Agreed. No matter which path the devs follow, their design decisions can't possibly please everyone. But with enough game options, they can please the vast majority. But then: Not all players are comfortable with editing text files such as the Config.ecf or .YAML files. And not all things are editable with Config or YAML. I see a lack of certain options as a real problem, not just for Empyrion, but also for most games that I have played. I think game design 101 classes should stress the importance of how adding more options to the Options menu adds a great deal to the appeal to a much broader game base. Granted, I can understand how lots of game options are irrelevant or of limited use in a multiplayer setting, since all players on a server must have the same settings and the Admin is probably comfortable enough editing .YAML or using the server tool to tweak things. However, for games that are expected to be played as single-player, options are very important. Having the Shield Generator as 3x3x3 is way too big to be practical. At most, it should be more like 3x3x2 or 4x2x2. But it is so enormous that it forces players to abandon all hope of using some old designs. Why shouldn't the expectation of making old blueprints hopelessly obsolete - without any hope of being able to update them - be considered a bad thing?
I too am a bit frustrated at how the collision(s) between constructs and landscape are now calculated. Admittedly before, it was too "loosey goosey" bordering on exploit-ridden, and likely created lots of excessive memory load situations. But the new system seems difficult to interpret. One can still place blocks that overlap with terrain and indeed a continuous string of blocks where terrain overlaps with ever single block in the string. But then sometimes, one or two blocks will inexplicable "not take" as a result of the "no empty space" effect. On visual examination, there doesn't seem to be any clear cut cues to these "high spots" where blocks will not place. Worse, when you go to use even the survival tool to reduce the volume of the blocking area it is quite difficult to reduce it in small increments. The Drill is of course even worse, and the "narrow beam" functionality doesn't seem well tuned yet.
Agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY on the "MOAR OPTIONS GUD!" principle! As far as the big ass blocks that are messing up old designs: I feel your pain! DEEPLY I've got probably 30 or 40 SVs HVs and CVs, most of which are okayish but some of which are jut NOT functional any more. *sigh* part of being involved in an Early Access game for years on end I guess *shrug*
It feels weird in Minecraft when you can build floating structures, though. I think you need something to prevent that.
I agree. But what should happen when unsupported blocks break off is this: The blocks crash to the ground and lay there for a 'reasonable' amount of time. Based on what someone on here claims (but not confirmed by me), apparently when stuff breaks off there is a short window (seconds maybe?) as it hits the ground when the rubble IS interactable and can be "F-Keyed" into the players inventory. But I think the complaint is that that duration before despawn of the model is "not reasonable."
I haven't had a problem (so far) building over water, but that may be I have a different approach. Even before SI became a factor, I built like it was because I was raised in an engineering environment. I share your frustration, however, as I don't always notice the lack of support while building or salvaging. I don't understand why you are having some of the problems building under water. Instead of trying to reinforce the structure from the end back to shore, extend from the shore in segments that follow the lakebed's slope. If for some reason, that doesn't work, perhaps you could support from above like a suspension bridge. I've never tried it, just a thought. Of course, I don't know how far you want to extend over the water, so it might bot be practical. Some of my projects have extended over 100 meters over water using the first method. Hope this helps. Good luck in any case.
Quite true. On a similar, but unrelated note, is the length of time that "warning" messages appear at the top of the screen. I've never actually timed them (they're not there long enough to time!) but I know I seldom get to read the whole message. I would sugeest that ANY pop-up message should remain on screen until the ESC key is pressed. Maybe I'm wrong, but I rhink that is possible. Sometimes these messages pop up while things are going on and your attention is NOT on the top edge od the screen. Add to the fact my eyes are getting older faster than the rest of me (not much faster, I'm afraid) it takes more time to read such things. Again, I may be wrong, but I don't think i'm alone in this.
This I disagree with. I don't want to be in the middle of a pitched battle and have a popup stuck on the screen until I hit esc.
As for most annoying single task action and combat: Picking up my backpack and nothing going to my hotbar!! Can we get a persistent hotbar? So long as we don't pick up anything else, then picking up our dropped items should put them back where they belong. Most annoying single task action for me currently: Left-Shift + F picks up Autominers instead of taking all the ore. Worse, Autominers won't connect to my ship so, second most annoying thing is pulling ore and having to go to a different window to dump into my ship.
Is it better to have the message come and go with out reading it because you were in the middle of a pitched battle? The only in-game pop-ups that I'm aware of are in the upper right corner of the screen. Not really a distraction or obstruction. But I get your point.
I would prefer to have a alert button so I can bring up a short history of alert notices the game sends you. So if I can view the past alerts no need to force you to hit enter to clear your screen. So a short history with a clear button and you could keep track of events quicker. IMO that is.
Umm, as a returning player with no experience of Alpha 9 or 10, I've got a bit of a list (sorry, maybe some of these are sorted in ways I don't know or I'm just doing them wrong) 1) Searching asteroids, finding useful ones. 2) As a separate issue - the space radar itself is not too useful in terms of lining up distant objects to travel towards, lining them up to be dead ahead is very vague and guessworky if you have no nav point. To do good space operations it really needs a good overhaul. A good thing would be to put a stick above or below a radar object in relation to you, Elite style. Another very useful tool for space (easier to implement? You've already got this in game as the symmetry plane for building) could be what they had in the X series - a holographic ecliptic plane projection that you could toggle on/off and dive through, was damn useful. Or a HUD ladder as below. 4) In the same vein, keeping yourself aligned with planet surface still a pain. I would LOVE to see a ladder on the vehicle HUDs when in planetary, so we can tell what our AOA and roll is relative to surface. 3) Getting through base or CV shutters with an SV/HV. The damn things open and close in bonkers ways. I know I can probably address this with signal logic, but the default shouldn't be as janky as it is. 5) Building with the drone - it's too squirly for accurate small block placement. It's fine for mining, but I've always felt a bit of grrrrrr when building with it. 6) Removing blocks with multi-tool in symmetry mode (required for building in survival) - doesn't remove blocks on both sides of symmetry plane. A real PITA. 7) Flying in the dark with a spotlight on but behind glass in first person. I can't see a damn thing until I'm about to hit it. In itself I don't mind this so much - low level flying in hilly/mountainous/obstruction strewn areas SHOULD be risky - but combined with the lack of altimeter, HUD ladder and so on, it's a bit rubbish. Is it because the glass is tinted that things appear fogged in spotlight? If so, clear glass please, 'cos the external view doesn't really have this problem, but I like to fly first person which IMHO certainly should be catered for. Thank you. I'm saying all this, but I'm still appreciative on Empyrion being what it is at the price point it's at. It's a good game for us space fantasists . I think in future it will be heavily challenged by Dual Universe because of the construction gameplay loops that game will have, but then not everyone will want to pay subscription. So there's till life in Empyrion, I don't know when the financial realities will hit a point that it can't be supported any more, but I greatly appreciate the way that it continues to be supported, so cheers for that .
Not necessarily something that's been hard for me, but in watching a lot of new players on youtube and twitch try the game I've realized many of them can't figure out what type of constructor is needed to build the item they just unlocked. Maybe it would be possible to add a description to the item in the unlock menu that states what level of constructor would be needed to make the item. For example: An assault rifle needs at least a small constructor but I noticed a new player struggling to figure that out
Actually, that's already done. Each item in the tech tree has color-coded dots to the left of the picture indicating which constructor can product it. A legend at the bottom of the screen matches color to constructor. However, it is easy to miss.
Those dots are hard to distinguish between blue and green as well. I hate to think what it looks like to certain color-blindness'.
It's damned hard! I AM somewhat color blind and it's a pain in the ass to make out. You'll note I mever said it was good, only that it's there. There should be an alternate means of identification. Perhaps by letter or number.
