they did with the original CPU concept. I can't imagine how frustrating that must have been for geostar. Cool. Not quite what I would choose to use NPCs for but good enough for now. I know and knowing makes me sad. It would be so EASY to code something like this in. The ammo boxes already have access all the data they need to make it work. Its just a matter of creating a tight loop that multiplies ammo count by ammo damage for each ammo type in the box and passing the result along to the damage calculation. Super simple stuff. I just tested destroying CV T1 and t2 warpdrives and CV Thruster L. They all seemed to do about 500 damage to Hardened Steel blocks. Maybe double the damage so that it's enough to destroy all standard steel block and most thin hardened steel block? Oddly the blast damage seemed to miss blocks in a weirdly inconsistent way. Something is very, very wrong with the way explosions work in this game. The game also seems to be ignoring the blast radius you have set and is only damaging block adjacent to the destroyed device. Like the radius was set to 1. I wouldn't touch passive power usage. If anything more devices need a off switch and to be exposed to signal logic. Availability of solar power on ships would also be nice as well though I do recognize why the devs have this disabled. What I would want it active thruster power usage increased and then to be able to control thruster output both from the control panel and via hotkey or throttle control on a flight stick while in the cockpit. That way you can reduce power usage when you don't need the extra speed or burn the extra fuel when you really the extra thrust. I suppose I can't really argue with that reasoning. Good enough than. Still, having something more accessible then a console command for finding illegal blocks would be nice though. While I'm on the topic of thrusters there seems to be a rather large discrepancy in the mass of the CV Thruster M. It looks like its more then double what it should be. Just going by the CPU to Force ratio the CPU for Thruster S seems way too high. Thruster S Thruster M Thruster L Thruster XL PU 420 840 6.42 k 26.5 k CPU 5850 7900 62500 220000 Force 3 MN 7.2 MN 62.4 MN 210 MN Mass 2.36 t 9.5 t 14.8 t 62.9 t SU 800 1.6 k 2.56 k 8.64 k Blocks 1 2 16 54 On the one hand this makes me uncomfortable because the question of what is to much is very much subjective. I REALLY don't like the idea of trying to force a fix for this through CPU. On the other hand watching Spanj slap 10 plasma canons on an SV and proceed to lay waste to everything in his way did seem a bit wrong. At least until he ran up against something with shields. That didn't go quite so well. I still would much rather see this 'problem' fixed with more game content that through CPU. The system works reasonably well for small builds, is passable on medium sized builds but completely breaks down on large/very large builds. Once you start getting into the 45-50 kt range you end up with your entire CPU budget going to thrusters and nothing else. Heres an example: Spoiler Some old workshop CV that I modernized. For testing purposes I simply slapped ALL the CPU extenders that I hadn't already used (it was a t4) on the outer hull. Here is the statistics view in vanilla. Yes, it has lots of turrets but I'll get to that latter. Thrust, roll, pitch and yaw are all fairly conservative by design. Not exactly what I would call a 'spacedrone'. There is actually space on the hull earmarked for 8 more Thruster L on both on the top and bottom if I REALLY needed to lift a huge amount of extra weight on a high G planet. Yes, having 4 t2 generators is completely excessive, but, hey, they look cool. The statistics page in RG. Its gained over 10 kt and the thruster changes means that it can no longer take off in 1G. Somewhat alarming but ok. And the CPU page in RG. As you can see I would have to remove ALL the turrets and rework engineering to remove at least one generator to get this build under the CPU limit. Removing Thrusters isn't a viable option either because then the ship wouldn't be able to move at all in at least one direction. This is why I was pushing for removing the cap on CPU extenders. I have plenty of unused space in the build were I could put them. And before you ask, the vast majority of the hull is only one block thick. No crazy 20m of combat steel here.
Well, I can see from the numbers that you have too many turrets. You have 40 large turrets and 19 sentry guns. The game has a built-in limitation that you cannot fire more than 24 weapons at a time. That limit cannot be changed or removed and is what the CPU values are built around as the absolute maximum. It's also why all turrets in RG have an individual 24 max limit. If those sentry guns are on the outside and intended to fire at enemies alongside your main turrets, they'll be preventing the big ones from firing. That's Empyrion's "feature", not mine. It's to keep the game from lagging to a standstill in combat. And it looks like your Steel Blocks are consuming CPU. Which is a bug and will be fixed in the next update. Can you send me the BP of the ship so I can run some performance tests with it? Passive power usage is basically built into the active running cost of devices. I already added a switch to the CV Detector. Since it's a type of weapon, it can be disabled by signal without any problems. On most other power-consuming devices that don't normally have a switch, they have hard-coded features. The warpdrive (which I already tried this out on) can be given a switch to turn it off and stop it from consuming power. But it doesn't stop the player from being able to warp with it turned off since the warp drive is just a condition for being able to warp and not actually the device that does the warping. Medical devices, Fuel tanks, O2 tanks, cargo boxes also cannot be turned off for the same reason. Turrets, weapons and thrusters already can be turned off. That's everything. There's nothing else to turn off. Solar power doesn't work on CVs. The calculations for detecting the sun's location simply don't work on a moving object. Fine thruster control is a thing for Empyrion. The best I can do (in theory) is add boosters to CV thrusters that double the power consumption for more thrust for a short time. And i'd need to test that to make sure it works. Since boosters on HVs don't seem to work and were removed from CV thrusters, so they may have hardcoded it out. IF it works, slow ships would be able to reach warp speeds. Though most of these problems would be solved if the devs would remove their stupid mass-enforced speed limit. There are two limits: The 24-Gun rule - No ships or structure can fire more than 24 guns at any time. This is the maximum for the game. I can't change it, and I wouldn't really want to. Hp damage from 24 turrets is more than double their collective hp (factoring in armor modifiers). If you have more than 24 turrets, you fail. Not only in RG, but in vanilla because they won't fire. Even assuming that you have 24 turrets on the top and bottom sides of a ship, at distance the overlap of fields of fire will kill off half the turrets. So it's fair to say that the maximum number of turrets a ship can possibly use is 32, with 16 on both side, and obscuration by the hull preventing more than 24 at any time from targeting a single enemy. The Opposition Rule - RG is intended for PvE combat and AI bases do not usually use more than 4 turrets on the ground, 8 for drone bases and 8 to 12 for space POIs (of which there are few). The maximum number of turrets-per-side on the new Zirax and Polaris Destroyers is 12 (Total 24). That means that the strongest enemy a CV will encounter will be a patrol vessel with the same limitations as it. As it stands, a CV with 6 cannon turrets and a T1 shield will decimate any ground POI that's not a drone base. That is possible as-is with a T2 and a T3 extender. I can't add game content without knowing what that content should be, how it should work or even if it's even possible within what's available.
Most of the main guns have restricted fields of fire. The pulse lasers are restricted almost exclusively to the x/z plain and the plasma and rocket turrets are restricted almost exclusively to the y axis. The only turrets that have a mostly unrestricted field of fire are the flak turrets. There should never be more then 8 to 14 (I think) that could fire on single target at a time because of how they are mounted. The only excepting to this is a VERY narrow cone directly along the x or z axis and with a slight offset up or down on the y axis. Its part of the reason I chose this as an example. Just because there are lots of guns doesn't necessarily mean that all of them can be brought to beer at once. This would tend to become more apparent the bigger a build gets. Again, I chose this because I know it's an edge case and I feel that it does a pretty good job at pointing out some of the issue of using CPU in such a narrowly defined way. It is worth noting that I haven't considered what would happen when engaging multiple targets though. Ideally the games turret AI would be smart enough to distributed the targeting as evenly as possible but I highly doubt it. The sentries are all tied to signal logic and are not intended to be used along side the main guns. The damage they do to anything besides small carbon fiber blocks is so negligible that it would just be a waist of ammo. I added them solely for NPCs. I haven't actually set up the targeting parameters for them yet but they would be turned off most of the time anyway. Sure. It's not in a state that I would actually consider using it but I think it makes for a good test case. BP is attached. I didn't mean to imply that YOU should implement any of these. It was mostly just me spitballing ideas that I would LIKE to see implemented officially.
I've been redoing the numbers again, but even with lowered CPU values your build is well outside the limit. It's the generators. Even at maximum power with full efficiency, the 4 T2 generators produce 70% more than your ship needs while moving with shields charging and weapons firing. It's completely excessive. Even taking out two generators leaves 24-30% spare power. The second large drain of CPU is the M-thrusters. For a ship this big, you must use L or XL thrusters, but 68% of your thrust comes from inefficient M-thrusters. You could cut off 500k CPU by upgrading the thrusters. I've also found a way to cut down on CPU allocation to turrets so you can have more dakka, without it breaking some other area of the CPU system or game balance, but i'll need to run more tests and crunch many more numbers. Also, whatever is consuming 25,000 CPU in your ship that's labeled as "Hull"... I can't find it. I've found it on other ships, but I can't figure out what's doing it. It might be a genuine bug in vanilla, it could be another block type being flagged as "hull" even though it's not. All Hull Blocks and variants have 0 CPU input/output, so I have no idea what's doing it. Whatever it is, you have a lot of them because the other ships i've found with Hull CPU are less than 500.
Understandable but still kind of a shame. I have never found a build that actually needs even a single T2 generator but they do look cool. That should prove to be an interesting challenge. I narrowed it down to the CV teleporter in this case. Looks like the its being counted as a steel block. Very weird. The BA teleporter doesn't seem to have this problem.
Fixed the teleporter showing up as Hull. It's a remnant from when the teleporter was first added to the game. The next version will have an easier flight model with less restrictive play. Rather than taking more CPU from the thrusters and adding more to the generators, I did a bunch of tests on a bunch of different ships to ascertain the correct thrust:weight ratio and ideal thruster:turret setup for the largest pool of ship types. > CPU costs for CV turrets has been reduced by roughly 40%. > CPU costs for CV thrusters has been reduced by 50-60% on L and XL thrusters. > Boosters have been added to M, L and XL CV thrusters that allow +10%, +20% and +30% overthrust for a short duration. To help overloaded and heavily-armored ships take off or get to warp speeds if they're truly that slow (hard with these new values). > CPU T4 limits have been reduced back to 4 from 8 since the new values allow virtually any ship to fit under them. > CPU gain for T3 and T4 extenders has been increased slightly. > CV/BA/HV turrets have had their mass doubled. > HV/SV armor block mass has been cut down by roughly half. Allowing faster movement for less thrusters, freeing up CPU for more weapons. > New 2x2 thruster for HVs because all they've got so far are small ones, which sucks for HV tanks at the endgame. Note: @Inappropriate your "test build ship" is still unviable because it follows the exact blueprint I said wouldn't work. A spacedrone. It has equal thrust on all axis. Though you're not far off from being functional with max extender use, performance would still be sub-par compared to a dedicated "long ship" with torque-boosting forward and rear thruster placement and high-powered drive thrusters on the back. Which would always be faster with more guns since it's not trying to do the impossible of having everything at once (trade-offs). New test version should be available tomorrow.
Will be available from the workshop when A12 goes to the public version. Otherwise it'd need to be updated every few days when there's minor patches.
I finally got around to actually playing the game today. For the most part ground combat feels pretty good. I'm still early in my playthrough so only tried out the T1 pistol, T1 shotgun and T1 pulse rifle so far. Only thing of note was that seem to get lucky with the 2 light epic armors I found in the single alien POI I tackled. Is there any thing that can be done to stop mobs from running in tight circles? That and the weirdly unnatural erratic serpentine movements of some mobs can make them very hard to hit. That sort of movement might be possible for creatures with a low center of gravity like insects but its not really how one would expect unintelligent predictors to move. Bipedal creatures would also tend to be too top heavy to move that way.
