We need to talk about CV turrets

Discussion in 'Suggestions' started by RadElert_007, Sep 4, 2017.

  1. Nogitsune

    Nogitsune Commander

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2017
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    140
    Yes, yes it is. And pretty. <3
    I actually arranged thrusters in two groups, and set up signal logic to cut out about half of them because it's still enough to bring the ship to 30 m/s on planets, and keep them in air - and for some silly reason thrusters draw full power when they are active, even if you actually use just 50% of their power.

    Originally I had second signal toggle to turn off all forward facing thrusters to achieve the 'gliding' at least forward.. but since the autobreak button was re-established, that's no longer needed.
    trin1.jpg trin2.jpg

    There's still bunch of signal logic going on with the ship, along with all the internal lights being motion-sensored, having them all on at once would kill the fps.

    I guess this is sidetracking from original topic though - CV turrets. In interest of that..
    trin3.jpg trin4.jpg
    ..it's a bit too much of a porcupine. I could do with much less firepower, if it wasn't for the fact that even a single block lost is bad.. and with 10 gone, the work needed to repair the ship (starting from figuring out -what- was lost and -where-) is starting to get too tedious. So whatever I need to take on, I need to kill before it damages anything. Add to that, the ship uses BA turrets because CV turrets don't work.. which in turn means I can't replace anything without excessive juggling of blueprints. A point to note - I'm playing on my own server with all restrictions removed.. in public server this generally wouldn't be possible.. and would likely get you banned if you managed it. :p

    If CV weapons actually worked on planets, and ships could be repaired automatically, Trinity would look different.
     
    #41
    geostar1024 likes this.
  2. Nogitsune

    Nogitsune Commander

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2017
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    140
    This could also allow things like RCS to possibly draw a slightly more realistic amount of power, since it would only be used as needed. Could also work as extension of what I suggested regarding 'emergency power' during repairs - you could power down the generators and most of the systems, running only the essentials from batteries.
     
    #42
  3. Arrclyde

    Arrclyde Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2015
    Messages:
    626
    Likes Received:
    455
    Ok there we meet. Yes, bigger ships can accelerate faster if they are build for it. That is what i meant by using those dynamically changing values. there is no such thing as a flying homebase-factory-craftcarrier-farm-and-fortressJack-of-all-trades-thing and more things are specialized it that scenario. But you have to be carefull with balancing, because if you give everything to all vessels some will be obsolete. Sure i would be slow in a CV but what does it matter if it can take a punch a million times more than a SV? Acceleration and agility on the SV side makes it still valuable.

    Don't forget that CVs have turrets to fire automatically at a SV while they try to get away in a spiral. I actually think that this is a worse approach than letting the SV escape through pure acceleration and velocity if they see no point or chance in fighting the CV.
    I always wonder why people insist to pin people down that don't want to fight an obviously to powerful enemy. Fleeing should be a viable game mechanic, and not artificially be hindered in favor of the one that is far superior in terms of power and equipment.

    I always thought PvP (or base raiding) was about "high risk - high reward". Tunneling in the current state is more "Low-to-no risk - high reward" because you surpass 75% to 99% of the base defense unharmed without fighting. Sorry but i actually don't agree here. It is simply to easy to hide a small hole and get to the base undetected (simply because the mechanics are missing).
    and AGAIN.... people seem to want to live in the game but not everybody spends 12 hours a day guarding their sensors and have people watching their stuff for the rest 12 hours a day. It is a game after all. I have seen this so many times in ARK. people came, tamed dinos build a small base, getting wiped by one of those 24/7 megatribes and saying "fuck it". People won't rebuild time after time after time. It is simply not entertaining and fun to start over again and again when you just want fun out of that game. So the servers ended up being void of people so that in the end even the Alpha people went down to a minimum.
    Having a wide variety of people playing a game is essential to its success, but that includes the biggest group of players => the casual gamers that don't spend hours upon hours in game every day. And yes, those need to have a place too. They already progress slower so they need a way to have their progress somehow secured. Don't argue with "build bigger bases with more guns" because that doesn't work at all. Ark is a very good example of that. (Can't wait to see the severs two or three weeks from now). That is only if you want as many people buying and playing your game. If you only want those 24/7 players you already signed up for a small community.
     
    #43
    Gawain likes this.
  4. Gawain

    Gawain Commander

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2017
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    99
    I have to agree with @Arrclyde about griefing. Any alowed method will be exploited to a negative effect. PVP should be just that Player vs Player. Player vs unmanned player's base is not PVP it is PVE but more appropriately it is Griefing because one party can not retaliate. The logic to allow players to Grief player owned bases is on par with suggesting that it would be ok in a CV<=>CV battle if only one player could shoot back.

    I have been thinking about the practical application of materials, mass, and logistics/limitations of design under a block creation system. The issue is x layers of 2x2x2 meter armor is so far fetched for space ship, when you compare any SyFy vessel. With some of these ships flying towards a gravitational eitty would be more than their thrusts could compensate, like landing on a high grave planet. Even being a block game our ships should only utilize one layer of armor, and there is plenty of block that could be used as fill to allow practical cosmetic designs. They could even bring back the Interior Block which is just a light weight material for the same block shapes. The guts of the ship could be extremely light. The exterior could be practical in thickness. Now before anyone picks this apart as an independent point, please read the next to parts that could justify this concept.

    1) There has been plenty of talked about damage control systems and shield but not a lot about limiting their use. The problem is CVs, they should be lighter AND practical to use. If CVs where the only ship capable of using Shields lets call it a DS (Defense Shield / Screen) this would resolve the issue of needing X layers of armor. And there is already a system in place. Off Line Protection. It is already CV/BA limited. There is no reason these devices could not serve a duel use purpose. Sudden death for offline protection and shield while players are on. If OLP is disabled than these units could still be used as DS. The radius could even be different depending on use. For example OLP could remain a viable blue Square while the DS mode could be Spheres making it necessary to equip more than one. The DS could be transparent when at full HP and change color as it becomes damaged. In DS mode the barrier would need to have a large HP reserve that recoups over time, and that recouping process should consume power like a heavy CV moving around in Atmo. For practical purposes the DS need to be a one way barrier. that allows fire out while blocking any none faction / alliance fire in.

    2) As for the talk about CVs not being versatile enough, well that is the design. Currently I can make a CV that mostly keeps up with fast SV. These CVs are not war ships they are simply light weight transports. And there is the catch, CV simply have to be light enough. DS addresses the argument of being practical in a battle while doing so. In Fact the Devs could decrease the effect of thrust and RCS to control the over all use of armor while providing light weight substitute materials that were once already in the game.

    Result = Ships that can take the damage we put out, that are more in line with typical SyFy concepts of space ships, and more realistic mechanics regarding how they interact with environments. We as players would simply have to change our building mentality. Effectively we would have the same if not better ships simply by applying different principles. The best part is all of this is already in the game. They would only have to write a minor script for the OLP device, based off the current script. The Gravity Generator script is already a 60ish meter Sphere so they can utilize that code as well. Add in a buff for additional range and turret articulation for BAs and you have solved the problems identify in the OP utilizing per-existing mechanics.
     
    #44
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2017
  5. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    1,751
    An SV is agile and should have substantially better acceleration than a CV, but it shouldn't be a match for a CV in a conventional fight.

    The turrets still have to track the SV, which can execute any number of jinks and evasive maneuvers while spiraling away from the CV. Now that all weapons have some statistical spread to them, putting any amount of distance between you and the weapon firing at you greatly increases your chances of not being hit. Also, the scenario we're considering here is the absolutely worse-case scenario, in which both the CV and the SV are already up to max speed; it makes sense that it would be harder to escape unscathed, than if an SV were attacking a mostly stationary CV and then decided to flee. To put it another way, if you've managed to get yourself into a situation where your small high-acceleration ship is being chased in a straight line by a large low-acceleration ship, you've done something terribly wrong; it reminds me of characters in movies that run directly away from some massive fast-moving dangerous object, instead of running to one side (or at least diagonal).

    This is where offline protection could come in, if designed properly (i.e. not an insta-kill box). If it activates an hour after the last faction member logs off, then the amount of undisturbed drilling an enemy faction member can do will be pretty limited. And with reduced drilling speeds as they near the faction's base blocks, it could take them quite a while (days, weeks, or months) to get the tunnel up to the base to breach it from below. Perhaps if we eventually get an ore-scanning mechanism, perhaps one feature of it could be to scan for underground voids, which could be evidence of someone working on a tunnel toward your base.

    I agree that having a wide variety of people playing is good for the game, and I think that categorically preventing people from tunneling into a base eliminates a unique mode of play. I'm not saying that tunneling in should be easy, but I still think it should be possible, and I think that the combination of reduced drilling speeds near non-allied faction bases and a good implementation of offline protection should allow this.
     
    #45
    Mortlath likes this.
  6. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    1,751
    I definitely agree that an effective form of offline protection is needed; otherwise you're right that PvP becomes mostly PvUnoccupiedBase.

    I think all ships should be able to mount shield systems; I mean, given that it's possible to design an SV that's larger than some CVs, it seems silly to prevent us from installing a shield generator on it. As always, giving the shield generator sufficient mass and input power requirements would be my preferred way to balance things. Clearly, a CV or BA is going to be able to support a much more powerful shield system than an SV; the main purpose of a shield for an SV is to be able to take a few random shots without sacrificing hull plating, not to tank a barrage of cannonfire or missiles.

    As far as realism and multi-block-thickness armor is concerned, as I've said, I think it best to think of the in-game armor blocks as whipple armor, which is indeed mostly empty space, with plating only on the walls of the blocks to shatter incoming projectiles. If you look at it like this, then it becomes clear that multiple layers of armor blocks make a lot of sense (and IRL, it's the mass-efficient way to defend against high-velocity projectiles in space).

    I also disagree that CVs need to be lighter overall; if you want a low-mass, high-maneuverability ship, either use an SV or build a small CV that is optimized for the purpose. However, I do like the idea of low-mass low-hp interior blocks (I've heard plastic/polymer-based blocks be suggested in the past) for structural work inside a CV that doesn't require armor.
     
    #46
    Darkscis likes this.
  7. Gawain

    Gawain Commander

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2017
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    99
    Everyone please refer to post #44 to be on the same page.

    @geostar1024 Dont know if you cough that but your eating from both hands on this. On one hand you say SV & CV should be the same, on the other you say use the right tool for the job. The point is the differences and the applications of each. If there is no differences than there is no point for having both. The SV is a limited range fighter, The CV is a long range transport with greater hulling capabilities. It is apples and Oranges. Their liminations and abilites should reflect there base concepts.
     
    #47
  8. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    1,751
    I certainly never said that SVs and CVs should be the same; I was merely pointing out that, given the overlap between very large SVs and small CVs, it doesn't make sense to prevent SVs from having shield systems at all. In an ideal world (for me) with a sub-block system, there would not be a sharp CV/SV distinction, but a more gradual transition between small ships intended for short-range exploration, high maneuverability, and hit-and-run combat tactics, and large ships designed for long-range exploration, low maneuverability but high armor/cargo space/weapons, and more tanking-based combat.

    The right tool for the job should be determined by the design of the tool. Obviously, we have limitations in the current system for various reasons*, but I'd like to mitigate/eliminate as many of the sharp differences between classes as possible, particularly when those differences seem pretty arbitrary to me. That's why I'm continually arguing for physics-based balancing, because it will produce consistent results regardless of ship block size; so small ships will likely be more maneuverable than large ships, and large ships will likely have better endurance than small ships. Could a small ship be build to do many of the same things as a large ship? Maybe, but there will be tradeoffs (less armor, fewer weapons, less cargo space, etc.).

    * To expand on this, and the above quote: The main reason we have blocks of different sizes is due to the performance implications of designing very large ships from small blocks. It's a game engine limitation (in my mind, at least) rather than an essential gameplay element. You may disagree, which is fine; I just want to make sure it's clear where I'm coming from on this.
     
    #48
  9. Nogitsune

    Nogitsune Commander

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2017
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    140
    Well 2x2x2 m^3 of water should have a mass of 8 tons, which I suppose means that a block of combat steel should float very easily. When that's the base, I think the 'hollow blocks' theory is the only reasonable one if you want to maintain some kind of 'realism'. It would also mean there's no point to rebalance the health and mass of different block shapes.

    I suppose mass is one possible way to balance things - instead of deciding whether you want 1, 5 or 10 layers of combat steel armor on your ship, there could be tier 1, tier 2 ... tier 10 combat steel armor, where the tier would give the blocks multipliers of both durability and mass. It might work for ships, but it wouldn't be so good for bases. Bases don't need to care that much about mass, especially if they are built in low or zero gravity... so there wouldn't really be any reason why you couldn't apply 10 layers of tier 10 combat steel - and we're back in square one.
     
    #49
  10. Frankyln

    Frankyln Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2015
    Messages:
    1,629
    Likes Received:
    1,435
    How is that any different than now?
    We have choices for armor but no one uses less powerful forms. When the last time you saw a ship not made of combat steel. Tier armor is just a time sink. If we have different armors they need totally different properties above and beyond hp/armor values. These properties would need both positive and negative factors. Like dark matter armor. Extreamly dense/mass good armor value but also causes kinetic weapons to accelerate increasing damage inflicted.
     
    #50
  11. Nogitsune

    Nogitsune Commander

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2017
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    140
    Well, my two first CVs were made of material other than combat steel - first one because I couldn't afford more, second because I built it to be 'upgradeable'. Anyway the point there was that the previous posts gave me the impression of the idea being to move purely to balancing things based on mass, not so much volume.

    I don't see much point in making armor that's good against one weapon type and bad against the others - outside some specific purpose SV and HV, you generally can't tell in advance what kind of fire you'll be taking - and so you'll need to prepare equally for everything.

    Possibly if there was no downsides, but you'd have a mutually exclusive list of bonuses - something like...
    type 1: +20% energy resistance
    type2: +20% kinetic resistance
    type 3: -20% mass
    type 4: -30% production costs
    I could see most combat ships picking 1 or 2, most transport and utility ships picking type 3, and some cheap, expendable ships picking type 4. Preferrably you could later on pay material costs (and some time), and refit the ship hull to different type. Well I guess if the cost is same it's mostly about time - but I imagine different types could use different materials (in which case you'd probably pay some resources and get others in return).
     
    #51
  12. Frankyln

    Frankyln Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2015
    Messages:
    1,629
    Likes Received:
    1,435
    That's the whole point you don't know what your going to find. You may be prepared or you may be in trouble. It survival.

    This also applies to the attacker they may have the inappropriate weapons to hurt you. This assumes weapons have specialized properties too

    I believe in Choice and Consequence you need to take the good with the bad, how will you armor your ship. If you stack every armor type on you will also have a lot of negitives or do you strategically place armor at key areas.
     
    #52
    geostar1024 likes this.
  13. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    1,751
    You pretty much just described the armor system that Mechwarrior has (reflective, reactive, and ferro-fibrous armor); I could get behind this (though I tended to just use ferro-fibrous most of the time since I didn't know what would be shooting at me).
     
    #53
  14. Nogitsune

    Nogitsune Commander

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2017
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    140
    Survival doesn't happen playing rock-paper-scissors with death. It happens being prepared to EVERYTHING you may encounter. If armor A is neutral (+0 against everything), and armor B is +50 against something and -50 against something else, you use armor A, and plan everything else so you'll survive against attack that happens at +0 - or you die. With armor B you'll have to always prepare against attacks that happen against your -50 resist, or you die - because eventually it'll happen.

    You can stack multiple armor types, but even without specific 'negatives', there's still some things you need to consider. First, only your outer layer is facing the attacks - if it doesn't have the specific bonus against the current attack, it'll be worn out faster. Second, it's still a choice - if you use 2 layers of armor, you can use one against energy and one against kinetic.. or you can stack two layers of kinetic.. or you can use three layers of armor with reduced mass.

    Technically there's no difference between:
    type 1: +20 against kinetic, -20 against energy
    type 2: +20 against energy, -20 against kinetic
    type 3: +0 against everything
    .. and ..
    type 1: +40 against kinetic
    type 2: +40 against energy
    type 3: +20 against everything

    At least to me, the third one there would be the only option.

    Or Elite: Dangerous, or probably a great number of other games that deal with different armor types.

    And yes, that's my point. If survival matters, anyone with half a sense will pick the 'generic' armor if others include penalties against some attack types - unless you have some other protection against that type. Either way, when attack type is unknown, your defenses have to balance out as far as possible. This is especially true if you can't easily swap between types.. because you WILL be attacked by the type you are weakest against, sooner or later.

    Of course if you can pick and choose your battles then it's different - then you stack defenses against one specific type, and simply don't fight anything else. Which is boring, but effective.

    In my opinion the 'choice' only really exists if you can pick one advantage out of several possible, without getting a penalty along with it. Your 'penalty' is that you didn't pick any of the other options, which someone else did. You're still in disadvantage with your +20 kinetic armor in a laser fight against someone who had +20 energy armor.. but anything else is on equal terms - you don't specifically gimp yourself against certain attack type.
     
    #54
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2017
  15. Arrclyde

    Arrclyde Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2015
    Messages:
    626
    Likes Received:
    455
    Nobody has ever said a SV should be a match for a CV. And i would never said that. As much as i think taking on a base should be huge undertaking for multiple vessels (CVs, SVs, and HVs alike), at least in multiplayer, i think about the same way that a CV should shred single SVs to pieces if they get to close.


    Say hello to homing missiles. Sure, everybody brave enough to attack a CV with his little fighter SV should have a tough time fighting. BUT i highly disagree. If we are talking about standard fighter taking on a behemoth of a CV with max turret count there should be no way for the SV to just destroy that CV, but the say way the SV can't ever shred the CV the CV shouldn't ever be able to catch that SV because of speed. In this case balance beats reality.


    No no no no and no. Bad idea from a balance perspective as it promotes griefing and cheap gameplay. Again, even IF the owner of that base is online and even IF there would be a device to track underground activities, digging right under the enemies base and possible destroy the base because of SI, there should never ever be a possibility to pull up this cheap and cowardly style of gameplay. Because it is just too easy to load a bunch of digtool charges and just invest time, while building a big, well layed out and fortified base takes a whole lot (and a lot more) time and effort.

    In order to allow "death form beneath" type of attack, bases should not have SI tied to being attached to the ground in order to allow turret placement all around the base above AND below the ground, guarding a full 360°. Then, and only then digging up to an enemies base should be possible.

    Tunneling is in my opinion (and i guess i am not alone) not a "unique mode of play". It is just a lazy, cowardly and easy way of play, since the person doing it saves him or her self a lot of trouble dealing with defenses, knowing that it is NOT possible to secure the base from under the ground than it is to secure from attacks above the ground.

    My opinion: This way to play shouldn't be possible for more reasons than it should be possible. Eliminate that to 100% and you eliminate a lot of trouble while only cut away a tiny little bit of gameplay value.

    p.s.: Offline protection should kick in AN HOUR after the last memeber left the game? Why? Leave an exploit to all those griefers stalking said member just to know when they have an one hour timeframe to smash those bases? Offline protection should NOT kick in immediately after the last member left. But a 2/5/10 minute delay is more than enough. And if anybody is in a fight (or their vessels/bases) are getting shot at, Offline protection should kick in later to prevent abuse for coward players. But logging out when a fight starts is only for people that love to raid offline bases or dig a tunnel to avoid defenses. If they leave the game and never come back, i say there isn't much of a loss anyways. ;-)
     
    #55
  16. Gawain

    Gawain Commander

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2017
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    99
    The problem is the more you diminish that vale between SV and CV the more justification you give to eliminating one or the other. Honestly if I could build CVs out of small block I would, simply for the Durability and Reduction to Splash Damage, considering splash damaged only counts blocks not AOE. Give SVs the ability to warp and Dock HVs without compensating with huge negatives to fuel and pentaxid than CVs fade into memory. I have subscribed to class size 80ish ships off the workshop. Nothing will stop Players from make super SV/CVs class size = hundreds when their are so many servers with unrestricted class size restrictions.

    This goes back to the Lowest Common Denominator Discussion, where as, you are excluding people with average PCs and poor Internet to play single player or an extremely limited number of servers, as the bulk will be set to the performance standards of the host. Statistically the host of a server will have a performance system and good internet, thus the common denominator will experience lag and game crashes to the point of a balance tipping tactical disadvantage. This is easy to denounce when you have a competitive system and decent internet, but it is hard to ignore if you lack either. To an extent this is already a problem the Devs are combating. There is no point to play a MMORPG that you can not enjoy with your friends.

    Solution to the OP


    1) Redefine the HP & weight of all blocks based on their volume/shape and re-add "Interior Blocks" as a light weight material with minuscule HP. You could even have them require low utilized mats like plastic and wood.

    2) Redefine CV mass to make it unpractical in thrust and RCS to have more than one layer of armor, by sharply increasing the tonnage of harden and combat steal, and turn offline protection into a 60m spherical DS (Defense Screens) while players are online. DS = Slowly recouping HP Field. Diminish CV DS while in Atmosphere for balance. Include linked vessels when factoring CV mass.

    3) Increase the range of BA turrets and lock on, vs players, so that the short range turrets like the BA (mini) exceed that of the CV (artillery), while changing turret articulation to shoot 90 degrees strait up. Then unrestricted CV turret use. This will prevent CVs from firing at a safe distance as multiple BA turrets will be able to lock on, making it more practical to use an SV without limiting CVs. As combat render distances is based on player location, it would not be difficult to extend the firing range into the players bubble based on cords. The guns would not even have to render, and it could be assumed that they all have vantage. This would create a second bubble where it was worth it to get inside the firing range of your vessel in order to limit opposing turret vantages.

    With the small exception of the OLP code modification, everything else is simply adjusting per-existing code settings. End result is, CVs and BAs are balanced and more practically designed. SVs and HVs still have a valuable roll to play in BA/CV capture.
     
    #56
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2017
  17. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    1,751
    Sigh. I said "ideal world" for a reason; I understand the performance implications of many small versus a few large blocks, so I'm not saying that SVs and CVs can be merged in this game. But, that doesn't stop me from wanting to find ways to avoid unnecessary hard specialization.

    Anyway, I agree with all of your proposals (I'd like to see a slightly more complicated shield system, rather than just tying to offline protection, though). Obviously, if all of those proposals are implemented, most, if not all, ship designs will be made obsolete; this doesn't bother me personally, but you might find a lot of unhappy players.
     
    #57
  18. ☣.C.H.U.D.☣

    ☣.C.H.U.D.☣ Commander

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2015
    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    221
    OMG!! i swear if you fools break anything.........

    -Just make CVs not enter atmosphere like we talked about on other Post
    -Beef SV armor and make HV dockable to them
    -Make Base blocks (steel) 1200 instead of 500.
    -Keep combat steel at (2000)
    -Lower window grates to 1000
    -And for the love of pete....Can we get a Space Base block that can Warp.(I think Ground base and Spacebase should be different blocks totally)

    I swear you people over complicate things and the PVPers are just looking for Griefing Holes to put there galactic salamis in.
    Most of those Trolls are people from Other games hating on this game.......I mean look how many Games came out after Empyrion started taking over the Space Genre.
    Im Sure SE has a major Boner for this game....you can see it in the Forums from the SE players "The hate"
     
    #58
  19. Gawain

    Gawain Commander

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2017
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    99
    The down side to this is massive space parking lots. I dont care much for the parking lots regardless, but I find it more convenient that they stay on land rather than in space. If I warp into a sector I should not suffer mass lag just to load 50 ships. Depending on your scenario the warp corridors are narrow or all over the place. Some maps require 15 jumps from one side to the other just to get rare oars or NPC items. Hitting a PVE space is like hitting a speed bump from hell.

    True but we have seen this many times. When they reduce the max block dimensions many ships when to the scrap heap. As they introduced different mats the soft steal ships became unpractical. More recently Air Pressure and so on.

    Changes are going to happen. It is up to the players to keep their deigns up to date.
     
    #59
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2017
    geostar1024 likes this.
  20. ☣.C.H.U.D.☣

    ☣.C.H.U.D.☣ Commander

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2015
    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    221
    I honestly dont see any of these problems with the game that everybody talks about here.
    My WarShip is 32x25x135 (class 14) and the only Lag i ever get is when the 2 Gravity generator conflict with each other.
    There isnt anything in it yet either (im working on it)
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    And why would Park right up on me?
    If we had Space Bases like i siad it would solve the "parking lot issue"
    Then using your CV would only consist of going places Without taking your base.
    But then why not Dock your CV/SV to a Warping Space base?
    Makes since to me

    Another reason for the Massive lag is because Bullets pound through 5 layers of Combat steel (stupid)
    Maybe if they Fixed the Lag Shot and all that stuff we wouldn't have to make such big ships.
    3-4 layers of Combat steel will do it but as of now we need 6-7 to be safe.
    Then you have these Fools running Big servers on Grandma's 1990 computer and they wonder why it sucks...
    you feel me...its Human error and some Programing Errors
     
    #60

Share This Page