Mesirez

I think, your and my posts simply proof that players have different expections, so it's kind of pointless to discuss. I really think that you are the one in a bubble not my. I playing Avorion casually. You obviously seem to be in the "Hardcore Avorion player"-bubble. Admitedly, I'm not on Discord but from my observation it's only the hardcore base (which are probably the same people that are on Discurd, thus the onslaught) that is so adamantly against the changes of 2.0. Just look at the Steam Reviews: Avorion is still rated "very positive". So 2.0 can't really have fucked up the game as much as you claim. Skimming through the reviews proves this. Virtually none of the recent bad reviews relate to the changes made in 2.0. And if you find bad reviews relating to 2.0, that's usually from players with 100s or 1000s of hours playtime. To me, that looks like a very loud minority. Yes, it sucks to upset a part of your core community but I think that's people how simply played so much Avorion, that they have a very narrow vision of how Avorion should be and every deviation from this is unacceptable for them. Also, technically you are right, you can call a single player game "dead". But you can also call cats "airplanes". You can call anything anything. It just doesn't mean it makes sense. Or at least elaborate how you define "dead". A "dead" game is for me an unfinished game. Avorion is not. Also, Avorion is certainly not equal parts SP and MP. And most certainly not PvP. That's the true problem of Avorion: It allows you so many different things to do, many of its players have different visions how all of these things should work.

I'm also dying to know what's going on. It's certainly true that they probably have to find out how to generate enough cash flow to keep the lights on and people paid but I don't really agree with most of the rest. First of all, I don't think you can call any single player game (and that's what Avorion mostly is) "dead" - as long as it is a finished product. I really hate how service games have somehow lead people to believe that any game you buy once should indefinetly receive updates. Avorion is a complete game. Yes, there might be still some bugs and It would be cool if many of its aspects were more fleshed out. But still, it's a complete game. Second, I actually don't really mind the changes in Avorion 2.0. I don't want or intend to (again) discuss the pros and cons of Avorion 2.0, I just don't think that players with a strong sentiment against it are in the majority.

I know, it might be a performance issue, nevertheless, I'd like to suggest it: There should be a way to make custom turret designs without having to use turret base blocks. Maybe apply the designs directly to a turret instead of the base? With a reset option. The current version with the turret base blocks can stay as it probably works in many cases. However, ther are just times where you really want to place a turret at another angle, that's just not possible with the current base blocks. Furthermore, just adding the rest of the block shapes as turret wouldn't solve the issue. Since the turret size is limited by the block size, you would sometimes have to waste a lot of space for a huge turret base block. For example, it wouldn't work to put a "0.5 layer of turret base blocks" on a slope, as it works with armor, bc. turret size is bound to the individual turret blocks. You would have to replace the whole slope with a turret block which wastes a lot of space.

Has already been suggested. Devs seem to be ... reluctant on anything that remotely touches the idea of a "brdige" or 1st person view 😞

I've just read the update on captains in 2.0. Idk if it's already / not planned, but I'd like to add that you could also make some captain classes / perks dedicated to stations, not ships. Like at least one Class + 1-2 subclasses. The perks could revolve around: - selling prices - buying prices - number of production lines - speed of production lines - number of required ressources for 1 tick - number of produced ressources in 1 tick - storage capacity - sector demand - frequency of traders visiting the station / sector - frequency of pirates attacking the sector

I was thinking about creating some way for more content in Avorion that can also be somewhat easily implemented by mostly using existing ressources. So I came up with "mini events" that are close to what you get in Faster Than Light. They would be mostly text-basd. Here's how this could work: 1. Arrive in "event-sector" You enter a sector that has some kind of "event-item" going on. These could be: - Other (derelict) spaceships spacestations of even planets etc. Since it's all text based, it doesn't require animation etc., so it could be a nice way to allow a little more interaction with planets. 2. Start quest You get a pop-up window that you scanners have picked up a signal up. Each kind of signal is tied to a pool of possible events, from which one gets chosen at random, if the player decides to investigate. All events have the same mechanics, but you can create a ton of "different events", just by adding different kinds of flavor texts. Being able to detect the signal could require that you have a scanner-module installed (So these modules get more use) or be generally available. Ideas for possible signals and events: - Signal: Life Signs | Eventpool: hostile creatures; spacetravelers in cryo sleep; tribe of natives (on a planet); - Signal: Energy Signature | Eventpool: malfunctioning generator; malfunctioning security system; planetary defense canon; rare ressources, - Signal Distress Call | Eventpool: stranded spacetraveles; pirate trap, - also, all signals have the chance for a "crash"-event. 3. Crew selection You can "send" a part of your crew to investigate it. Requirements could be having a Hangar + Crew shuttle , or a transporter block + software or just don't have any requirement. For the "send crew" part, you might be able to reutilize the "transfer-crew"-menu. You can select up to 8 crew members to build a party for the mission. 4. Calculation of party skills The kind of crew member you selected determins you parties skillset. There are 4 skills: - Tech - Combat - Diplomacy - Survival Different kinds of crewmembers have different kinds of skills (I'm making up all these values on the fly, so balancing not guaranteed): - Every Crewmember adds + 1 to all 4 skills (so there's a reason for bringing max ppl) but specialized crew memebrs give additional skills: - Egineer: + 3 Tech - Mechanic: + 2 Tech + 1 Combat - Miner: + 2 Survival + 1 Tech - Gunner: + 2 Combat + 1 Survival - Boarder: + 3 Combat - Security: + 2 Combat + 1 Diplomacy - Sergant: + 2 Diplomacy + 1 Survival - Lieutenant: + 3 Diplomacy - Commander: + 4 Diplomacy - General: + 5 Diplomacy - Captain: +5 to all (high risk, high reward bc. you might lose him) 6. Skill Check Each kind of event requires different skill levels for the party to pass, e.g.: - hostile creatures require X combat to defeat - natives require X diplomacy to negotiate with, - the generator / planetary defense canon needs X tech to fix, - the security system needs a combo of X tech and Y combat to shut down. - the spacetravelers in cryo sleep need X tech, Y survival and Z diplomacy to rescue. - in case of crash, you party needs X survival to survice until they are rescued / can free themselves. - etc. The dificulty of the skill check should be partially randomized, e.g. X = (15 + rand(0;10)) 8. Result of the skill check Each skill check has 3 possible results: a) Pass -> you "win", get your crew back and receive an reward for the event. Depending on the event, proably a module, turret, ressources, wares - or since these might become a thing: specialized captain. b) Critical Failure -> if your party loses skill-challenge by a large amount, your party simply dies and you lose. c) Failure -> if you party loses the skill-challenge by an amount that doesn't reach critical failure, you can send a rescue party to rescue your guys. Since you now know the event, you can specialize your rescue party for that kind of event. (For extra efforts, the rescue event could also be different or with a higher skill check than the original event). You don't get any rewards (or worse than on Pass) but get all your crew members back. An alternative implementation option would be to EITHER send a rescue party (to get your 1. party back) OR send a second exploration party, meaning you lose your 1. crew but have 2nd chance to pass the check and get the reward. This could also be tied to a loss of crew morale (a feature that's pretty underutilized anyway).

So far, I only managed to get up to the barrier, but it bothers me, that I never encountered any actually "big" turret or a coaxial turret. My ships usually grows faster / at least as fast in size as the turrets do, so turrets are always just those rather tiny things. It would be awesome, if we could encounter size 5+ turrets even as soon as naonite, so we had the possibility to put small numbers of big turrets on our ships, instead of plastering them with a ton of small ones. Doesn't mean, that all turrets should be larger, but it would be cool to have a choice between many small or few large turrets. I know, you always can build custom turrets but have one "giant (custom) turret" on you ship that does the same damag as his small brothers is kind of meh. Same goes for coax turrets. Why limit them to Ogonite+?

Probably a little late to the party. However, if it is only the looks, that bother you, why don't you just use custom turret designs? You do not have to stick with the default turrret designs.

Maybe you could "repurpose" the hyperspace rifts as these dungeons.

Hi folks, in "normal" mode, we can already adjust our camera to the right/left and up/down. How about also allowing us to move the camera forwards/backwards? No, this is not the same as zoom. Because even when zooming super close, you still are "behind" your ship an see its engines. I am talking about moving the camera in a way so you actually might not even see parts of your ship anymore. And yes, this is kind of a "bridge block in disguise" suggestion. But hear me out: I've watched your Gamescom stream, I get why there's plenty of issues with an actualy bridge block. However, the system to adjust the camera is already in place. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that implies, that it might not be a lot of work to add the third movement axis. My idea is, that this would be the absolute MVP implementation of "kind of a bridge" and after it's in, just watch if and how the players use the feature. This would provide some insights in to how potentially there's a feasable way to actually implement a bridge block , at least proofs that it wouldn't work at all or maybe players are even content with the ability to adjust the camera axis.