Correct. Even on planets, how shall I disassemble a 20 level high Base? Or repair my own Base? -> Build a Tooling-Mini-CV. NOT. What shall I do with it when I leave this planet / system? CV <-> CV Docking is actual not possible AND WILL PERHAPS NEVER be because of same-class problem (@Hummel-o-War has said this a while ago). So on one hand I have to build multiple disposable throwaways, on the other hand I am not allowed to on most servers. @Kieve there is a problem here.
Exactly. I get the need to add more function to an HV to make them more desired in game, but this is not the way to do it. There are so many issues that arise by enforcing the player to make a small CV, or attempt to dismantle a tall structure from the ground. What players will find out is that large farming CV's are not "efficient" and that multitool built HV's are essentially useless when you have to get our and jet pack to the top of a structure, else you lose half the structure when its integrity fails. We are opening a can of worms and force feeding them to get nice and fat.
I'm using verifiable data to back up my point that People already prefer to build SVs over HVs. It may not be a 100% accurate accounting of everyone who's ever played Empyrion, but it serves the purpose well enough. If you require correlation, consider also that the Small Vessel topic for BPs here has nearly 1500 replies and over 187,000 views - compared to the Hover Vessel with 417 / <50k. SVs are already the "golden child," even with their "limited" abilities of flying/shooting/carrying cargo (and now, warping). That's moot, actually. And you think that will change in the HV's favor if SVs are given new equipment? C'mon, I know you're smarter than that. I'm not going to say it's a saving grace for HVs the way mining was, but it gives them more options in the "utility" category, a role in which they are already serving. SVs are, by design, not serving in this role at all. And while I actually do agree that arbitrarily restricting X, Y, or Z to a specific class of vessel is not ideal game design (something I do have a little experience of my own with, after all), it's the route that EGS seems to have chosen for their game. As far as HVs "failing" in that role, part of it's a balance issue to be worked out, and part of it I suspect is just that you haven't found a design that suits the role yet. The former is being worked on already, and I'm sure you'll figure out the latter problem eventually, if you choose to.
That's simply WRONG. People do prefer subscribing to SVs more than HVs. Heck I even could argue with this numbers against you and/or @Pyston saying people find it easier to build HVs than building SVs, because they need more SV-Workshop items to download... See how WRONG this argument is?! I'm really getting the view you never have actively used HVs and SVs and CVs in actual longer gameplay. I repeat myself: With a HV?? I CAN NOT. Besides you give the Multitool-Turret a range of 1000 meters and some Bubble effect feature. You can't balance this issue out...
@Kieve @rucky @Pyston . Gentlebeings! If I may point out you have forgotten one thing that is likely going to tip the balance a little more towards the center. This is Volume-wise True, However, When cargo actually has Mass to it I think you will find the SV? don't carry so much no more. My train of thought that leads me to this? Look at the thrust the hover-pods produces. Currently, Sm, Md, SM 1x3x1 thrusters for an SV produce .32, .23, and 1.6 kN per 1 kg while Hover pods are 1.0 and 1.3 kN/kg. HV's will Likely have MUCH more cargo capacity because their operational ceiling is only 3 m...... and the thrusters they use to get to that ceiling are HUGELY more efficient than anything near the same block count on SV's. SV's Rely on Thrust only, HV's get a huge benefit from Ground effect on weight capacity. Aside from the Dissing on or Saying that HV's lack use.... I use them more than I do SV's just not in the usual manners. SV's I use when I am scouting or fighting. HV's? Scouting, fighting, mining, area denial, resource scouring, dismantling of POI's, Meteorite hunting, Stationary Pre-processing stations, etc etc. I think most people's Problem is normal. Fighters are sexy and no one joins the Airforce to drive a Deuce-and-a-Half or an LCAC. Just my 2 cents really.
HV is very effective and effective in fighting the planet .. I can not help skipping and if somebody skips it will come a lot ... HV is very effective and effective in the fight on the planet .. I do not skip to skip and if somebody skips it comes a lot ... And as for Hv as DRILL in the ground yes it has its shortcomings .. In the beginning it was much worse when I I wish I did not have to dig with them in the country. Now it has improved in many ways HV as a good fun
You are absolute right! When Cargo comes into the equation, things going toward the HV even more! HVs: Dissassemble HUGE structures (when you can get in range of the blocks that is), because you can take all ressources and gimmicks back to home. SVs: For the specialised roles in Space and at high level buildings. This would be PERFECT balancing.
You conflate the desire to build an SV with current game mechanics and are trying to solve this issue with game mechanics. I already explained why people do not build HV's and none of those reasons have anything to do with their role in the game. Its more of a psychological issue than anything, and also the perception. You are correct, I blame auto correct and fat fingering. Also, when I typed "fingering" I had "gingering" would you like to educate me on that as well? No, HV's are not going to change is my point. Dismantling a base with an HV is CUMBERSOME and makes ZERO sense. People will STILL not use HV's. So giving the SV this mechanic (which makes 100% sense in all cases) will do nothing to the HV, but will create another game ship type that can be created. I don't care. EGS is fallible, the devs are not god, do not know everything and in this regard they screwed up royally or they are listening too much to their insider group which has no design experience (which is plainly obvious). Again, HV's being used as tools to dismantle builds makes ZERO sense. Even the reason FOR giving them this utility will fall flat because they CAN NOT perform the job well. There is no way to balance the role of an HV being used to dismember a tall structure and make it work. You either have to cheese it by making the HV do a one shot, dismantle all feature or make it fly which takes us to an SV. Secondly I have two HV's sitting on the workshop right now that prove I already found strong uses for HV's. The FACT that they suck at dismantling with the mutlitool has ZERO to do with my ability to find a use for them, I don't even know where you pulled that moronic idea out of your head.
still then you can't repair the angular point of your Cheese dome Base... ;-) (besides the turret even has shoot-through capabilities...)
Well, at this point I have just one question... Considering multitool requires maneuverability above all, does anybody find a forklift unable to turn good for the job it's supposed to do? I begin to think that the whole idea of these turrets was to convince us that yes, it can be worse than doing it with the drone... The "ballance" argument is not valid here at all, just admit it...
I know some Gingers I would like to Fat-finger. Aside from that, I think it would serve everyone better if Balancing was left until After most of the game is finished... FFS gravity from planets Doesn't effect vehicles Until they are in the atmosphere... if you think most things will have a bigger impact than That on fights in vacuum in a gravity well, think again. Games-a-changing Daily, Might do to wait a bit before stirring vigorously.
This was my train of thought too. I was also thinking about what would make a HV more desirable than an SV in 'real life' and I think it would be cost. It must be far cheaper to produce something that hovers along than something which can leave the atmosphere. Maybe this is where the balancing should lie. I'm afraid I don't know what it takes to make hover engines vs SV thrusters, it might already be far cheaper. Are all the HV components cheaper to produce? This hits the nail on the head and I admit to that being my motivation. As I'm mostly in creative mode, spaceships just seem far more exciting to make.
For the record, I think the Balance lays in the favor of the SV's already. Mobility is a Huge part of their utility. They are Faster than anything else in the game. Any balancing, currently to me, would either come in increasing the capabilities of the HV or adding a midsize orbital vessel to take the HV roles space-borne.
Of course the figures are skewed that way. Everyone travels along the ground, every day. Not that many people get to fly and even less get to fly their own aircraft, or space vessel!
Exactly. The list of pop culture spaceships far out weighs the list of pop culture hover craft and that reason stems from what you posted. Spaceships are simply more interesting. In the world of "I made some stuff and now I am going to show if off" (the workshop) people will gravitate towards builds that garner them favor. Basic human psychology, we all want to be accepted. What gets your more accepted, building a cool spaceship? Or a lame HV? (note: I LOVE HV's).
Neither should matter in the end equation But they do. Anyhoo, to reiterate my point, seeking more utility for a vehicle is desirable. However, seeking balance it of limited utility. All going out the window with non-alpha release and modding anyhow. Try not to draw too much blood folks.
That's true, but to me the question arises wha do the devs even care about things like that, IF modding will come someday (will it?). To me this whole matter seems pretty pointless tbh. I could be wrong but the whole premise was that you can build anything and create vehicles and bases the way you like and see fit. Maybe the devs should give a simple summray on how they wish players should use certain vehicles, so we have a common ground to start a discussion at the first place. Regarding to the games vehicle classes, following would make most sense to me: HV: Planetary actions***, like combat (base attack) and mining. ---> weak against SVs. Attack against a BA (on ground) possible but difficult*. ---> drawback: bound to planetary use (obviously) Needed Changes: Heavy weapons which are able to overcome a BAs defenses, (light) energy shields SV: transportation of HVs. In space: Mining ---> Strong against HVs (use SVs for Base defense for example) ---> Drawback: Weak against BAs and CVs. Needed Changes: HV-SV docking, fixed drilling "weapon" (space only) CV: Space actions***. Transportation of SV, HV, (Space) combat against other CVs and BAs. ---> Strong against SVs. Attack against a BA (in space) possible but difficult*. ---> Drawback: cannot efficiently fight in Planetary atmospheres, almost useless against ground Bases. Many NPCs required to function effectively. Needed Changes: Energy shields, long range Space weapons (low accuracy, no "one shots" against SVs, nevertheless very dangerous against SVs.) BA: Heavy fortification (on ground and in space), basically a Sci Fi equivalent to a medieval castle. ---> Strong against SVs. Medicore against HVs (ground) and CVs (space). ---> Drawback: Cannot retreat (obviously), lots of NPCs required to fully function Needed Changes: (strong**) Energy shields, long range Space weapons (low accuracy, no "one shots" against SVs, nevertheless very dangerous against SVs.) *attacks against a good fortified BA should always be difficult imo. ** needs better protections since BAs cannot withdraw from combat. *** does not only include combat, but also exploration and long term travel and so on.
Well I think for the CV itself the Shipyard is going to be another solutions for repair for CVs. The devs still have something on the survey we took back in 2016 that is a advanced repair block and it will be able to repair and replace parts on your ship by looking at your blue print . My guess is whenever that makes it to the game then repairing your CVs will be an automated process if you want it to be. I think repairing bases still still take a lot of time but besides that I have feeling this will end up being a lot better than it appears right now
