DivineEvil

Technically it would make sense for faction wars to be scheduled event, that only happen in a single sector for a given faction, and if there's any player in a territory of attacked faction, he receives the message noticing about the attacking fleet moving into a randomly chosen sector. Virtually the attack exists for an hour, and if the sector were not loaded, then the combat never happened. If it were, then the ships spawn as usual. This way the faction war is something that the player can avoid or participate at will, and it is not triggered all over the place by the player, that is just passing trough. As a little off-topic, I would much prefer for pirates to not attack NPC faction territories. From one point of view, attacking garrisoned sectors is effectively a sure suicide. This is not something you'd expect for pirates to do, but perfectly reasonable for Xsotans, which are not burdened by self-preservation. From another point, having to endure constant attack both from pirates and Xsotans no matter where you are, to the point where you have to use your own ships to protect NPC sectors with no garrison left, is a little annoying.

Primary reason why people linger around the barrier is the necessity of collecting Xsotan artifacts to cross it. Primary reason why people may not use the turret factories is because of the need to collect trade commodities and lower necessity in their use prior to reaching the barrier. The real problem here, yet again, comes back to the inability to replicate the turrets you've looted or researched and the fact, that turret production is attached to the commodity trading, even though ship/station building, fighters and modules are not. Ideally players should acquire the turrets trough looting and researching and then using Turret Factories to reproduce them in mass to have a complete customization freedom and personal tech-base, instead of being stuck between dozens of completely different turrets gained from all over the place and working in individual fashion and Factory-produced turrets, that require enormous time and credit investments to gain overpowered weapons that work synchronously. Just like FIghters, Turrets should be reproduced with Credits and Resources without the attachment to ecomonic production chains. Turret Factories themselves should only offer Common-grade turrets in indefinite numbers, that players can use for research or as generic equipment for AI ships, compared to Equipment Docks, that can sell better turrets in limited amounts, and Researching, that provide best turrets as individual models. The player will be able to equip entire fleets with turrets of his choice, and those would be made from his blueprints, not from a particular NPC turret factory anyone can use. Player-owned Turret Factories could be used to generate turret blueprints free-of-charge. Volume limits are only needed to prevent absurd values and visual bugs from excessively large ships made out of cheap blocks and materials. If there's a need to adjust the balance, that should be provided by the diminishing returns (thrust, maneuverability, shield strength etc.), not hard limits. I see no connection between Missile ranges and the broken PvE. Missile launchers are broken by themselves and has to be transformed into a completely different weapon with a specific role.

My own opinion is that Softcore is unnecessary for regular play. I would consider something in the same direction for Creative Mode, to prevent players from losing crew or ships from random attack or in travel. Suggestions for Hardcore: - When the player's ship is destroyed, all equipped system modules are deleted, and every turret has a 50% to be permanently lost as well. Destroyed NPC ships has 50% chance to drop each of their equipped turrets independent of loot dropped by other means. - Player cannot switch between ships by any means other than by direct interaction. - When taking damage, in addition to shield regeneration interference, player's current ship cannot use Engine Boost nor jump into other sectors for several seconds out of combat. - Shields are given with an additional diminishing return multiplier. DIfferent materials give the same amount of shield points, but greater materials suffer much less from diminishing returns. - Taking damage past shields has a chance to cause loses and failures within the ship depending on the blocks that has been hit, up to each second in combat (period may vary by chosen difficulty). The chance of that event is equivalent to the percentage of hull the ship is currently missing + the damage taken in that second as percentage from total hull value. The roll happens whether the failure happens or not. If the roll is positive, the next block hit by any weapon will define the character of the failure: - Decorative, Framework, Reflectors etc : Nothing happens after all. - Hull, Armor, Crew Quarters : A random crew member is killed in action. May include officers. - Cargo Bay : Random commodity is lost, amount defined by on-hit damage divided by commodity's volume rating (rounded to integer). - Engine: Ship loses forward thrust for (hit damage/5) seconds. - Gyros, Thrusters, Dampeners: Ship loses Flight Assist for (hit damage/3) seconds. - Energy Batteries: Battery is discharged - its individual energy capacity is subtracted from current energy storage. - Energy Generators: Generator explodes, dealing damage to all attached blocks equivalent to its unit volume. - Hangar: Ship loses one stored fighter and one pilot, given the presence of either. - Turret Block: Installed turret is disabled for (hit damage/4) seconds. - Hyperspace Core: Ship loses ability to jump for (hit damage/2) seconds. - Mainframe: One randomly chosen System module is destroyed. - Torpedo Storage: A random torpedo explodes, applying its damage to the host ship, ignoring shields. - Intergrity FG: Generator is disabled until the ship shields are full again. No shields = no effect. Ex. A ship with 82% of its hull intact takes additional burst of 2% hull damage from another ship within a second , which results in a failure chance of 20% + 2%. Critical Hit Chance Roll returns positive. Next hit from an attacking ship's Cannon hits the Engine for 300 dmg. Because critical roll have passed, the target ship losses ability to use all engines and boost for a whole minute.

Production time for fighters directly depends on the amount of Assembly blocks you have on your ship or station and the number of fighters it can produce at the same time depends on their material. It's worth it either way. Even considering the loss of a portion of the weapon DPS when it is converted to fighters, in that form they easily over-perform the single turret. That, and a single turret does not make that much difference in Trinium region. Perhaps you might've argued this decision for a remarkably powerful Cannon or a Railgun turret, but a single Chaingun isn't getting anywhere near. So yeah, it is perfectly reasonable to turn a single turret into something, that actually can be replicated in dozens. This is the second reason why people are willing to go trough the trouble of trading to get Turret Factory weapons.

IIRC the blocks the fighters are made of has zero effect on them. It's just a visual design. Fighters has their own separate stats independent of the blocks.

Yeah, it does make sense and doesn't require much work. It's especially justified because Reflector blocks are otherwise completely worthless and nobody uses them for anything, ever.

I don't think they glow. They're just translucent. Very flexible decorative blocks, because they don't produce excessive bloom up-close like Light blocks do and can be used to cover turrets and torpedo bays without impeding their function.

1.) Main problem with combat currently is the leisure function of the engine Boosters. They essentially allow any ship, big and small, to destroy as many NPC ships as desired given the time necessary. Ability to boost away at any moment prevents any risk in commitment to fighting, unless the player allows the depletion of his shields and sustained hull damage deliberately. As been said, it also ruins any expectations for PvP for the same reason. As it is now, its an overpowered ability that every ship has by default, but only players can use, and it has no in-combat limitations. - Engine Boosters should be a separate block. Having more boosters should give you more boost power and acceleration for greater power drain. - Engine Boosters should have a charge-up mechanic, which requires holding the key for several seconds to engage the boost. Larger boosters require longer charge up. Maneuvering elements are disabled during the charge-up. - Being affected by forces (explosive weapons, force turrets or collisions) drains the charge and can cause the booster to be temporarily disabled if completely disrupted. Larger boosters takes more effort to disrupt, but are disabled for longer. All of that should be more than enough to dedicate the engine Boosters to general sector exploration and movement towards and between stations, rather than keeping it as a Go-Free card, that is only countered by itself or an overwhelming instant-kill firepower. Other than that, ship's Maximum Velocity is increasing with the size of ship given the same volume proportion of Engines. This has to be the opposite to promote the use of smaller ships. The fact, that a 12-slot battleship can have greater base velocity, than a small 2-slot Gunboat is nonsensical. 2.)Current DPS rating of weapons seem to scale around the turret size and doesn't care much for the range, accuracy and other important factors (or at least it seem to leave that impression). Range in general is one of the most difficult stats to balance around because it multiplies the value of DPS in a exponential fashion. As it is now, there's no point in using any short-range weapons because they do not introduce any feasible benefits. Range is a massive advantage, not just a feature. Long-range weapons should either be weaker than short-range ones, or they should introduce demands so high, that you'd need a ship specifically designed to use long-range weapons and not being good at anything else. If there's no reason to use anything apart from two instant-hit long-range weapons, there's no balance worth to be talking about. 3.) Energy drain for most weapons is absolutely irrelevant - it is so small, that its not even a consideration in selection of weapons, not even speaking about introducing additional power generation or storage on a ship to support heavier weapons. On the other hand, energy weapons utilize over-time increase in energy drain, which for all intents and purposes is completely ridiculous. That mechanic makes weapons unpredictable in their upkeep, which makes them unreliable, which in turn makes them useless. ALL weapons has to either have a static active power demand, or has to have a heat buildup and a cooldown period. When these are the only two options, then the player can make conscious considerations of what his ship can handle. He might want some additional power generation to maintain the stable function of flat-upkeep weapons, or he might consider larger batteries to provide enough juice for heavier weapons, that drain them dry before going on the long cooldown period. Weapons and tools with ramping power drain are not fun to use by a player, a fatal choice for any AI-controlled ship and has no conceptual basis behind it - there's simply no reason why some weapons overheat and go on cooldown, while others can drain infinite amounts of energy to cool themselves and keep going until more than half of the ship's energy generation is going into keeping two mining beam turrets working. The power demands in general deserve to be looked at and adjusted, because as of now there's little use for power aside from shield upkeep and booster fuel. I can go on and on about all other issues with weapon balance, material scaling and randomness, but I've already expressed such concerns elsewhere. Problems that I've mentioned here is what keeps me from playing the game, and until any of them are addressed, I hold no interest in coming back.

In case you haven't played for a while, I'm just going to write down some of the new features and my present issues with the balance and weapon/protection interactions: - Torpedoes has been added as a block-based super-weapon. They have a dedicated storage space similar to Fighters, and given ammunition varies in velocity, range, durability and warhead type with different preset damage values with an overall scaling on rarity tier. Main problem at the moment is that they can only be purchased in Equipment Docks and has to be manually loaded. There's no point in using them anywhere but on your flagship, because AI ship will expend them mindlessly and won't be able to rearm or manufacture them. - Players can design their own visuals for the turret, and different weapon types have associated size brackets, that define the damage output and range in exchange for the lower tracking rate and higher turret slot requirements. Overall a positive change towards the variation between different turrets, although it lands a hit against the general weapon capacity relative to ship size and make them seem under-armed in most cases. - We now have specialized point-defense weapons, and not one but three variants of them. It's a very good thing with little to whine about, although these weapons attack large ships too when there's no other more feasible targets around, and there's no answer why would they ever do that, considering their virtually insignificant damage output against them. - Some substantial changes has been made to behavior of most weapons. In general, Energy weapons like Plasma, Tesla and Lightning deal extra damage to shields, while explosive weapons like Bolters, Cannons and Missiles deal splash damage past the shields. These multipliers doesn't seem to be openly displayed anymore for some unknown reason. - Railguns are still extremely overpowered by far and throughout. Despite there's being a displayed penetration modifier for some of these, it doesn't seem to have any effect. Railguns are still instant-hit, long-range, high-accuracy, largely non-restrictive weapons, that deal multiplied damage to ship's hull despite armor and whatnot and easily decimate anything in their wake, with only Lightning cannons coming second, as they help to drain shields on similar range. - On the other hand, Missiles still seem completely redundant. They're utterly meaningless without the Heat Seeker modifier and too weak and laggy with it. There's nothing they do well, that other weapons can't do better, and thus there's no reason to use them. Other than that, Cannons seem to remain a worse version of Railguns, without the instant-hit and multiplied damage quirks to bear, Lasers are the worse version of Tesla's, and Pulse cannons are worse version of Chainguns. - General balance issue still lies with the convoluted system of unlimited, escalating energy drain on some weapons like lasers, instead of a more restrictive, but user-friendly flat energy consumption. That makes weapons with the associated mechanic very unfavorable for player flagship (due to unpredictable demands and superfluous manual management) and utterly useless for AI-controlled ships (which power-drain themselves to death using those weapons). I still cannot figure out how some weapons simply overheat, and others don't and instead drain infinite amounts of energy to manage heat. - PvP combat is still effectively dead, because there are no energy-draining weapons and no prerequisites for boosting out of combat. - I've also reconsidered some details around my ideas, but generally they remain the same. Weapons still follow the technological progression, culminating in Railguns and Lightning turrets removing the necessity for most other kind of weapons, and my idea, is that all weapons has to have their niche, and that heavier weapons with longer range also should give less DPS and require additional investments into energy supply, which unfortunately not the case atm.

Ввиду механики построения кораблей, подобный элемент строительства скорее всего введен не будет. Внешний дизайн турелей может содержать вращающиеся элементы, так как они не являются физически-интерактивными объектами и столкновения между блоками не имеют какой-либо потенциально негативного эффекта. Это нельзя сказать про корабли - мало того, что блоки корабля имеют строгую привязку к его структуре, так и нету возможности допустимым образом проверять столкновения между движушимися блоками. Новые блоки для кораблей будут добавляться по мере необходимости и целесообразности, но предложенный тип блока к таковым не относится и требует значительных изменений в корне движка игры. Due to the principle of ship structure, this sort of constructive element will likely going to be neglected. Custom turret designs allow for rotating element because turrets themselves are not physical entities as such, and collisions between their blocks have no potential drawbacks. Same can't be said about the ships - aside from the fact, that ship blocks has a strict hierarchical dependencies, there's also no viable way to govern the collisions between the moving parts. Thus, new blocks will be added as necessary and by expediency, but the suggested block type doesn't met these terms and would require significant tweaks to the Avorion's own game engine.

Well as you can see, OP is building a new station, so I still don't see how one can arrive from integers to decimals. Unless he's copy-pastes fragments of the curve, as if its going to increase the building rate...

Definitely. Its pretty much the only drawback of torpedoes - the fact, that you have to buy them all the time. The way they're launched, the flight, explosion, sounds, variable models - I like all of it. Manually resupplying them is a pain tho.

I'm not sure what the developers can even do about this "problem". Using the 'match block' function can only adapt the dimensions of a new block to the block that it is placed upon - there's no mechanism to make it adapt the dimensions from any other blocks. I mean no offense, but in my opinion you simply should keep to integer numbers from the beginning of building process to the end, and there's absolutely no point to go into decimals for building anything, including the circular and curved shapes. I have no clue how one can step away from integer values into 5+ decimals apart from simple negligence in the process.

I've never seen or heard anyone or anything stating, that Reflectors can resist beam weapons. As far as I can tell its just a decorative material with normal mapping only and black-body reflection ratio.

First, you'll need to check if your OS has "hidden" files displayed. The directory goes (your documents folder)/AppData/Roaming/Avorion/ships. That's where your saved ships are saved. Put the contents of the archive there and you should be able to load them up in-game.

Here you go, a quick build. Should have probably neglected the Hyperspace Cores in favor of more thrusters, but overall a pretty balanced layout. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QYnXK6qVITLu4gxJoG6kUZsgOfaz_BoQ

That's ironic. Pretty much the same as with Turret Factories - storing turret components in their storage seems to be the perfect idea... until they start to sell them in every direction, and there's nothing you can do about it.

- What number of slots are you looking for? Everyone basically use their own classification if any, and for me the Battleship is at least 12 modules, and that's about 1,5 million of materials, all the way to 2,5 million. - Is there any parametric specifics you're looking for? Balanced build? Mobility over armor? Strafing over turning? - Do you have any preferences to the shape and style of the ship? Do you play beta state and would prefer turret base blocks or not?

I did suggest to simply remove them. Apart from the fact, that there's no "legal" slaves hence its just as redundant to call them illegal, just like the illegal drugs, slaves are illogical commodity for the space-faring factions, that can deal much better with regular robotic servitors. At the very limit of the common sense, one can imagine taking slaves from particular hostile factions for the sake of humiliation, and yet it still doesn't make sense to buy them from somebody. All things considered, slaves should be removed together with several dozens of redundant and silly commodities. Most illegal goods should sell cheap at some factions where they are legal (and free to transport) and bought high at factions where they're not at specific stations depending on the commodity in question, and few should be illegal everywhere but on the Smugglers Stations and pirate Shipyards. However, most of all they should make sense in the given environment, and there are plenty of options to choose from: hacking devices, stimulants, forged IDs, security overrides, exotic species, refugees, stealth suits, etc. You also do not need to call Drug as such - call it something like Spices, Sand, Powder, Bliss etc. I think majority of people can figure out that its a drug on their own or read description as last resort. Other than that, Smuggler's Stations should not only buy stolen goods, but also sell [counterfeit] goods, which work just like regular commodities, but sold much cheaper while being controlled for. Isn't that what's smuggling were supposed to be in the first place?

When you press to choose the pre-built part from the palette and it appears in editor window like you have shown, you can hold ALT and click on the block in the part to choose which block you want to use as mounting point. place that block where it fits, and the rest of the part will be attached to it. You cannot edit it because its a complete hierarchy of blocks, and until you place it, its blocks has no location coordinates, but only the relative positions in that hierarchy. When blocks are highlighted as red means they cannot be placed due to the lack of hierarchy supporting them. -- После того как ты выбрал сохранненую деталь в панели префабов, ты можешь зажать ALT и выбрать блок в проекции, который будет использоваться для монтажа. Поставь этот блок куда тебе нужно, и остальные блоки уже присоединятся к нему сверху. Редактировать префабы нельзя, так как они представляют собой иерархию без реальных координат (только относительное положение в иерархии). Когда префаб подсвечен красным, это значит что некоторые блоки не могут быть установлены, и это нарушает всю нижестоящую иерархию.

Hm, from my experience the reason you might feel outclassed is because you just can't make an effective loadout with dozens of different weapons. Other than that, I think that it became fairly difficult to provide your ship with a reasonable amount of weapons after the changes to turret slot requirements - at least, when you riding something around a 12-slot ship and larger, the weapons you can mount on it look pathetic compared to the ship size, unless you're playing on a modded server like Rusty's CorePvP (as I do), where people literally farm abusive Xsotan artifacts that grant up to 11 slots. It not that I find it hard to match the power of enemies around the barrier without factory-made turrets - its that these weapons completely demolish anything the region throws at you. You can practically wipe out the entire faction assault fleet with a single ship. Weapons that you loot never really give you that kind of edge all the way prior, and once you've found a factory with a decent tech level Xanion weapons, all of it becomes completely redundant. All the natural transitions happen in a way, where you have to survive with inferior weapons until you obtain enough weapons matching the area. P.S. I also do not use Railguns for the sole reason of how outrageously overpowered all of them are. You can use any weapons you like to break down the shield, but once that is done, Railguns easily blow all other weapons out of the water, no contest possible.

I sell all Lasers and PDLs, just because they lack their own charisma. Wish they would fire in pulses and overheat. Every one that is about suggestions and issues. People make claims and I evaluate them. I make claims and people are free to evaluate them. Same with this thread. There's arguments given, and I respond to them when I care. And here, we don't even have a suggestion - its a discussion on the topic. If there's a place to expect the arguing in, its here. I usually don't do these. You can check on your own if you want. I'm just highlighting the point, that forums can in fact involve arguing for and against the points in question. A forum, where nobody is arguing, and agrees with everything and never points out the problems, is as good as dead to me. If that makes others consider me as toxic, fine. Frankly, I'm old enough to not give a damn. My arguments stand on their own merits. I don't think your description applies to the thread we're in. I think its a pretty broad criticism of the game, that should be discussed seriously, trying to find the best potential solutions possible. My points aren't special. You can prove me wrong. You also can ignore me, that's fine. Anyone is welcome to introduce their input. I hope you are not criticizing me for being active on a forum, which otherwise sees very little action. Yes, and that is the type of an proposition that I hate the most. Any change or the addition to the game or software has to be justified, especially when talking about very small indie developer teams like Avorion have. It has to be possible, functional and beneficial for the players and thus for the game as a whole, proportional to the efforts required. If it also happens to be cool, there's nothing better than that. However, just being "cool" doesn't cut it, especially if its one of a "seen it in other game, it was cool, lets copy it" kind. Sure, you can look at it in a "yeah it looks cool, thumbs-up, good idea" manner - what are the developers supposed to do with it? Like, seriously, what kind of changes are expected by the author of the idea? And then people start to wonder why majority of suggestions are ignored - most likely because those suggestions aren't provided in a form, that describes the actual objectives and explains why reaching them would make the game better. So yeah, we have got different named variants for Torpedoes. Why did we got them? Because torpedoes are variable types of ammunition for a single weapon, and their stats are not random. This is hard to apply to the weapon turrets with RNG stats, unless you sacrifice RNG for the sake of cool, but ultimately meaningless distinctions. OP called it a hybrid between an RPG and a Building Game. My point just about that there's nothing RPG about Avorion, period. There's many features and mechanics, some of them come from many different genres, but none of them originate from RPG. This is why Avorion is not tagged as RPG, even though people are capable of defining those tags themselves. I've never deconstructed your arguments - I addressed them using the same counter-argument. Talking analogies, you're basically arguing that the plane is a car, and when I say its not, you reply with "oh, but it has wheels and doors and a windshield and combustion engines and stuff". Well that true, but that's not the primary features that define a car - all of these features exist in completely different objects. Its a good starting point to know the difference between the plane and a car, because otherwise you might suggest additions, that a plane doesn't need at best, or even can make it worse at what it supposed to do. Definitions, that do not hold to public scrutiny are useless. You either agree to definitions, or you don't. If you don't then you can just as well throw them all out of the window and just call it all "features". If you do, then you have to understand what the RPG genre implies and what features defines it as such. Using this methodology, I can define the vast majority of games as RPGs, which makes the underlying principle useless. I can hardly understand, how can you not see a difference between a character and a unit. I don't think there's an RPG that makes you spend harvested resources to construct character, nor the one, that allows you to just build as many of them as you want. They're RPG'ish because a player has a character they control. Once they have units and building and harvest resources to build more units and upgrading them and replacing the lost ones, this is not an RPG. In Avorion, I have made up a whole race with background and lore and "enforced" approach to difference NPC factions, etc. and I actively working to design a catalog of ship/turret designs and station templates with shared stylistic decisions and all that jazz, but that still doesn't magically change the genre of the game I'm playing. It's a little simpler than that. Creators make a product, that offers something to players. Players who want this product play the game, and player who want something else will play something else. This is how any market works. First, you have pioneers, that kick-start the market by offering something completely new, mostly placing an emphasis on the ideas over execution. Then the entrepreneurs flood the market and exploit it based on what most people want for profits - these are the games, which are most popular, largely the most conceptually primitive and the clones of the same idea with focus on the execution. And then you have indie's, which still offer something new, even though it will never be as popular, holding to the principles of pioneers - ideas over profits. Avorion is not a game made for profits - games like PUBG are. Avorion is a niche game, because like few others of such sort, it is based on the idea, that your creative skills is what make you succeed in it. Nobody is taking Shipyard-generated ships seriously. Nobody is relying on their twitch-shooter or deep-strategy abilities here. People who are unwilling to spend time harvesting variable resources and building ships will not be able to receive what Avorion has to offer, so it has nothing to do with selling points. Same is true for Starmade. Same is true for Empyrion. Same is true for From The Depths. Same is true for Space Engineers. Same is true for Kerbal Space Program. Niche games usually grow by becoming better, not by becoming different. If you really want for Avorion to grow, then you'd need to get rid of building principles and instead add surface-level bells and whistles, but that will not longer be Avorion. There's a similar difference between Artists and Designers. An Artist mostly does what he wants, and some people like it. A Designer does what people will like, and what he wants is irrelevant.

Tesla probably can do that, since it deals like 5x the damage against shields. It's called arguing for my points. I'm sorry you do not realize you can actually do that. If I don't have a stance, then I don't participate. Not all parts, only the ones I somewhat disagree with. The point is mostly to make people defend and reinforce the necessity and importance of suggestions they're making. There's no red herrings here. If you finding something misleading, then you have a freedom to not drive it further and respond to the relevant cases, for example why do you consider it important to have arbitrary distinctions between weapon variants. You were the one who ignored that argument and went for this path instead. Don't blame me for your decisions. I'm not proving RPG features in other games - I'm proving that Avorion has none of those. Actually, evaluating Avorion as an RPG is the greatest red herring there is to find. It's just objectively not, which is why making suggestions that rely on that definition is counter-productive. Whatever someone describes it is irrelevant - if there's no defined player character present, then it cannot be an RPG by definition. When you see a greater picture and understand what Avorion was designed to be and where it's being led across time, then you realize which suggestions drive it further along the concept.

Stellaris generates the galaxy with a prerequisite, that star systems as a whole are important for the player. For Avorion Players, they aren't. Avorion uses sectors, and sectors simply represent a place where something is or isn't located. Multiple faction-populated sectors can be named the same, just with different postfixes, meaning they belong to the same star system. In the early months of Stellaris, there were three interstellar travel methods possible - warp drives, hyperspace lanes and wormholes. Warp Drives were basically super-powered boosters, that allowed to travel slowly, but anywhere if the engine capacity allowed it. Hyperspace lanes were predefined synchronicity connections between the stars, with very fast travel across limited routes. Wormholes allowed long-range travel between any systems, but required special stations to be built, that would open wormholes between two points in range, so that you'd have to build those anywhere you want to depart from and come back to. Warp Drives have been removed from the game relatively recently, as they were impossible to defend against, while Wormholes were rededicated to the rare find allowing for travel across the galaxy otherwise limited to hyperlane network alone. Thus, in the Avorion game world, ship jump drives essentially operate like the warp drives, allowing for jumps in specific range, and Warp Gates operate like artificial Hyperspace links, but connecting specific orbits and areas, not the entire star systems. So, when you explore the Avorion galaxy extensively, it appears quite like the Stellaris galaxy and offer almost the same travel options. The only difference is that you spend time recharging the drive instead of waiting idly during the flight, and you need time to move between Warp Gates instead of the time stabilizing them. Space rifts operate much like the unlinked systems, and you only can cross them trough the wormholes, warp gates or trough the top-notch Avorion-based jump drive. In conclusion, there's no clear difference in what you're proposing and what we already have in-game. I can agree, that perhaps we do not need the grid lines at all, as they spoil the perception of space, and we might need better navigation icons, that differentiate between empty sectors, sectors with asteroids, sectors with Smuggler Hideouts, faction capitals, mining and farming sectors and faction territory boundaries that distinguish between them regardless of your relations with either. These are two pieces of suggestion that I can see feasible, but otherwise the paragraph is based on the wrong understanding of sectors. Every sector can have a planet, a parent star and a nebulae, its just that some have interesting features and structures on those orbits, and some don't. Again, everything you've just wrote is pretty much how Avorion operates. It's just that the primary method of travel is jump drives, and that cells on the map are sectors, not systems. If you place additional clusters of object inside the sector, there's a problem of finding those with player's limited radar range, and if you connect them via the booster gates, that you can use to travel between such clusters, it doesn't really offer much of an improvement over the warp gate networks we already have. Unexplored sectors have no prescribed content. They're classified as part of the network and as part of the faction territory, but until you actually visit them, there's virtually nothing there.

Mmm, not really. Its just changes the consideration of what is to call garbage. The RNG will work all the same. Again, the problem is not that you can't beat the Naonite laser that you've found. The problem that you can't just bring that laser to the factory and reproduce it. Not sure about the Ogonite turrets you were searching - I can hardly find a factory, that grant Xanion turrets that bad. There's no dichotomy here in the first place. Neither of these features are RPG-specific. Roguelike is a roguelike, not RPG - most RPGs has a setup world. Randomized loot does not make the game an RPG - many RPG games has set items with different rarity ratings, that are simply not displayed. Research stations doesn't make the game an RPG - vast majority of RPGs do not have anything like that. Stats enhancements do not make the game an RPG - some racing games, simulators and action games also has those. RPG is a game, where player controls a single or a group of characters with certain defined specializations and associated progression paths, that are moving across the game world following objectives and making decisions with variable outcomes and solving problems in a variety of ways depending on the character feats. So the RPG features applicable to other genres may include but are not limited to: Created and pre-designed characters, specialized character classes, extensive prescribed level-based progression, quests with variable outcomes based on player's choices, dynamic inter-party relations, moral and immoral actions, etc. You only learn to understand the distinction if you've played RPGs of the old days. Today, we have all of those cool new bells and whistles, that make such games more appealing and replayable, but they never were what made the game an RPG nor made a MMO into a MMORPG.