DivineEvil

Frequency of visiting merchants and their cargo capacity does not have a stable scaling, so there's no reliable way to predict how well you'll align to circulation. Also, the frequency of visiting ships depends neither on supply nor demand - it depends on the price multiplier set on your facility. Higher multiplier means you'll sell goods higher (on top of what demand/offer defines as the base regional value), but fever merchants will come over for the offer. Either way, you'll have to first observe whether the station runs dry and then upgrade it or change the price multiplier based on these observations.

A Fighter design and Turret design are both completely independent features of the corresponding items. A Turret design is a property of Turret Base block, not the turret item, so when you place any turret on a turret base block, it will inherit the design from that base. A Fighter design is just a model of the fighter item. It can look whatever you make it, and it will always fire from the front middle of the model no matter what turret was used to make it. FIghters do not carry turrets - they're more like flying turrets themselves.

Well, the way I do it, is while I pilot the Station Founder ship, I: - First, mark a sector directly up (North) for jump and align the ship to the jump direction. - Then mark a sector directly to the right (East), and align the ship so that jump direction is exactly to the right (roll only). - This makes the ship aligned exactly to the galactic plane looking North, so then I found a station. - You should make sure the station has a large mass and comfortable docking bays so that you won't knock it off by any means. Sadly If you do, there would be no way to correct it accurately. Honestly, I think stations should at least have Gyros operational if you place them.

This will not work. Such a small IFG block will not produce a field large enough to cover any of the blocks. Again, IFG block produces a field exactly 5 times the given dimension from its center in every direction and that field affects blocks with their center inside of it. A small 0.001^3 block will only produce a field of 0.01^3 around itself. Touching plays no role in that principle.

Probably. Maybe they can also give something else, like improving the efficiency of other systems or giving adaptive turret slots. Something, really. 5x Processing Power to potentially get another system slot isn't nearly enough to compensate for the price of the block. Maybe for smaller ships to fit more durability into a cheap escort ship, but eh.

And Transporter systems active range stacks, so if you don't have much else to put into system slots, those a good bet. Mines and raw material stations produce a sheer profit. Factory chains multiply that profit, but without raw materials provided beforehand, they're a pain and doesn't worth the investment.

Technically it doesn't matter. Every IFG block has exactly 10 times the coverage in a given dimension relative to its own size in that dimension, effectively 9 times if the IFG block is excluded, from its center to the center of the farthest block it can cover. How would you divide it is largely irrelevant. You're good as long as fields generated do not intersect each other. Two nearby blocks with fields directly adjacent to one another are just as effective as one block of equal volume in the middle. If you're very meticulous about it, you can reduce the amount of IFG blocks even below 1% of Processing Power, but it is way too much bother that it worth.

1) Also content with the current system. There's never a need for an equal amount of engine power for reverse, and a lesser amount of that power is achievable through Directional Thrusters facing forwards, which also can work for Pitch and Yaw given the correct placement. Even if there were an ability to place Engines in reverse, I would not do that. 2) Yep, creative freedom. There's no point in forcing players to keep things exposed, especially if its primarily only achieves people unable to make awesome engine designs. The functionality of IFG blocks already nullifies any combat-balance impact of such an approach anyway. 3) Bigger turrets do have greater damage and range. Randomness plays the same purpose as with any game that has variable loot. There are better and worse weapons to find and use. And like have been noted, any turret can be reproduced. My multiple gripes with weapons do not include their randomness.

Mines do work well also, with profits relative to the cost of founding one and given good local price-from-demand multiplier. They're not as good as a mining ship, but the profit is more stable and doesn't require orders, turrets or modules and independent from the location. XXL Noble Metal and Zinc mines with good storage space can shovel pretty good credits into your pockets reliably. Advanced stations really only worth it if you need their products for Turret production, otherwise, they're too much hassle to establish trade routes between.

I would prefer to have a feature of Scanner System Upgrades, which gives them an ability to mark items in space in the same way the Mining system works. At the moment I do not see any point in sacrificing a slot for a Scanner, so maybe that can change my opinion.

Yeah... known problem. Due to that, I just immediately select the salvager and order it to jump to a nearby sector. That avoids any potential issues. I still think we at least need an option for a permanent salvaging license and have argued for it.

When I build early-game miners/salvagers/freighters, and when I build stations. First, civilian ships rarely have to deal with enemy fire when ordered remotely - they're only in danger when you've recently left the sector yourself and it is still simulated, or just happened to do something in the same sector. I still give each and every ship a 50% processing power as hull and armor, but the IFG is unnecessary and its volume is better used for additional Cargo capacity. Second, I make stations to have a large redundancy of Hull Points and repair them using Repair Turrets. Using IFGs for such a large structure would be wasteful and isn't really needed. Large amounts of Stone and Hull on their own are enough and cheap. Well, you can ignore whatever you decide to. Personally, I begin with the IFG block in the middle and then build everything else around it, so there's no "fitting in" involved. I've performed extensive testing and analysis to arrive at proportional needs for different block types in a ship for optimal function. You only need 2.5% (1/40 of the target PP) of volume as IFG core to cover the rest of the ship in its field, given the proportions of the block exactly resemble the proportions of the ship you want to build. It's just an analogy. IFG is interesting in that its a pre-shield technology, that makes Hull and Armor competitive with the Shields. You either have to adapt your entire build to the proportions of the IFG you placed first (simple), or you have to place IFGs in optimal locations to cover the outer hull leaving the internals unaffected (efficient). There are choices to be made and preferences to decide upon, the same as with Thrusters and Gyros. Also, a good reason to have some doodads on your hull, other than just looks.

Yes. It is NOW true, because it was a fairly recent buff, for the reason that just 10x of the block HP bonus was often neglected for the price. Because it is not equivalent. One solid block in the middle of the ship made to its proportions covers the rest of the build most of the time. It's not complicated. When he doesn't want to spend unnecessary resources and credits on something that isn't meant to take damage or places an emphasis on Shields. I disagree because its a feasible functional block with an appropriate price. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it in relation to other block types. It's like arguing why thrusters and gyros work in relation to CoM, too complicated, let's just make them indifferent, or why do we need cargo blocks, it's too complicated, let's just give cargo capacity by volume. No, it's not complicated, and there's no way to turn a localized field effect into a global modification without losing the principle, and placement of gyros/thrusters is an order-of-magnitude more of a chore than IFGs.

It seems unnecessary, as collision damage reduction is a very particular and largely irrelevant figure, that appears to relate to block's own resistance to collision. It's not like Avorion spaceships actively employ ramming, so I don't think we need to change anything about IFG for that negligible interaction. If you do want to build a ramming ship, then the use of larger blocks for the ship's bow comes naturally.

Energy weapons work from a battery, which they first need to charge. Once it is charged, they become operational.

Completely agree. The only limitation should be that Coaxial Weapons has to be Manual, as it would not make sense for them to be automatic. Absolutely all Turrets should be Independent by default, and if the player wants to guide them manually or give them to their teammates to control, they already can. Not only this distinction seems to be completely meaningless, but IT turrets right now are so rare, that you'll never get to enjoy the expected broadside, capital ship combat. If developers want to balance things up, then they should consider another targeting principle which I've already mentioned in the Beta forums, which still tracks and fires automatically, but only do so against the currently selected target - these turrets should instead get a 20% damage bonus. If they want people to be active in battle, there has to be a benefit to do so, because at the moment it is limited to two giant ships facing each-other and measuring who got better omicrons. Automated weapons is what actually would allow for maneuvering in combat. If maneuvering is something that has to be encouraged, then introduce accuracy penalties against moving targets and more strict traversal limitations for heavier weapons. They also should rebalance the scaling to prevent overpowered weapons with insane damage-type modifiers - I cannot recall a single game in 20 years, that made a weapon feasible by making it do triple damage against something. In the current state of balance, there are best weapons to use, and everything else is garbage - it prevents any counterplay or tactics, and all you need is better weapons of the same type with best stats and no associated upkeep/demand.

I'm sorry but it looks like an unnecessary function to cover for your bad decisions. - You should never spend all of your resources or money to build something, and even if you do, you should be able to purchase some resources or earn some credits shortly to perform repairs. You always should have at least 10% of the materials left unspent for potential repairs regardless of the size of the ship you're building and stage of the game you're playing. - If you have lost something important on the ship, then having a button is not going to help, since you won't have materials to replace it anyway, and minor decorative stuff can be discarded. If you do have the materials, then use the Repair Dock. - You also can filter visibility to restore particular blocks inside the ship, as long as you have at least some idea what those blocks may be. I may see why players might like this button, but I generally oppose new functions, that are suggested to be introduced merely to alleviate very few particular mistakes people do and the consequences that those people are too bored to deal with themselves. When there's a button to solve every self-inflicted issue, people become lazy and don't get to improve their problem-solving skills.

Yes, Independent Targeting turrets do target anything in their arc of fire, but when attached to AI vessel they simply have no time to clear out the fragments as AI vessel quickly moves on considering its work done. And yes, there's a config setting for objects to despawn. The issue is that it's not set up by default to make salvaging work cleanly, and the game on release should not force anyone to manually adjust the config to do so. If changing the server config variable can settle down the issue, then it has to be set to be that from the start.

Currently, AI-controlled ships ordered to salvage will ignore non-material-bearing wreckage fragments. In practice that leads to them leaving a large cluster of unrecovered blocks remaining from the original ship wreckage. Over time this results in thousands upon thousands of individual entities, each consisting of one or two tiny blocks and producing their own spark particles. The amount of those entities leads to massive server load upon entering the sector, and can even cause it to stop functioning, freezing and ultimately shutdown (including single-player). There should be some solution to that issue introduced for the game release to keep Scrapyards viable and prevent them from causing grief. Either AI ships should salvage absolutely everything as base behavior, or there should be some algorithm for quick despawn of barren scraps, that would prevent them from accumulating in Scrapyard sectors. Any action will be very appreciated. Thank you)

And how else is it supposed to display it? One number displays how many items you need to craft the turret, another displays how many you have on board.

Why tho? They are already always on top of the list, and you can name them whatever you want to differentiate.

Ship's actions are simulated just like in the sector you're currently are. There are no formulas. It is not rendered to your display, but the ships move, mine and perform any other actions just like if you were present, and if you switch to the sector, you can enter into the ship in the middle of performing its current task. As far as I can tell, new ships will not be spawned into the sector. When you have too many ships in too many different sectors, this can lead to massive lags due to real-time processing, and that is why the number of active sectors is limited (to 5 by default, IIRC). When the limit is exhausted, the oldest sector activated is cached and doesn't allow action simulation.

Well, it comes down to making a functional name generation, that is based on syllables instead of a random string. Whether it is done through picking random syllable count and generating the name from that number of syllables, or by generating a short random string and then replacing every symbol with a randomly associated syllable, either way, it is going to be a grueling task. Perhaps there's a script for that already made by someone at this point, eh? I would like this to be addressed eventually too.

Just a minor note, a color closer to the one seen in FPA ships is Pale Green family - particularly Solar Pale Green seems to be the closest match. Otherwise, very well done.

I would prefer to have three armament behavior models: - Direct Control: Dedicated to coaxial weapons and rare turrets further into progression and reflect the current default model. You have to operate them yourself, and AI ships should have behavior to allow their deliberate use over any other weapons (i.e. keep distance strafing and fire at will). Coaxial weapons should be available from the very start. Range, damage, recoil and power demand modifiers apply as usual. - Manual Targeting: Work as IT turrets, but only operate against the currently selected target (when valid for the given turret type). I.e. if you have MT turreted weapons active, they will track and fire into the hostile target you've selected and nothing else. - Independent Targeting: Current version, automatically pick any valid targets in range. 20% penalty on damage and range, 20% increase to energy drain.