Romual

I suggest mechanic I've seen elsewhere (Just can't remember where) - Combat Slow-down. What it does - it gives player cruise speed and combat speed. Second one if s percentage of the first and is described as "We redirect power from engines to combat systems". Combat situation, therefore, can be triggered by either: - Your ship fires - Your ship takes damage OR you can go futher and make several ship modes, for example: - Cruise mode, shields and weapons offline, full speed, full hyperdrive efficiency - Combat mode, shields up and weapons online, fraction of speed and: - Slower hyper-drive - Damage upon using it ; Maybe you can even add some extension so you can micro-jump inside the same system - Stealth mode, since you plan to add cloacing, where shields are offline and engines are at small percentage of their max speed, so you're harder to spot. Weapon are online, since ambusing would be pointless otherwise. Just make it harder to switch them too fast, with shields needing a recharge (but faster than from damage), weapons priming for a few seconds and engine heating up. And you can add more modes to point out and power some gameplay aspects. This way you can still use your booster for tactical maneuvers, but disengages would be MUCH slower, unless you're running high speed corvette or something like it. Smaller, faster ships will be great again for hit-and-run tactics, since now big and slow ones will take MINUTES to get completly away from target that is their size, and fast ones will do as they please, engaging and fleeing, but each hit took will give them more problems.

Do I scale my turrets when I place them, or this is just new scaling mechanics and turrets just come in 4 sizes now?

Well, if I understand you correctly - you're mistaken. Only the most basic turret modules give you 1 turret slot. Most of them quickly get to 2-3 turrets per module. If you get your hands on quest loot you can get to 4-5 turret slots per module, and that is FAR above 1 turret per ship rank processing size.

You've provided your opinion about game and pointed out one bug. Then you proceed to bitch all the time. First is good, second is bad. Differentiate. Games are made by devs, who can use criticism, but not "I'm not happy" massages.

Well, to be honest - telling someone who can't himself understand that he's doing shit that he's doing shit won't magicaly fix their broken thought train. Let him be, if he sees absolutely no reaction whatsoever - he will stop eventualy.

Let me summarize it. You had access to forums of this game, gameplay videos, patch notes and demo. You had steam 2hours/2weeks refund policy and missed both windows. Nowdays they make it so you can EASILY understand how is game faring and to buy it or not without spending anything except hour or two. Yet you somehow went ahead, bought it blindly and now you're angry that things proceed as they did before you joined the rank of avorion players? Well, that is a shame you couldn't read the forums beforehead and played more than 2 hours so you can not refund, but that was your doing. So your "If it is like this I want a refund" is immature and FAR too late to ask. Deal with your own decisions. As you easily see you're in minority there. I don't say to stop your criticizm. Maybe devs appreciate any form of it. But your inability to recon what you are buying and then bringing refund up had me triggered.

You are not even him, what makes you thi k they do their best ? Are you a diviner by any chance ? Are you one maybe? His guess is as good as yours in my book, since both of you are not devs.

Leave him be in his ideal world of bugless updates every month a 24/7 dev communication with dev team of 2 people. It will only lead to pointless argument.

That is normal rate, not slow. Look at FTD, where updates come once/twice a year. Game is playable as it is, so not "every month" update cycle is fine. And looking how fast they fixed they salvaging mistake - they do at least READ what we write. I call the fact that there are two (?) devs, and they have their lives AND game developement. I say they are better of resting or developing instead of chatting their life off with users. Community Manager does that, and he writes update news and that's that.

Can I have a question? Let's imagine I have some miners in sectors I left behind and few stations as well. When I put my PvP protection down - does that make them killable as well? I mean I would like to have some PvP fun, but not if I had to constantly loose my stations and miners to people ~100 sectors away.

Microtransactions work best in games of huge size. Reason is simple - they depend the most on very small number of users, who have love for the game and too much money. You can see this work in MMORPG, where people like this pay 100x normal player does, or even more. Avorion has small audience right now. They are better of with kickstarter or fixed game price, since this: - Does appeal to public. They pay for the product - they get all of it. Kickstarter helps endorse the game, and is not mandatory. They can add status icons and participation in developement as rewards. - Give developer money for each new player. Since game is somewhat nieche - this is good. And kickstarter will give them money to add more stuff into the game. Since game is already good looking - they will go towards features devs threw out because "too expensive/too inefficient". Microtransactions will scare out some of the audience, are hard to implement and are not that profitable with small constant playerbase. I say expansions after 1.0 should happen, and should be monetized - just not OVERpriced. Devs need financial motivation to keep product developed. DLC are the worst in hand of AAA-game publishers, since, most of the time they cut content already in the game to just sell it separetly. Avorion devs have neither reason, nor means to do so. tl;dr - DLC in small games are fine - Buy to play is good for small games - Microtranscactions are hard to implement and are way less profitable with small games - Kickstarter for additional features is a good thing to consider About microtransactions a little bit more. Let's imagine we have decals and colours to buy. Let's imagine we have 10000 people playing the game. Since you can't get ALL colours out of the game and you can't make them too pricey, we will have some options for free, and, let's imagine, 200 different colours and 200 decals for sale. People have their preferences for colour and style of decals. Lets imagine you buy pallete of your liking for 5 bucks and decals of militaristic looks as a pack for 5 bucks. You don't want that strange alien looking decals, no green colours, since you hate it aaaaaaaand, we'e done paying for the game. We have 10 bucks, that MAY be spent on the game. Fixed price of 10 bucks would be much better, since more people would pay for it - it is a mandatory price. Lets imagine we have a guy, 1 in a 1000, who has a lot more money that he can spend. He likes the game, so he buys all the stuff. He pays around 20-30 bucks for all colours and 20-30 bucks for all decals, since pricing them too high would be a bad move. And we have 50 additional bucks for 1 in 1000 guy. If devs use their time and resources to get more decals that's bad - less time for the game itself. If they add gameplay donation options - that's bad, since it is a route for P2W. Hence - you need either go for huge playerbase and make a game mostly for those 1 in 1000 guys that will just buy everything, or you will have waaaaaaaaaaaay less profit from microtransactions. tl;dr for this part: - Since you can't set prices too migh, microtransaction require either LOADS of cosmetic contents or gameplay mechanics for sale - First requires dedicated artists (which small teams don't have) - Second is bad, since SOME of the audience will view this as a bad sign, me included - If you have a lot of content to sell - there will be FEW people who will buy it all and give you huge profit, compensating for losses elsewhere, but you need large audience for this - If you expect just few of those people - kickstarter with some participation options is way better, since you don't have to make 1000 decals just to give that guy reason and means to donate his money p.s. Sorry for my bad english, I hope I got my point there.

Did not find enjoyable at all. Back, when there was no market, I dropped that game because I didn't want to pay for fucking inventory slots. When they added the market I came back and just got lost in new stuff, strange trading system and such, so now warframe is blacklisted for me, since I can't get back in that game. All thanks to microtransactions. As a player - I hate them.

1. Game is playable right now as it is. 2. You keep adding lots of stuff in it. 3. The longer you keep it in development - the more stuff is added. I say I'm really HAPPY that it will take longer - I can't imagine what can be added in this game after half a year.

Coaxial is easy to understand. They are fixed to an axis, on a tank - that is axis of a TURRET, but on a ship that is basically on the hull, or inside it. Imagine ship-long railgun or huge laser on the ship front. Or battery of cannons on the side. That's coax. On a tank you mentioned they are "coax" to main gun, in this game they will be "coax" to a whole ship.

But, considering you CAN kill them with main guns and are FAR less powerfull then bombers in WW2 - they need HUGE buff to be viable, if every ship gets dedicated AA turrets. What I saw somewhere here was the best option - make turret slots a huge number and make turrets take SEVERAL slots, depending on their power and scale. Maybe allow to SCALE ANY TURRET, increasing it's stats, but make it occupy more slots. I REALLY want some capital cannon expirience, with some COAX railguns as well.