Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Speed

  1. Found the logs and the in-game report bug option. I mostly posted here in case anyone has any ideas how to get around this bug, or do I just need to stop playing for a few months? 😞 serverlog 2020-07-07 21-53-11.txt clientlog 2020-07-07 21-44-35.txt
  2. I tried a third variation: I cheated myself 1000 avorion and just hyperspaced across the barrier. The game freezes almost immediately, same as any other method. Looks like I'm stuck outside even if I cheat 😞
  3. I am running on the beta branch, version 1.1.2 r23886, zero mods installed After I open the Xsotan artifact gate and cross through, the game loads the sector, runs for like 500 ms, and then it permanently hangs. After this, the save file is corrupted: if I try to load it, the game hangs up and crashes. Variations I have tried: 1) I tried two different Xsotan gates. Both caused the game to freeze immediately after I load into the first sector across the barrier. 2) I also twice had an AI-controlled ship in my fleet go through the wormhole first. The AI ship gets through just fine. I have my AI ship do a couple hyperspace jumps to different sectors on the other side of the barrier: all good. However, when I try switching into my AI ship, the game freezes. After restarting the game and trying to reload my save, the sector (across the barrier) doesn't even load in: the game just hangs up on the load screen. Thankfully, I am constantly backing up the save file in \AppData\Roaming\Avorion\galaxies, so maybe if this bug is fixed I will be able to begin enjoying the game again. I am adding a google drive link to my save file below. Just fly the ship up to the final gate (it's in front of you), then through the wormhole, and see for yourself. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_YaUASMQvcX8KAagj4LhJD3xEhMPPhyj/view?usp=sharing
  4. You're always welcome to give specific suggestion on how that process can be made more convenient. From where I see it, its something the ship designers might consider themselves, and not something one should shove to the developers, who already made good building tools with very few apparent problems. It's quite simple, actually. We need a "hide specific block" option. When you use the hide specific block option, all blocks you presently have selected get hidden. This way, you can bore down to the center of your ship and edit exactly what you need to. Also, the problem with the hide block options right now is that when you hide a blocks, you can't place blocks on the other side of the blocks you have hidden. Hidden blocks should not block your ability to place of new blocks!!! I'm NOT talking about removing the restriction that two blocks cannot occupy the same space. I'm talking about the fact that you can't actually place a block where it would fit and there's nothing in the way, simply because there's a hidden block between where your camera is and the place you are trying to put the block. That's BS. If I delete a block in the center of my ship, I shouldn't be forced to zoom my camera all the way in to the void I created in order to place the replacement blocks!!! AND NO, converting the block to a new block is not good enough. Sometimes you need to delete a large block and replace to with multiple smaller ones. We need to be able to hide specific blocks, not just specific block types. And hidden blocks between your camera and where you want to place new blocks should not prevent you from placing the new blocks.
  5. I ran into the same joint last night. No way to join it seamlessly that I could find
  6. Salvaging was nerfed a few patches back, it was far too effective. And, to be honest, it is still too good (or mining is too bad). Maybe salvage vs mining equalizes out when you have your AI controlled fleet doing the mining. The income from mining is slower but it is steadier, easier to obtain, and less work to set up. Around the core barrier, you will have lots of opportunities to salvage big wrecks. Sometimes, it will be the wreckage of a faction war, other times, it will be pirates or Xsotan you killed, though most pirate and xsotan ships do not have enough easily salvaged blocks to make them worthwhile. Pirate bases, however, are particularly great for salvaging, as the pirate ships defending them are very large resource rich. If you get lucky, the pirate base itself may be made of trinium or better, and killing it will be very lucrative both in the goods you get and the resources you salvage. Possibly the best salvage opportunity is the cultists. You get BIG blocks of ogonite and xanion from them and frequently they even have trinium-tech ships with lots of resources too. Just don't vaporize them too badly, you'll accidentally destroy the blocks you want to salvage! In fact, I like to turn off my main weapons and just kill them with salvage lasers. Another great salvage opportunity is the random wreckage you will find. Most of it is salvaged out already, but sometimes you find a wreck with millions of xanion or trinium. Finally, the salvage yards can be good. Most of the wrecks there have had their high-resource blocks removed (like shields, generators, engines, etc.), but in every salvage yard there will something like a half dozen wrecks that still have their full complement of generators, shields, engines, etc. attached. To find them, zoom out, and scroll the mouse around. You're looking for the glow of engines, and for the harder-to-spot glow that comes off of the resource rich blocks. Anyway, in my current playthrough, I acquired over 2 million xanion in maybe, I donno, six hours played, though I could have aquired it much faster. I got it mainly from two sets of cultists and a couple salvage yards. Still looking for a core barrier pirate base in this playthrough.
  7. You are definitely doing something wrong. It should not take "hours" to kill an entire enemy fleet, it should take less than a minute (much less than in minute, in most cases.) How much firepower does your ship have? Unless you have some difficulty increasing mod (if you do, PLEASE SHARE because this game is way too easy, with the exception of ONE enemy), you must not be using turret factories. You get MUCH MUCH better turrets from turret factories. You have to check around at multiple turret factories for the best turrets however, because each one is randomized. I play on "insane" difficulty and I am not exaggerating in that enemy ships (normal pirates/Xsotan) don't survive for more than 1 or 2 seconds when I shoot at them, and that's being generous. On my present play-through, my ship is a 9 slotter, I am up to the hyperspace barrier, and my ship's firepower is 53600. I use several railguns with high block penetration values, so once I get through enemy shields (which doesn't take more than a second or two for most ships), my railgun strikes frequently do over 150k damage. When a ship lasts more than 5 or 6 seconds, I actually am slightly impressed. However, every once in a while, even using turret factories, you encounter an enemy group of ships with enough firepower and life that you have to respect them at least a little bit. Like, actually try do dodge rocket barrages, or take them out quickly. Cultists are frequently good for this. (Sadly however, on this play-through, both cultist groups I have encoutered I have annihilated with ease.) But, for the most part, the gameplay experience you get after utilizing turret factories and making it up past around naonite level leaves MUCH to be desired. It's way too easy on the hardest difficulty level. So, yea. Turret factories need balancing, BADLY. (Again, my suggestion is to make it so turret factories can only make a set of generic, unspectacular turrets, as well as copies of any turrets you found, bought, or researched... nudge, nudge, devs...).
  8. 1) That's precisely what I did in my video- I recast my entire ship's outer armor into stone. It still killed me before I could do anything. The only way I got past it was by putting a huge stone shield in front of my ship (not shown in video). Right now, you have even the tiniest gap in your stone "armor", YOU WILL DIE, GUARANTEED. Talk about forcing the cube meta on everyone, sheesh. 2) Sure, the MEL can be made to force the player to use stone armor, but I just don't think that the MEL should be able to kill the player instantly if they haven't taken precautions. The player should be able to escape, re-armor himself in stone, and then return. Is the average new player going to know beforehand that he has to convert his entire ship's outer skin into stone before he kills the fourth energy satellite? That's ridiculous. An additional mechanic that would help the player to escape but still allow the MEL to do so much damage that stone was required would be to make the MEL increase its damage output more and more as its life/shield was taken away.
  9. Kamo, A thirty-fold DPS nerf would still be 100K om, not 10K!!! I'm of the opinion that it's perfectly fine to make the ship so powerful that a normal player flagship vessel cannot destroy it before it killing the player. But the player needs the opportunity to realize that, not just be instantly killed. That player needs the opportunity to realize he needs to run away, and re-armor his ship in stone, and re-attempt the fight again. When the MEL killed me the first time, I first just thought it was a bug!!!
  10. Yea, I just killed it by putting a huge solid stone shield in front of my ship and having the turrets on the edges. Still, I don't think this is a good gameplay decision (an understatement). Pretty much every player is just going to steamroll up to the Mobile Energy Lab and then just get 1-shotted. Maybe if the rest of the content was almost equally difficult, then this wouldn't be quite as obscene. At least "Insane" would actually be "insane" then.
  11. Umm... so I started a new game to try out the Combat Update Pt II. I was making my way merrily along until I encountered the Mobile Energy Laboratory. It has 3.00011e6 firepower and one-shots you. I'm playing in Insane difficulty. The entire game is super easy up to this point. I guess 3.00011e6 firepower does in fact match the description "insane", but compared to everything else you encounter, it's ridiculously overpowered. It literally has about 3000 to 6000 times more firepower than the average pirate ship. I get that the dev wanted to make the fight harder but that is just so stupidly more powerful that it HAS to be a bug... right? I tried covering my entire ship with stone, but apparently not even stone can repel firepower of that magnitude. Observe. Here is the fight against the Mobile Energy Lab first with armor, and second with stone. I instantly die with armor, I survive a little bit longer with stone. Maybe the lightning bolts are finding a way through a gap in the stone, like in the thruster grills? I'll try building a giant thin shield of stone on the front of my ship and have the turrets peeking around the edge, maybe that will work? Thankfully I know how to save my game.
  12. Asteroid mines can produce things coal, oil and noble metals without any other required goods to be produced, and these are entry-level materials to several different industries; this is a bit too in-depth for me to explain, especially since I don't know each production chain individually. I have 3 production stations and even though I'm not near them and they are just small, I seem to be getting cash from them now and then, though I can't confirm that yet. (There's no notification :s ) But bases you own, be it on asteroids or otherwise, can have massive cargo bays (if you build them), so you can stockpile any random goods you like at any station. Having any station is also useful for hiring whatever random variety of crewmen it has; the prices will be slightly better than elsewhere, but of course the station's investment is already kind of high. Now, why would you care about goods at all? Well, personally, a good reason for me is that with enough production chains I'll be able to make certain components that are required for building turrets at turret factories (and you can also own these ;D ) How does one make a station?! The only time I’ve ever seen the option is after claiming an asteroid. There is no option to found a turret factory, for example.
  13. Yes, not only should you be able to rebuild their fleet and help them settle down, but they should be a special faction. So, when you salvage their ships you lose rep with them. Ultimately, if you help them rebuild, they should assist you in the final battle agaisnt the Wormhole Guardian- getting revenge upon the aliens that exiled them.
  14. We should also be able to produce ship systems. That would maybe help some. Especially if the types and quantities of ship systems keeps diversifying.
  15. Anyone find it absolutely ludicrous that the space cops will pull you over for carrying a couple canisters of elemental chlorine?! In real life, anyone can make chlorine in their kitchen at home (NOT ADVISABLE THOUGH). So, we're flying huge frickin spaceships with frickin laser beams attached to their heads, giant railguns and cannons that could probably devastate a planet's surface, etc. So, when the space cops scan me, are they worried about my torpedo hold filled with torpedoes armed with the most explosive substance in the UNIVERSE (antimatter)? NOPE! It's the CHLORINE that makes them worried! Containment failure on chlorine- let the ships environmental scrubbers clean it up. Containment failure on antimatter? Good-bye ship!!!!! (And anything you also happened to be near, but hey, at least death will come instantly). Also, doesn't it seem odd that in the distant future there are so many cow and sheep and wool farms, etc? Seems a little... primitive. I mean, I can see there maybe being a small demand in a space-based culture for traditional pastoral products, but they will get replaced with things that can be grown more easily and efficiently in space.
  16. Oh, I understand your point now. However, your point is wrong because you misunderstand my intent. The gridded thrusters are NOT MEANT to provide roll (not really) they are for pitch and yaw and side-slip (strafing). My point is, because I make them gridded instead of a single block, they provide me with roll authority as a free benefit. So now, a thruster that is meant to provide pitch, yaw, and stafing ALSO provides roll as well, for free. Because my roll authority is provided for free by gridding my centerline pitch/yaw/strafing thrusters, I don't need to add a gyro to provide roll. I can use the volume that would have gone towards a gyro block for something else, like shields. So gridded thrusters are superior to ungridded thrusters (when they are on the ship's centerline) because they are a more efficient use of blocks. I agree that real space combat would take place VASTLY beyond visual range, but this is Avorion, where space combat unrealistically takes place within a few km. By painting yourself black, you don't increase your heat emission. You simply decrease your equilibrium temperature. All objects in space at thermal equilibrium will be emitting as much heat as they are absorbing (and generating). A reflective vessel simply needs to be at a higher temperature to emit the same amount of IR radiation as a dark vessel. The amount of IR emission will be the same because energy in will equal energy out. Additionally, the black body equilibrium temperature in space is very low; right now, 13.8 billion years after the Big Bang, it's dropped to about 3 degrees K in intergalactic space. In interstellar space, it's a bit higher (not sure exactly, I forgot the number) but it's probably like 5 K or something like that, depending on the stellar neighborhood you are in. VERY close to a star, it's a lot higher, obviously, but that's only a really tiny portion of the space in a galaxy. That said, it could be argued that space combat might happen close to stars sometimes... Actually, wouldn't a reflective body have a higher equilibrium temperature in all environments? It just takes longer to reach its equilibrium? So maybe you'd paint your spacecraft white if you wanted to minimize the amount of damage it took from nuclear or antimatter explosions (which would create brief flashes of VERY bright light in the visible spectrum).
  17. Its more efficient to use Gyros if you care about turning in one direction and keep all thruster to their respective dimensional limits. You can test how the efficiency of a thruster rises as it goes further and further away from the center of mass. So even for Roll, you can dedicate thrusters on either "wings" of your ship, and they will also provide up/down vectors. And if you have no much wings to talk about, then use Gyros instead, and get up/down vectors from your pitch thrusters on the front of back of the chassis. I'm currently building a Cruiser version (11 slots) of the similar design pattern. I use Google Spreadsheets to pre-plan the usage of volume. This is why the ship I shown has precisely 8mil m^3 of volume. I'm not sure I'm following you on the first sentence. Anyway, I'd love to see your 11 slot design when it's done. It will probably be a lot prettier than mine. This is my 11-slot design at trinium/xanion tech level. Kind of ugly, but it's got a very small frontal cross-section; enemies have a tough time hitting me when I'm facing them. You see the 0.18 rad/sec roll? That's ENTIRELY from gridded thrusters. If I un-gridded my thrusters, the ship would have zero roll. I'm tellin' ya- gridded thrusters for the win! Ultimately though, roll is not a very important maneuverability stat, since this is space. :) (Well, I may be giving the game too much credit- this is nothing like space at all. Real space is incredibly, extremely, mindbogglingly empty.) Also, you may notice that I paint all my ships black; this helps to radiate waste heat (yea, I know...) and it also makes them harder to see (black = space camouflage ;D ) I may have to upgrade the ship's maneuverability a bit; it's about as maneuverable as my 15 slot design. BTW, why does roll, pitch, yaw, etc. show up as rad/s and not rad/s^2?
  18. These are the stats for my 15 slot super battlecarrier (battlecruiser) variant (0.5m armor). These are the stats for the "dreadnought" variant (1m armor). A lot less maneuverable, armor is heavy! Now that torpedoes appear to be nerfed to be less dangerous than mosquitoes, maybe I'll go back to the battlecruiser variant, though I'll have to update it to the latest version by giving it torpedo tubes. The reason I put engines on nacelles is so that the rear of the ship can be reserved for thrusters. That significantly improves manueverability. Furthermore, in front of the engine nacelles I can then put thrusters, which will also be far from the center of gravity and help with pitch, yaw, or both (both, in this case, since there are four nacelles).
  19. That's a beautiful ship, though, it's rather small (which is fine, it just means that you'll have to upgrade from it to a larger ship eventually). However, you did not address the point I make about thruster grids. A thruster grid placed on the centerline can still roll your ship, because it's capable of firing just half the grid. A single thruster block won't help you roll because the entire thing must fire.
  20. not really ;D Why build a boring cube or sphere ship? The game can get boring and monotonous enough, with all enemy ships just exploding like popcorn the instant you target them, even on so-called "Insane" difficulty (unless "Insane" difficulty means "insanely easy", in which case, it's named correctly). Also, a cube ship is really easy to hit as opposed to a ship with a narrow frontal aspect. You are wrong about gyros being better for large ships. No matter what shape your ship is, thrusters will eventually become better once you exceed a certain ship size. It's a scaling law. But yes, I ignore the fact that the game is an incomplete model and play it more like how it might actually work if magic hyperspace drives were actually possible. Because otherwise, you just build a boring derp cube.
  21. I break my directional thrusters up. For example, if I want to make a 12x12x5m thruster, I might use sixteen 3x3x5m thrusters. The idea is that a single shot cannot destroy all the thrusters (at the cost of making each one of them a bit easier to destroy). But this has an additional benefit: even when placed on the craft's centerline, they can provide roll, because half of the thrusters are on each axial side. Basically, when I roll, the appropriate half of the grid will fire. I also place A LOT of thrusters on my big vessels in order to give them the maneuverability I desire, and I place the thrusters behind an armored grid, which blocks incoming fire from almost all directions. This is my 15 slot super battlecarrier. I am no artist, I can't even begin to conceive how some people are able to create many of the insanely detailed and beautiful ship designs I've seen. This is the best I can do. (Also, I believe in utilitarian design over beauty.)
  22. This probably has been discussed before on these boards, but then again, these boards are kind of low traffic, so maybe not. In case you were ever wondering the mathematical reason bigger ships turn slower (I was). I did a little bit of investigation; I looked up the dependency of moment of inertia to radius (moment of inertia is the amount of torque you have to apply to a 3d object to get a certain angular acceleration) and I realized that moment of inertia scales by the radius to the FIFTH power. Meanwhile, the torque provided by thrusters in Avorion scales by the fourth power of radius, because the amount of force a thruster produces is proportional to its volume (radius to the third), while the amount of torque it provides is proportional to its distance from the center of gravity (radius to the first). Radius^3 * Radius^1 = Radius^4. The torque provided by gyro arrays in Avorion will scale by radius to the third (because the torque they produce is proportional to volume only). So the take-aways are these: 1)For a ship shape that relies solely on thrusters for maneuverability, doubling its dimensions will reduce its maneuverability by 2. 2)For a ship shape that relies solely on gyro arrays for maneuverability, doubling its dimensions will reduce its maneuverability by 4. 3)Therefore, gyro arrays are essentially useless for large ships. 4)And conversely (and not so intuitively), there is ship size range below which gyro arrays are (in general) vastly better than thrusters! What I don't know is if that size range is larger than the smallest practical ship size. That depends on how the game is balanced, and what exactly the ship's shape is. 1-3, at least, are what we intuitively expect. Anyway, actually knowing the math allows me to make better-informed decisions for ship design. Personally, I already load up my huge ships with massive quantities of directional thrusters already, though I also use a small number of gyro arrays. I may just eliminate the gyro arrays entirely now. I had already noticed they did next-to-nothing... now I know why.
  23. I also found a turret factory turret in the current build that doesn't follow the rules I showed above. So whatever the bug is, it doesn't appear to be consistent, maybe that's why it went unnoticed by the dev.
  24. Here's an example with a faster-firing weapon (so that there is less rounding error) at three different points as you vary the number of servos. First, here is the turret with reduced servos until it no longer overheats. The turret is a triple turret, so the number of barrels is 3. Using the non-overheating turret formula, DPS = Nb * D * R where Nb is the number of barrels (i.e., double, triple, quad), D is the damage, and R is the fire rate, the DPS should be: Nb*D*R = 3*2640.4*1.5 = 11881.8 (Yes, I know many of you believe the number of barrels to be meaningless, but please stay with me on this...) However, the displayed DPS is VERY close to 1/3 of that value, suggesting that the number of barrels is meaningless: Dispalyed DPS = 3913.9 11882/3 (or simply 2640.4*1.5) = 3960.6 I believe that the difference between these two numbers is caused by rounding error on the firing rate. The actual firing rate of the weapon is probably 3913.9/2640.4 = 1.482, which of course would round up to the displayed value of 1.5. NOW, I add just ONE more servo so that the weapon now can overheat, and the displayed DPS jumps by a factor of 3!: Now that the turret overheats, I will use the overheating turret formula: DPS = Nb * D * R * Ft / (Ft + Ct) where Ft is the continuous firing time, and Ct is the cooldown time. So I calculate the turret should have a DPS of: DPS = Nb * D * R * Ft / (Ft + Ct) = 3*2640.4*1.7*104.2/(104.2+5.6) = 12779.25 which matches the in-game displayed value 12534.7 pretty closely. Again, the difference is probably caused by rounding error on the displayed firing rate. Finally, this is what the turret looks like with the maximum number of servos: As you can see, now that the weapon is cooldown-limited, increasing the number of servos only increases the burst DPS; it doesn't affect the weapon's average damage over time (which is the displayed value). So calculating the DPS in this scenario, I get: DPS = Nb * D * R * Ft / (Ft + Ct) = 3*2640.4*3.7*4.2/(4.2+5.6) = 12560.76 which is significantly closer the the in-game displayed value of 12534.7. Again, the difference is probably caused by rounding error. So I ask again: What is the turret's actual DPS? Because it seems very unlikely to me that switching a turret from non-cooldown to cooldown should suddenly cause the DPS to increase by the a factor equal to the number of barrels the weapon has. (If it DOES, then that itself it likely a bug). Based on my gameplay experience, I think that most likely, the number of barrels is meaningless and the displayed DPS value for any turret with a cooldown is incorrect by a factor equal to the number of barrels. Slightly less likely to me is that the number of barrels DOES matter and the displayed DPS values for turrets without a cooldown is wrong.
  • Create New...