FuryoftheStars
-
Posts
544 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by FuryoftheStars
-
-
On 6/5/2021 at 5:39 PM, Tankium said:
I think the sheer number of upvotes on this thread is enough to justify it, no need to ask why the community wants it, we have evidence the community does indeed want it.
For me personally, it is what sets the green bounding box around my ship. I usually build from the front so the root block is always at the front, causing the green box to center around one of the front blocks instead of the center of the ship
Which doesnt look great
This for me is the actual issue. However, based on some old testing (so it may no longer be the case), the root block is actually unbreakable until the ship dies. This could, unfortunately, lead to some exploits. (Not that it couldn't still be done now, but it is a bit more difficult.)
As such, for me, to solve my actual issue, I'd like to see the green targeting reticle actually go to center mass than the root block. That said, I've only been playing again for a few days (after a year+ break), and I've already noticed the green reticle has moved on gates to center mass instead of what was obviously its root block, so maybe the devs have already fixed this?
-
Actually, I rather think that medical/hospital centers would already be on existing ships/stations. It'd be more bothersome to have to wait for the "ambulance" shuttle to show up and then transport the patient(s) back, then just simply transport the patient(s) to the medical center already on ship/station. In reality, this may depend some on vessel size, but I think it's unnecessary and actually more out of place to have whole hospital stations which then patients have to be transported to.
-
Image doesn't load anymore.
-
I wonder if the backgrounds, in general, should just be made darker?
-
I kind of like this, but I would want the mutiny to be a chance of happening vs guarantee if the conditions are met. If the chance for mutiny doesn't occur, then they either refuse to work or leave.
-
I'm not sure I see the difference to how it is now? You either take the time to get the needed number of turrets/systems for the research upgrade, or you take the time to gather up commodities?
Also, using less than 5 for each research cycle is actually perfectly viable. In fact, if you do out the math, in the long run, using 3 per cycle is actually more beneficial than either 4 or 5. I mean, think about it. Let's take 15 items. Running three 5 item cycles with a 100% chance will net you 3 upgraded items. Running five 3 item cycles with a 60% chance, on average, will also net you 3 upgraded items, plus 2 items of the original rarity that you can feed back in with the next group of items you get (so you need two less to start the same cycle all over again).
-
On 6/18/2021 at 3:46 PM, Mr. Waffles said:
OR they should choose which mods do/don’t turn off achievements when downloaded.
This would actually be extremely difficult to do as 1) there are a lot of mods out there, and 2) they'd have to re-evaluate every mod that received an update (less someone tried sneaking something in after the fact). They would have to go with the option of all or nothing. Personally, I think they should go with enable for all. (Though, I wonder if it'd be possible to mod it back on? Some games I know modders have done this, but I don't know the difficulty involved.)
-
I would like to see this, too, but I recall seeing the devs answer once that it would actually not be possible with their current game engine. I think the explanation was that it would take massive rewrites of the engine.
-
To be fair, I think the (already existing) benefit for doing all of one type or another on a ship is its ability to do that job better.
IE, to go off from what you said at the end, a “jack-of-all-trade(s)” is a master of none.
-
I think container fields do have a purpose, but I think you need the DLC for them.
-
I like the general premise of your suggestion for the higher tier blocks also having unlocks.
As for the boarding issue, I think that stems from the fact that certain enemies actually get artificial boosts to their HPs and damage output for the express purpose of being a harder enemy. Once you capture them, they simply revert to default.
-
Update 2.0
in News
I’ve been away for awhile, but hearing about 2.0, I decided to catch up on the patch notes and the changes and planned stuff for 2.0, and it was enough to bring me back.
That said, I know you all have been posting more about 2.0 on the Steam forums than here, and one of the things I remember reading had to do with reducing hyperspace cool down times (again).
I’m not even going to bother with discussing about this now, especially seems I don’t know the exact details. I will ask, though, that with the revamp of hyperspace, if you could make the times moddable. That way you can please both sides.
-
I’ve used them in designs (usually workshop) that were close to the next unlock and had, imo, too much unused space (void or just lots of blank hull in one area).
Otherwise, I feel as though they have no value seems there’s no benefit until you actually hit the next slot unlock level.
-
IFGs can be placed sparingly on your ships.
If you use huge chunks of IFGs while building, I have noticed a localization effect - that is, if I place a huge chunk and a small chunk of IFG - they have about the same result.
Warrax suggested to me to sprinkle the IFGs throughout your ships to optimized their effect, and not place an unnecessary burden on your build.
In my experience so far, a larger IFG has more coverage area than the same volume split between multiple blocks.
So, I guess it depends on the shape of your build.
-
I've seen a number of people use backups thinking they were a "traditional" save to then only complain about how it "screwed" their galaxy up more (from their perspective).
More warnings should probably be added in game to highlight and hammer into their heads as they're attempting to use them that these are meant only for emergency when the galaxy is corrupted and could have bad consequences if they're merely looking to rollback after a loss of ships/stations.
-
I know it's too late/doesn't help in this situation, but for future reference, do not use backups unless you have a corrupted save. They are not saves in and of themselves. Using one resets the whole galaxy to default and then drops you with your ships/stations/resources you had previously back into it.
-
Also, re shuttles, the larger the shuttle, the more stuff it can carry.
Also, due to performance, there are hard caps on how many can be out and about at the same time, so keep that in mind, too.
-
Hey, does anyone know if anything regarding boarding is moddable? Specifically, for right now, I'm looking to modify the hull percentage in order to initiate boarding. I've done some searching through the game files, but so far have turned up empty handed. The most I've been able to find is some post success code and a flag that gets set on the bosses to make them unboardable.
-
Ah, thank you! I apparently didn't look far enough down the page in the documentation. I see it there, now. *facepalm*
I'll keep this in mind for next time I need it. For now, I think I got around my issue with pcall().
-
Yeah, because of the issue, I just copied the whole file at the time.
That said, if that function is the one I'm thinking of, I will be making edits into it later.
-
I was afraid of that. Dangit, devs. Well, hopefully my recreating r in my scope doesn’t cause other issues. I’ll have to double check where it’s used to make sure everything stays sync’d up properly.
-
Make sure to check server logs for errors. Get them to send you theirs if needed.
Ultimately, though, if they’re seeing the issue and your not, then there’s a high probability of a conflict with one of the other mods they are using.
-
Well...
So after this, I paid better attention to my fighters. The design is all iron. No shield gen.
I make a salvaging fighter with it and a naonite salvaging laser. Admittedly, I didn’t pay attention to the original fighter this created, but I did look at the blueprint and the fighters created from this blueprint. Blueprint shows no shields (or perhaps rather shield stat is 0). But the actual fighters have a shield.
Could it have to do with the material of the turret used? Anything naonite and over automatically gets shields?
-
I don’t think I have much to add to this. I’ve used custom models where some have shield blocks (and when launched have shields) and some without (and when launched they don’t have shields). I haven’t payed much more attention than this.
That said, if it was determined at one point that they’re cosmetic, I wonder if there’s more behind this that’s been lost. IE, is the fighter’s HPs during design split between hull and shield?
A chance for NPCs to attempt fleeing fights
in Suggestions & Idea Voting
Posted · Edited by FuryoftheStars
I like this along with the addendums. I'd also add that quantity of friend vs foe should also play a factor here. IE, if they have their enemy outnumbered 10 to 1, then their chance/threshold to flee/surrender/join you/etc should be less. If they are actually outnumbered, then the chance/threshold of these events should go up.
And I think to fix the idea of the enemy instantly hyperspacing out is to actually add a delay (a la calculating the jump route and manuvering to face the right way).
Though to the idea of the buffs NPC ships get, this is a simple buff applied to the ship to make it "better" for the idea of adding a challenge. I'd rather they did away with that completely.