Tsunamik
-
Posts
217 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Tsunamik
-
-
Expanse is actually TV series based of books... would be cool to have a game aswell, but no dice yet.
Will be waiting patiently for that XML, seems worth a wait :)
-
It really looks how I envision future dreadnaughts might look like. Also the front section reminds me bit of Donnager class from Expanse, coincidence or inspiration? Looks awesome anyway.
I just noticed lack of XML file... thats bad man, you can´t do this to us! :D
Pretty please? :)
-
oh fuck wow...
Now thats a ship which clearly yells "I am big fucker, dont mess with me" :D
Amazing how you made 9megaton big ship so maneuverable, must be joy to play... Ultimate lategame badass :)
-
Which version did you try? If you loaded the HUGE one, it won´t really turn at all, as it is impossible to add enough thrusters to make it turn :) Small version should be working just fine though, as I am sometimes still flying it.
-
It's nice to be able to improve turning of the ship and it's braking and all, but I'm not sure the extra blocks was a good idea for Avorion.
there's already 2 types of thruster block and I feel that's more than sufficient.
The new blocks just achieve functions already doable by thrusters, so are surely just adding bloat. Did a little test and found for small and big ships, the gyro and inertial dampener just make thrusters (a neat mechanic of the game) entirely obsolete. There's no reason to mess with thrusters when you can easily and cheaply outperform them with the new blocks.
Would have preferred to see effort go into something like reducing jump calculation times over long distances, as they are absolutely horrendous endgame. (either by modules, a block, or just reduce all round)
Hah, thats absolutely false statement .)
Gyros on my ship do NOTHING, as my ship is already too big to have any effect.
And dampeners somewhat work, but their energy drain is absolutely huge, AND they can only stop you - but I like to use thrusters for turning AND strafing aswell.
-
There is issues with fighters and very small hangar entrances - they can´t maneuver well enough to fit in :)
I have my hangars facing downwards, and they are very shallow, but very wide, and I have no problem with fighter landings
-
Also: Large masses simply require large forces to move. Build more/larger gyros, build your directional thrusters at the corners of your ship, build them larger. You can even cover them up (intentionally) if you don't like the looks of them. But they will be required to make a battleship move. I think you don't realize what dimensions your ship has. A normal window on your ship is ~1x2 meters.
Large battleships will never be as nimble as frigates or corvettes. That's why you can build turrets at every place on your ship, why turrets can turn around, why you can move the camera around your ship, and why you have fighters. Controlling a large battleship should be a small challenge, but it's relatively easy once you know how.
Edit: And it looks pretty cool, congratz on the nice build!
Now to make those fighters worthwhile and I would be one happy mothership.. :D
I like my new ship, I built it from scratch with new system in mind, and it has atleast 1.0 rads on all rorations while having 200k tons... so much fun now, when you really have to design your ship for its function... its final design then comes in place naturally :)
-
I could understand one player as the pilot and another as the gunner. But squad-commander? How would that be fun? Would it mean leading a boarding action to take over an enemy ship?
Squad commander of your fighter wings, he would order fighters to attack target, maybe even manually control them etc...
If the beta's nerf to thrusters remains unchanged, once that hits the main branch, I suspect koonschi will be surprised by the amount of negative feedback it generates. Already, I've seen some backlash. An example:
Vlog #14: I'm Done With Avorion & Small Youtubers Inside!
To be honest, Kane acted little bit like precious little snowflake in my opinion... :D No offense, but you can´t opt-in for beta-branch (in EA game!) and then say you are done with it after one no-ntested, non-stable experimental feature which wasn´t even finished and was just gathering feedback.
I do understand that he was bit burnt out of the game though, but that thruster change trashing was really uncalled for.
-
Also after some funtime, I have one small suggestion - with flight assist off, it would be great to have VERY small automatic omnipresent friction at very low speeds (<100?). As I have just found out, that without flight assist, my ship can´t stop - at all, it either moves 70m/s forward, or backwards, but I just can´t make it stop with my controls :D
-
I can't see anything in the notes but I'll ask here... Has anything been changed with regards to power generation? Before the patch my ship was generating excess energy when the hyperdrive was recharging, now even with turning the flight assist thing off it's still way down. Before it was around 14 GW, now it shows 11.84 GW.
Yes directional thrusteres now use proper amount of energy (was too low before). Atleast thats what I understood from patch notes :)
Already did some testing, inertia dampeners feel quite good, nice effect vs its energy drawback, I like that :)
But gyros are not really working out for me - on my ship, when I add quite a huge gyro array, it changes my rotation only by 0.04/0.08/0.37. When I add same sized omnithruster, it gives 0.12/0.16/1.15 = basically more than double its effect with additional benefit of strafing and stopping power. Is there some limit for gyros or something I am missing here? :)
-
I'm new to the game and really want to start playing on beta instead of the stable branch, but I'm worried about how broken the AI movement is with the thruster update? Do they become noticeably more incompetent... making the game less fun?
Would appreciate anyone on beta that could offer input, thanks! :)
Well some of them cant turn properly, or even move.. but its not that common or game breaking as it might seem, as they were fairly incompetent even on stable branch :D
-
https://www.avorion.net/forum/index.php/topic,2349.0.html
Hey man, your problem is fixed! :D You can now sell your cargo if you install newest beta :D
Military outposts buy electromagnetic charges -
:DDDD Charges are for manufacturing turrets if I recall correctly... yeah, that suxx :D
-
it's amazing but quite unpolished. starmade is far ahead technically and in terms of features but it's missing a major theme to drive the player... empyrion gets the story part well but has littlecomtemt and zero replayability..
there are literally dozens at this point that did it but many of the clones are built without a person that understand the "game" part of "gameplay" it seems - which is what made minecraft a smash hit.
Thats my main problem with most of the building games... Space enginners, starmade, interstellar rift are all great for building stuff - but after that, there is nothing to do with your ships and creations (atleast nothing really meaningful). You can build more and faster, but that cannot drive me for very long :/ They simply feel like overblown editors + test scenarios than proper games.
Thats one thing, that really makes Avorion special, as it is basically real feature full space sim, comparable with X3 (after all those features start working properly though! :D)
-
Yeah, only thing he can do (as 1 player vs many uuuuh, that must be horrible) is to probably kill few people in that attack run of yours and then warp away so you can´t find him afterwards... and heal himself, replenish shield etc...
Sooo you probably lost few small player ships, while your bigger opponents have to replenish a shield. what a loss. Seriously mate...
-
yeah, against fast and maneuvering opponents, you want hitscan weapons like lasers and rails, as everything else is easily dodged :/ teslas are good too, but their range is meh
-
Yeah, we can be slicing our thrusters again, yay! :D Luckily effect is so mediocre right now, that its not really worth it :)
-
Well, maybe there will be some "detection" mechanic implemented, along with sensor blocks and such, who knows.. If I have to bet, this won´t come any time soon though, as there are much more pressing issues
-
Thats cool.. fast, maneuverable, plenty of energy, good hyper reach, worthy shield, good look... Great stuff overall :)
-
You are not going to be happy about beta patch release I think.. :D
-
I am not really talking about this game in particular...
I agree that some gamification ideas are needed to create some unique challenges or designs - and stealth mechanisms are planned according to dev (I am sooo gonna build d´Deridex... :D)
About Yamato - well thats what I am talking about basically, it was overwhelmed by something much faster, thats why bigger=better mechanism didn´t work. If it could outrun those planes, they would stand no fcking chance in the world in the long run - and thats what would happen in space most likely.
And getting overwhelmed by numbers also isn´t part of our original discussion. It was talk about 1v1 fights and design of ships in game - somebody was complaining that smaller ship can´t compete vs bigger ships - and we stated that this actually makes sense and there is no reason to change it.
Bigger ship vs lot of smaller one is different aspect altogether, and not something I was talking about.
-
wow dude.. never though about that, but you have a point!
It is actually really amazing what you just did there, as we can basically create shareable libraries of premade blocks for easy ship construction! :) Thats gonna make mass production of ships so much easier....
-
you have directional thrusters, which is basically little bit weaker engine that can be used for maneuvering aswell.. what more do you need? :)
-
Yeah, eve sacrified lot of sensible things for game balance... understandable for game, but it then gives these stupid ideas to many players.
Stupid ideas? Yet real-world navy ships have roles; real-world air force aircraft have roles; ships in Homeworld and Homeworld 2 had roles; ships in FreeSpace 2, widely considered to be the best combat space sim ever released commercially, had roles; I could easily go on.
You're all entitled to your opinions, but it's objective fact that bigger = better is one-dimensional. If that were true, the US Navy would only have aircraft carriers and nothing else. Instead, they continue to also field several classes of submarines, frigates, corvettes, cruisers, two types of amphibious assault vessels, support vessels, and various cargo, supply, and miscellaneous vessels. In the past, there were many other active-duty roles that have since been retired, most notably battleships.
Sure, you need roles - thats more than half of my post, so what are you trying to say? Oo Also two vastly different mediums (water and air) in which modern military craft propels are so different, that it broke almost all rules (as aircraft are so much faster that carriers pushed all bigger ship designs to history books).. but there is nothing like water and air in space - there is space. Thats it. Same rules for everybody.
And amhibious assault, support, cargo vessels etc are really not part of this discussion are they? We were discussing straight combat units - and in this case bigger ship at the same task, will almost always destroy smaller ship at same technological level. Thats what started this discussion, so please stay on topic.
And yes, thinking that small bombers will destroy big battleships because "they are small+fast and big guns on battleship can´t track them fast enough" is stupid idea in real world, which is in those games only for gameplay purposes, as adding small weapons to big ship in tandem with main weapons is "warship construction 101" - just try to imagine tanks without machine guns, or ww2 yamato with its 9 main guns and no secondaries (when in reality it had like DOZENS of them+aa guns)...
[r7633] Displayed Crew Salary too low
in Bugs
Posted
It was always called "crew pay per hour" if I recall correctly, don´t know where did that "per hour" part go... so its not as much bug as lack of proper information :)