Akeno017

Title should make it fairly clear. I find myself constantly having to use weird workarounds and other methods to remove turret designs that have been applied to my ship. This is absurdly frustrating, as it is incredibly easy to apply any number of turret designs to turrets via the method: 1. Select Desired Turret Bases 2. Enter Save menu, Locate turret design 3. Hit "Apply Design" to apply it to turret bases. My suggestion is very simple, add a 2nd button here to also REMOVE designs from selected turrets. This will greatly help with ship building for people who use this.

Before we even start considering improving upon these most basic of game functions... we need to make sure they work in the first place. Right now when I search "r-", "r-salv", "r-min" or simply "bolter" the search will EXCLUDE turrets that specifically include that string in its name. What kind of search only shows you half the results? How did this even happen when 1.3.8 had a perfectly functional search term. Limited in scope maybe but at least it worked.

This was a feature in version 1.1.2 I first noticed it missing in 1.3.8.

It "doest fit the Dev's vision of the game". The best you can hope for is a mod that'll scale ship volume accordingly. Alas "The Convoy" has shown that the procedural designer is incapable of handling ships of any magnitude close to the typical post-barrier player driven vessel. As well as performance issues then arising from the bigger ships, the blocks being destroyed and most importantly (the more weapons they'd require).

This is an argument to be made for every blocktype in the same, one that has been done before with various degrees of success (see addition of angled CQ blocks) As for why its not been done, likely because of the effort needed to implement vs. presumed benefit or simply not fitting in "The Dev's Vision".

The thing you mentioned with boarding used to happen. This was a serious, game-breaking bug, as it allowed players using those ships were able to reach hundred million omicron values on vanilla gameplay. Where a ship equipped with 80 anti-fighter guns would have several million DPS and could devour every enemy in the game as if it was but a fly. I'd love to see it come back, but there was a strong reason it was removed. Personally I would rather see difficulty in the form of larger ships of the line with more capable and numerous weapon systems than simply artificially applying a blanket damage boost to the same sized ships you'd fight dependant on region.

Currently ingame, there is absolutely zero reason to build the Solar Panel blocks ingame. As titanium (which can be found in the spawn system) generators are just superior. This is only worsened by the progression further in the game as generators with each tier progressively produce more and more power, while Solar Panels recieve no similiar gains. Some Examples: 100x1x100 Titanium Solar Panel: 20.4Gw 100x1x100 Titanium Generator: 825Gw 100x1x100 Ogonite Solar Panel: 20.4Gw 100x1x100 Ogonite Generator: 1500Gw If the same scaling of Titanium>Ogonite is applied to solar panels, the resultant power output would be 36.72Gw.

I would love rotating components like such, but the Engine and PC performance might not.

I vehemently disagree with anything that limits creativity.

1000x agree with this point entirely. The only benefit to the Outwards>Inwards progression is the forced clumping of players around 0:0 making player interaction on servers a thing. Add this to the fact that the two main endgame content is essentially a map-wide trolling mechanism after a server lagging fight and a scaled up version of the 2nd encountered boss in a higher material. Kinda makes you pine for more content for sure.

The issues are probably that the game has long periods of what is essentially "AFK Farming", as the means of progression in the game. Usually directly related to acquiring new materials, enough of a material to build a ship or generating credit income. Spread this around as the core of the game and the relatively light action and the game is more of a spreadsheet numbers then it is a pewpew space game. I'm not say whether its what you want to hear, but the current best solution is probably to have them play together, or play with you. Turn the engagement away from the game itself and towards playing and having fun together and it might help alleviate the issue. Alternatively you could take them to xanion/ogonite regions where the game has the most amount of action/fights, which is where the engagement/immersion for me truly begun.

Simple suggestion. Issue: Ogonite is one of the least used and less liked materials due to its weight (second only to iron) and lack of useful blocks. Solution: Add Ogonite Shield Generators/Hyperspace Cores, these blocks strike a middle ground between mid-game xanion and late-game avorion but trade their performance for heavier weight values. IMHO, this wouldn't do much more then add to potential creativity, Ogonite is an unpopular block being between the mass-acquirable Xanion and the late-game avorion and would remain such. Adding additional blocks to this material type would simply allow for Ogonite-Users to have more creativity over their builds, while potentially allowing for more people to make use of this material type from those willing to trade some agility for higher performance, without the costs associated with Avorion.

As the title suggests, I think that the hardcap of 15 slots at ~150k processing power could stand to be increased. A ship with 750k processing power is very achievable for post-barrier (even pre-barrier if you work for it a bit) but has no slot-advantages over them, despite having the processing power equivilent to 5 15 slot vessels or 75 slots worth. Arguably 75 slots is a tad overkill, and when you consider that the PP requirement scales for each new slot is an unlikely value. So Personally I would suggest a gradual increase to 30 slots total at 3million processing power for a boring vanilla-esq change. This is where I believe computer cores can be given a useful niche by changing the current processing power given to be a separate value that instead creates its own unique set of 15 slots, adding up to a total of 30. These new versions of computer cores would be costly for the vessel, such as large power requirements, large weight or volume required. This would create limitations on the design they would be used on, such as drastically reduced mobility or dedicating large spaces that would otherwise be used for shields/cargo to them, naturally shifting the likely use of them towards capital ships as intended. This creates an intended trade of current capital ships by choosing between blocks such as shields for computer cores (in turn more slots) to make a tankier vessel or a more general purpose one.

Make the stock that appears based on the material lvl. IE Refining at 0:0 500k of each material adds the expected amt of each to the depot. Refining at the barrier adds the expected amt of each but not avo/ogo, reducing down to titanium at the farthest reaches etc

Sorry but I'll have to disagree here, I think there is nothing uglier in the game than the thrusters texture and I'm loath to put any block to that fate. As for how they would handle the new textures, you can actually see this yourself through a display error. Where changing large amounts of blocks at once will cause various display issues (such as an edge appearing with shield generator or framework textures. Its a little buggy and random but its what initially made me think "why don't we have these".

Crew Quarters was a massive step in the right direction, life is so much easier now.. I definitely think theres room for things like Cargo Hold Edges or Framework Edges, not 100% sure about techno blocks but I'm fine with them if others are!

If you simply want to "delete a damaged ship", then its easily possible. Repair > Discard Damaged Blocks > Select Entire Ship > Delete.

Currently, the only blocks with Edge counterparts offer little functionality beyond health, mass and volume, this means that designs with large edge or corner blocks suffer from significant "deadweight" blocks. Normally this is countered by removing the large edge pieces for smaller ones with internal blocks inside, such as thrusters to move the additional mass, however this leads to high block counts and lower performance. Edge blocks of things such as Crew Quarters, Cargo Bays, Assemblys etc, would allow for a high-performance block count design that retains functionality in these blocks. Secondly, Edge blocks of additional block types will make outer appearances better, expanding build possibilities. As this image of one of my ships shows, There is an abrupt halt in the "windowed effect" on the side of the vessels bow, thanks to the lack of a crew quarters edge, this is also true on other parts of the vessel with corners present. The above issue also results in that part of the vessel consisting of over 25% the total blockcount, while less then 20% of the mass. I don't personally believe that aesthetic design choices like this would result in an imbalance, especially compared to the "block stacked cube" build, and would allow for better creativity through better enabling non-cuboid shaped designs.

First off, no this is not on my end, trust me I'd know if I had a ping like this on my general connection. Should take care of "Are you sure its not your network" questions. Currently connecting to any Avorion server, whether hosted or dedicated gives me ping of 16,000 to upwards of 580,000. It seems to always occur between 20:00 and 24:00 UK time and is entirely random outside of these 2 variables is completely random, including affected servers. Because this occurs on multiple servers and the common dominator is me, its a good guess that it is something on my end causing this and I have clue what and googling has revealed no similar issues for me. This leaves me to asking here in hope that somebody may know what is causing this. Thanks in advance.