WSY

While I like the idea of some E-warfare, I really don't like the idea of this game becoming Eve. It could be because Eve has put a very sour taste in my mouth. "Completely open sandbox game....*cough* as long as you follow the meta that we enforce *cough". And I mean anything players do that break this meta...AT ALL, even if it doesn't effect the mass fleet warfare and overall impact of the general game....will be patched out or corrected. This meta enforces rock paper scissors gameplay which I am not a fan off. Having different options to deal with differing situations you may come across and pre-planning for those, and some situations may spike difficulty a bit ,awesome! Just don't make it so I auto-lose because I didn't bring the lightning weapon and have a "deus ex machina module" every third or fifth jump, because I couldn't equip it at the same time as a laser weapon and "starchild" module that I need so I do not auto-lose every fourth jump. That kinda crap is annoying and is nothing more that "artificial" difficulty and lazy "balancing". The rest however I agree with and have suggested myself. I will say that fighters are not too fragile. However the ability to see their overall health and squadron count with maybe a color denoting health/dodges remaining will allow you to manage when their is a flak ship or squadron is at risk in the area and either pull them back or re-direct them elsewhere. That is more a GUI issue to me. Fighters should never be invulnerable. More powerful true starfighters that are larger and you can field a limited number off with much higher health pool and shields with boost and maybe two weapons would be great. But I have that all suggested in my thread and do not want to hijack yours :) I will say their cost while being fairly high denotes you ability to field them, but could be lowered a bit. 120 fighters with 180 dps is 21k dps. At about 650 dps a xanion fighter with almost max upgrades costs about 120k of a resource. That is 78k dps I can field in addition to my ship. Where it also really hurts...it takes a massive assembly station/ship to be able to get that down to even 15 minutes per fighter. I think that gets tricky to balance because you do get to a point in the game where you can easily afford such disposable resources.

I'm curious then if it is possible to put a negative multiplier for mods? So all the turret mods would have some sort.of negative to boost, manueverabilty, Accel? Alfulen this is some amazing work, trying to wrap my head around this here: this looks like we can apply based on slot size. Going to shoot at trying to understand what is here Essentially you have a function (considered an entity) called traffic police... The last part, if the entity.isShip then it's applying traffic police to any entity that is a ship. Does this apply to NPCs too? I guess I never realized they also had slots and modules inside them.

I would say we could remove this is e as a bug then.

My healing fighters only have heal target- return and collect fighters command which I believe is intentional. However if I select myself and click on the repair button they do not do anything. They repair other ships fine. Thanks!

Movement: On movement. You raise a good point on fighter power generation vs a larger ship power unit able to provide more power. I agree we can make a reasonable assumption that larger ship can generate far more power, and depending on the scaling of that power, can dedicate a much smaller percentage of its overall volume to this power generation and still come out on top. Fighters can get around this though by using a fuel (potential energy) source vs a heavy, larger and more complex power generating source. Allowing the storing of massive potential energy that is more easily consumed for various things such as thrust etc. gives a fighter a superior edge. This is counter to a larger ship, which may have a larger, higher volume and mass reactor. Now we could also assume the fighter has the same reactor but I feel it would still be faster for another reason. Hopefully I explain the next part well. Your actually more correct then you realize with the kinetic energy formula - it is actually E = 1/2m x v^2, so Mass is even less of a factor then you originally argue :) However to frame my response here, I want to point out that it is not correct indefinitely. This classical formula applies and is very close to relative kinetic energy until about 0.5C (C = speed of light), however for the purpose of our discussion and the speeds typically found in the game, this formula is fine. Where I disagree is your conclusion where you then state that this is proof that bigger ships have the advantage because they generate more power, and thus more thrust. While they do generate more power, and more total thrust, the advantages there of, actually begin to scale down. The reasons are because of: - kinetic energy formula - first law of dynamics (Conservation of energy) - Law of cube or Square cube law, - AND finally thrust in a classical sense is a factor of surface area. With KE = 1/2m x v^2, essentially every time you double your velocity, you have four times the kinetic energy, BUT, First Law comes into play here, that energy doesn't come from anywhere, it also TAKES four times the energy to double your velocity. Now the law of cube doesn't scale perfectly because the bigger ship will have differences in its interior where percentages of what is inside are dedicated to different functions etc, and difference in shape. However, it does still apply overall: "When an object undergoes a proportional increase in size, its new surface area is proportional to the square of the multiplier and its new volume is proportional to the cube of the multiplier" For example, if you double the size (measured by edge length) of a cube, its surface area is quadrupled, and its volume is increased to eight times its original volume. Since volume is multiplied by 8, you can reasonably assume that it will be close to 8 times the mass. Assuming "Perfect" doubling of the cube, taking in account internal gyros, or thrust systems, the smaller cube is near 3 times as agile. Now again in real life it doesn't scale quite exactly like this due to different internal make ups and shapes of smaller vs larger ships, but this will still apply. Finally Thrust. Thrust is a factor of surface area. This is classical thrust, not theoretical Zero Mass or other exotic propulsion systems like warp bubbles (which I have also mentioned in my primary post I am not including based on what I can infer from Intention from the devs). Thrust is a factor of surface area, and thus you can assume puts pressure on what it is pushing against. So, if we double the size of an object, we have four times the thrust area, pushing 8 times the mass. If you graph this out, you end up with downward opening parabola, though never reaching zero acceleration - ironically the opposite of the graphing of Relative KE formula. In order to maintain the same acceleration, you would need to increase your thrust output, or pressure on the side your applying force too. That increase in pressure will have to ever increase each time you double in size. As I have stated in my original post there are some things you can do to counter the scaling of thrust being surface in relation to the square cube law, but ultimately it will still apply. It applies even more so if you have ships that are longer/rectangular in shape with the narrow/smaller surface area side serving as the fore and aft. A square ship or perfect sphere would be the ideal candidate for min/maxing in real life, but I doubt we would ever do something like this. Now in your statement you also appear to be missing a large part of my argument around acceleration and pressure stresses. Lets assume we have perfect power to engine transference of energy and bigger generator as you said trumps all. And assume that thrust still is a factor of surface area, but we can break all engineering laws and scale the amount of pressure/thrust up indefinitely as we increase in size. That pressure will ever increasingly put more, and more strain on a ships internal structure as the needed pressure/thrust needed in that same surface area grows. - I actually go over this in my original post but want to re-iterate in case I wasn't very clear. So every time you double a cube in size, you have to also double (it may be quadruple, but pretty sure its double, my brain is fried tonight) the pressure or thrust the engine puts out. So at 3 times the size of a fighter, to maintain the same rate of acceleration, you have 4 times the pressure, then at 4 times the size, its 6 or 8 times the pressure on the ship structure. (This is a perfect cube scenario- if it is an elongated ship where surface area of ship to provide thrust is not equal to 1/6th total surface area, pressure multiplier increases) In my original post I go into applying this at the speeds at which I see ships accelerate at and how a metallurgical leap or some sort of handwavium devices would need to be present in order achieve what they do in game. Again if the Dev would state this is what they want then so be it, Intention trumps realism, and Balance needs to be looked at for everything else around it. On your response on escorts used mainly vs submarines: In later WW2 escorts (specifically destroyers) I agree were generally meant for anti-submarine warfare in the Atlantic. I believe this was more so a side affect that this was the only thing the Germans really could put out to sea because everything else was blown out of the water fairly quickly later in the war, and they made the choice to focus on submarines for the purpose of supply line disruption. If we modified the Strategic Assumption, and made it so Germans were were able to crank out cruisers and destroyers and get them out there to disrupt supply lines - the fact that escorts were needed wouldn't change. In the Pacific, the escorts provided additional AA fire on both sides. Actual Battleship on battleship engagements I think were pretty limited. Now I believe ( and could be wrong here) modern US navy doctrine does actually have their destroyers on the outer perimeter of the carrier fleets for submarine detection and interception. You make a very good point with the higher number of turrets by creating multiple smaller ships due to how upgrade modules work, I honestly do not believe I considered that, or spaced it completley. The counter balance of ships being picked off one by one is also a good point, see that in pretty much every team PVP game. Tanks, Mech games, the faster you get a set of weapons off the field, the faster you have more guns, and thus higher DPS then they do. A logical conclusion in warfare. Where my problem with the bigger ship comes in, is take that same scenario: that bigger ship if built somewhat correctly also has a higher max speed, higher acceleration, and gets the power of engagement control. The bigger 15 slot ship can fly in, take out a ship, fly away, recharge shields, and repeat. For a 7 slot ship to have near (note, not have...but only get close which means the group still loses) this capability, a significant portion of its internal will be power and engines, and less space for shield generators. There is also the whole thing of you can only fly one ship at time...but the AI with independent targeting turrets (specifically rail guns) would do well enough. In a 1 on 1 as it is now bigger ship will always win, can chase you down, and guarantee its victory, this is largely where I have issue but really I don't do PVP so its not that big of a deal, but I feel the smaller ships should get the option of whether or not to engage, not be instantly pooched because they are in the same sector as the bigger ship. Again however this is PVP and not a big deal to me, m ore annoying to me is all the NPC ships boost around like Nascar racers. Shield Facings would be awesome, or sector based shields, like front third, mid third, rear third. In the end I agree that Avorian is not trying to be a naval combat game, but I want there to be a purpose to most things in the game. The devs have point defense weapons, and fighters/carriers so I would like them to have a purpose. I really don't want them to completely re-do the game, but really I throw out a lot of suggestion with my reasoning why so it can help them. I think a majority of issues would be resolved primarily if they slowed down the bigger ships, or removed their boost so that they aren't better at everything (NPCs can still have some smaller chaser ships with bost abilty- and the rocket ships, that is a specific tactic players created and I love seeing the AI doing this Realism = built for Purpose, Intention - because players do it, Balance = it is a good counter to a larger ship), give fighters boost ability and toned down the railguns (which I think they have.) A lot of the PD stuff vs fighters does seemed addressed already. MODS will do everything else. Finally, if you have a different preference of play style, completely awesome, it is why I try to leave my suggestions open ended. I will not say someone is wrong for wanting something else. If you want zoomy zoom zoom ships, by all means this game is a sandbox, but if you tell me the super start destroyer should fly like a tie interceptor because its more realistic, then I like to have a discussion because we can't both be right, and maybe I have something to learn :), I know about most of the physics stuff from being wrong... a lot..lol. If you want the SSD to fly like a Tie interceptor because that is what you want, can't argue with that. (not saying this is case, just an example :) )

Shields: First Law of Thermal dynamics while stating energy cannot be created nor destroyed - I feel does not mean we know how shields would work entirely. Unlike FTL where we actually have some true theoretical possibilities if we could just clear a few hurdles, shields we have no clue. The idea of FTL seems more plausible oddly at the moment then shields (I could be missing some new articles on shield tech - feel free to point me to some if we are closer). While I agree with you based on the first law that we can assume that if we hit a shield with more energy then is being put into it , the shield is affected somehow. Does it go down or is it weakened? Does it pop and take a long time to come back up -or does it come back up over time based on power supply? Does it go down for a split second and come back up - because it is hooked to super capacitors? (requiring two powerful weapons firing close together?) Or does it merely weaken until finally it burns out and takes some time to recharge? Does the shield act like armor, so unless you dump an amount of energy into that exceeds its input, it does not go down, or even weaken? In this case only super battleships could damage super battleships and fighters (well anything smaller) would either have absolutely zero purpose as you have pointed out, or be relegated to skirmish or flash point engagements that are not considered critical and where resources are limited. Your Arms race would turn into who can build a bigger reactor and connect it to a shield generator. From my perspective - shields are largely Intention and Game Balancing. Now I agree we do not want to shields to be so crazy that they appear to break Realism, but to me, I see it more as willing suspension of disbelief vs any form of realism. What I can do, is make my analysis and feedback based on the Strategic Assumption of how they currently work in the game. Or make recommendations if I feel they need changed (Balance). Fighters: You state why you believe my comparison to naval fleets are bad by comparing fighter to ship firepower and their medium of travel is different. I 100% agree with your argument here about a fighter threat parity vs singular ship and their medium of travel, but I am failing to understand you opening with this. In my analysis I am saying fighters should not be so invulnerable vs large ship PD weapons (Special note: this has been addressed mostly - thanks devs!) And in fact a quote from my post; "The absolute one thing that I see some games do that to me is a failure, is they try to balance it so a small little ship can take out the giga titan. In almost every case this really should never happen." Your argument comes off as a bit of a red herring to me, but I could just be taking this out of context a bit or miss understanding your intention of the statement, so let me try to bring the next bit in where you are comparing how a star fighter should not be a significant threat and respond to it. I largely agree with you. A single fighter as represented by most sci-fi genres (star wars, babylon 5, etc), unless loaded with some exotic technological leaping weapon (something akin to a nuke or greater), or using itself as a kinetic kill weapon (Accelerating as fast as possible and become nothing more then a kamikaze missile) shouldn't be much of a threat. Taking into account even how low power computers can accurately predict and engage targets, and combined with a point defense laser system, means fighters really shouldn't be a threat, or if they somehow are, shouldn't be there long as the larger ship can have more high powered Point Defense weapons then a lone fighter can defend against. Unless of course we start including E-war which could lead to computer systems not being 100 accurate vs fighters. I see drones as a potential technology alternative and a cheap swarm tactic technology. If there are true star fighters I believe they would be corvette sized or larger to be more effective (think Millennium Falcon or elite dangerous sized fighters - or even the Halo longsword, which is about 1/2 to 3/4 the size of a 747.) Starfighters unless larger as I stated where they could absorb significant energy, honestly would be easily wiped out. Say a big swarm is coming toward you, a massive nuke like bomb loaded with armor piercing or exploding fletchettes or something else would wipe out a group. PS Lookup up the Genie Missile, while it wouldn't work in space as is since there is not a medium for the pressure wave to travel through, if you gave it shrapnel capabilities or something akin, would be just as effective probably, where large ships could absorb the collateral damage. I was going to go into the Realism aspect of why star fighters can be a threat, (potential for different Strategic Assumptions) but honestly I am going to just skip that, as it is a bit of digression that we can argue back and forth forever based on theoretical and hypothetical technologies, but really I feel it comes down to Intention. I will sum up by stating fighters are in the game so thus Intention can be assumed here, and I feel that I am free to apply some of the reasons why they exist in real life to why they are in the game (Fleet Mission, Fleet Design), otherwise they would be in the game strictly for rule of cool - and if the Dev says this is the intent then so be it, no need to worry about feedback on it from my end. In real life fighters have a Strategic goal of achieving air superiority (Think if it as medium control, however when applying to space combat, fighters share the same medium as ships) and engage targets (such as ground targets, naval targets etc.). Overall they are for Extended Area Control; able to get to a location quickly and engage/intercept a target before becoming a threat to nearby mission critical assets or their home ship. Or if its already a little to late, able to perform quick response. Now in real life we also have bombers -slower, heavier, much larger payload, but in the game we have only fighters which serve both roles (Intention). Most of my suggestions on fighters are focused on balance, but a touch on realism as you wouldn't build something that has no purpose. (yep...I talk way to much ..onto next post)

Hi Zerenity, First welcome to the forum and thanks for the first post! (Also..dang I type to much..had to break my post into multiple...sorry I am a wordy person apparently - had to also be multiple so they were broken up by subject of response) Since there is a lot here, was going to use quotes as sometimes I get too focused but it makes my posts too long. I do not know who Drachinifel is but oddly as an IT guy, I am not a big social media person. Also I would like to note while I use WW2 naval fleets as examples, my intention is not to apply planet bound water medium naval doctrines to sci-fi space fleets. In some ways I can see how it appears this way, (Navy with escorts) but really I could use any example of our history in warfare, - Tanks amidst platoons of men, medieval trading caravans escorted by mercenaries/ guards vs bandits, hammer and anvil tactics with fast calvary, as my overall point is military builds for purpose, and things are born out of reason or need. I use the naval examples, because it is much easier for people to associate too (giant ships), being more modern, and honestly a lot of sci-fi games/movies/IPs take examples from it (though not fully understanding why such things exist and more so for "rule of cool"). Now I do not use naval movement for examples as it is a completely different medium and should not apply (though formations would be different - but does not have anything to do with the medium) - I do use fighters for example as well but not for movement reasons - but I will go in more detail on that later in my reply. A quick thing - because I do call out use of verbage from a naval analyst - I want to clarify it does not mean I am applying Naval doctrines (I am not saying this is why you came to this conclusion - merely clarifying just in case) Warfare has become a science really so I used this to help me to better articulate my statements - though some times i still cannot keep it coherent and mess it up :) Hell I may even be using his terminology wrong so I will define below just in case. Strategic Assumptions - unlimited ammunition except for torpedoes and fighters, no concern for fuel, space is our medium, shields are an "absolute" defense, generally we can expect things to work, mechanics and physics of the game/universe Strategic Goals - what are the player goals Fleet missions - One is a mining fleet? One is a defense/offense fleet, one is exploration fleet? Is the fleet going to be able to defend an area? or control entire sector? Aka need to be able to chase faster ships? which leads to: Fleet Design - Does your mining fleet need defensive ships? (Strategic assumption here would be if it is in a sector without player, NPC xoltan and pirate ships won't spawn so defense may not be needed) Does your fleet need fighters (and why)? Does your exploration fleet plan to engage enemies or run away? If your fleet is controlling a sector, what all needs to be considered to do so, does it need chaser ships or fighters to ensure full control? Force Size - This is one is a tricky one for me at times - I think its a lot like how many eggs do you want to put in one basket to engage a enemy force? What size of force are you expecting to engage? You don't need 40 battleships to typically engage a standard pirate fleet spawn. Force Management - Do you just have one fleet with you, or multiple fleets? How do you manage those fleets? How do they interact? Do you have multiple ships with 12 squadrons,? Is it easier to just lump all offensive ships into one group and order them around vs breaking them down into roles? (really this one is probably not as important in this game to be honest, as I think it starts involving logistical concerns which we don't have (Strategic assumption) Wanted to call this out specifically, as generally, while I do not call them out I also keep all of these in mind. It is why i always disclaim with developer choice and player playstyle - and try to give suggestions for different playstyles. I completely agree you would have new doctrines developed around starship technology and combat engagements around this. However I disagree partially with your dismissal of this game not having any Earth naval influence. My reason being - where do you think all the sci-fi space ship genres get it from? Starwars - Heavy WW2 Naval Combat influence Battlestar Galactica Old/New - WW2 and some Modern Naval combat influences WingCommander - It has torpedoes, stealth like plotting all remniscent of .... ww2 naval combat - and some modern..since you know..torpedoes are guided. Babylon 5 - They do a good job beginning to divert from planet bound water naval influences but they are still there - swarms of fighters (but at least they follow Newtonian flight models) I thing the nimbari starfury would be the natural evolution of any true Starfighter/fast engagement vessel. Andromeda - I actually really like this one, because i feel this one - minus their FTL mechanics - does a really good draft job of what we could expect in future space warfare (besides standard cheese factor from a lot of this era's sci-fi shows) - and it would likely be armored command decks INSIDE the ship where command staff are looking at sensor screens..not looking out a window for gods sake...lol. We even see significant portions of the ship able to be automated and combat capable without crew. Though suffer later because it can only be so effective at self repairs and defending itself internally. You could say everything is very Submarine like, but I honestly think that is where we would evolve to on our first stop of space combat. Stargate - there is some good stuff here, but we still have windowed command decks and space fighters, primary weapons, and secondary weapons meant to serve as Point Defense. Star Trek - Next Generation, Voyager, and Deep Space Nine, even Enterprise (not going into discovery as that is more influenced) Now this one really begins to divert from classical understandings of physics and starts applying theoretical or straight up new technologies which really begin to change a lot of the Strategic Assumptions around space combat. There Strategic Goals are different = exploration and self defense vs straight up warships (minus the defiant) However there still are influences (cloaking cat and mouse games similar to submarine warfare), but star trek has always focused more on the ship and it's crew and less on mass scale combat - later deep space nine got into this though. And - ironically though nonsensical, smaller ships are still depicted faster and more maneuverable at sub-light speeds in combat scenese. (Not always depending on the plot of the episode though. Example - Shuttles cannot outrun starships as they have bigger engines and more power, so all the chase episodes, shuttles are out of luck until someone saves them - oh and missing....how do you miss with such powerful targeting computer technology, with weapons that travel at or near speed of light and no EWAR taking place?) Now I do not want to go too heavily into the semantics of each above universe because honestly - THEY ALL change based on story, plot armor, retcons, director/writer, budget and special effects limitations per episode or movie, and aren't 100% cohesive with their own established universe rules. Example - Star Wars, Star Trek both boast INSANE weapon ranges, yet we never, ever, ever see engagements happen at the ranges boasted because it would be pretty boring. My point I am making here is, you cannot dismiss Naval Combat completely because these IPs get their ideas from real world examples, and those real world examples exist for a reason - Military's do not build because of "Rule of Cool", as everything fills a role or has a purpose (exception is for displays of power, and recruitment - but I digress). I am not arguing for Naval doctrines specifically but about the theoretical warfare and how humans build things for reasons/function base on strategic assumption, and by extension we can apply some of that to space warfare - Example: objective of protecting a critical part of fleet, or a mission critical asset. (sorry have to break up my posts - I hit character limit)

All good fury, I have been the same way on some of the topics. Some times at the end of the day the brain is goo and doesn't want to do anything lol. There is a reply from Zerenity (I think) that I need to reply to in my comprehensive post, but I myself have been much too busy with family and work. Since he threw in a formula I will respond in kind so you can see some of the math behind it. I just haven't finished my reply yet to post. And... I am not a mathematician, so I will probably be wrong but hopefully close :)

Hi Alfuken, Awesome discovery! At the very least, can we apply this somehow based on AI generated class or size of ship? (I really need to spend more time on figuring out how to mod this game/how lua in it works.) For example, smaller picket ships having high max speed is ok, then make it so bigger ships are forcefully slowed down?

[uBR] Fixed an issue where speed of AI ships was too high I am curious around this one. I will perform some testing and provide feedback :) Special Note: Would help to know what your target is for movement so we can provide feedback around it EI, what is too high? What is too low? Thanks!

TESL4 This has been discussed with people making recommendations and providing feedback ad nauseum, but devs simply do not respond to any conversation around this. I completely understand devs cannot respond to every post, but any response relating to the subject simply does not exist. At least not on the forums that I have seen recently. I have seen questions answered by devs before and after posts asking this question, myself included, but not answering the question once - "appearing" to outright ignore it. Not saying they are, it just appears so - I like to give people benefit of the doubt. Sue responded to one post stating they slowed some ships down on lower difficulty but this has been it, and it was a post a user made out of frustration, and I have not seen any responses since then. Beyond the original fix that was used to exploit movement based on surface area, and then allowing the AI to use boost to chase players kiting with ships (which introduced other issues but I feel was a step in the right direction) this really has been it. If we could get at least some communication on what the intent is, we could provide much more constructive feedback around movement. Honestly if the devs would just make it so some NPC ships boost under a certain size, and others cannot, while not perfect, would at least alleviate a bit of this I feel. I have even provided feedback on different options so everyone can have their own preferred play style l. I understand the devs are in a bit of a pickle on this one because you risk making a chunk of the playerbase unhappy no matter the change. There is also the question of "Is this what the devs want?" If this is simply how they want it, then so be it, I won't bother with lumbering ships anymore (EDIT actually yes I would..lol), but we cannot get an answer from them on this. It could very well be they have not quite figured out exactly how they want it, and that's ok too, but since movement has such an effect on balance for everything it effects a lot of.our feedback. Maybe they have responded to this and fools like myself simply have missed it (shrug), but usually the veterans on the forum will tell you "Hey, that's the intention or going to be addressed etc." I would love to have a conversation with them around these things, the devs have done a lot of amazing things for the game, I feel movement and balance around is their last main combat gameplay hurdle. (Further edit) this is why I am hoping we can mod this part of the game.

Found the variables, well mention there of from patch notes: Made Thrusters component available in scripts: Get / set turning speeds of entities Made DirectFlightPhysics component available in scripts vec2, vec3 and vec4 can now be constructed with a single value: vec3(1) == vec3(1, 1, 1) Several improvements to passing/reading tables to/from engine I don't mind learning as I have a few thousands hours probably in modding games, but LUA variables and understanding it just hasn't really clicked with me yet. Even looking at the example.mods when they came out, it was all just numbers and I had no idea what each did. I have heard Lua is easy once one understands it, I just need to find the time to reach that point.

Dev introduced speed limitations based on difficulty and a few new modifiable entity commands but I do not know enough about LUA scripting to make use of them. I also thought about turret mods which we could include a negative too speed and manueverabilty, and increase to boost cost but that doesn't do any good to control / regulate the NPCs speeds.

So for the first time in a long time I had the opportunity to sink some time into avorian. Love the new generator, makes for enjoyable gameplay. All feedback based on expert difficulty so damage received vs dmg given is 1/1. Weapon damages: Pulse cannons are a thing now! Notice some nice dps increases on these, thank you. A bit scary though as the damage on NPCs is high enough to easily wipe out my escorting ships with higher shield counts as I lost a couple. Going to need to consider armor moving forward :) Cannons, I think still need a bit of an "average buff" and slight projectile speed increase with the way movement is. (I can hit ships 10-15 km out between boost phases fairly consistently and lead target scoring hits, but beyond that, rounds take too long and only leading shots or if they are boosting away where linear velocity is lower can I hit beyond this distance) A lot of the damage on the weapons appears a bit more normalized which is good with few outliers, but could be I haven't seen a turret factory with a ludicrous seed yet either. I was not focused on farming numbers of turret factorys and kinda hung out in familiar space while I experimented with weapons etc. Speeds: I know you said there shouldn't be as much chasing, but still saw some ships chasing each other 60-100km out. Not really a big deal for me beyond the speed mechanic anyway. Appears average boost speed for NPCs in my Galaxy at xenion is 2k m/s, fighters max out at 670ish max speed points. Still feel like this needs addressed -fighters need to be able.to boost into weapons range or something. Fighter docking - can you just remove clipping on owner or allied ship or after a set time fighters just auto dock if in a certain distance? Or can we designate exit vs entry or exit and entry points? Not a big deal and comes down to design choice but is a nice to have. Ship/fleet behavoir My ships set to escort me are kinda dumb. Auto targeting turrets on my escort ships seem far superior to letting the captain of the ship use non auto targeting weapons, could be because his own AI behavoirs combine with the boosting of almost every enemy npc ship made it hard for it to turn and engage properly . A stay in formation but engage at will kinda of command would be nice. Though a set of selectable behaviors would be awesome but is more suggestion territory. Occasionally as ships travel, sectors seem to not go into active mode stranding my ships...may be a server side setting I need to look at. Resistances: A great counter to a ship using all rail guns etc, but ran into a ship with such high physical resistances it was near invulnerable even vs my massive cannons or god rails that have on my ship but don't use because they are god roll OP, seemed a bit high to me. Fighters with new high DPS pulse weapons with 93% shield by pass took care of it though :D Research stations: Actually got a decent roll for a couple weapons using the research stations, YAY! Blueprint at turret factory: YES, Amazing! This is a wonderful thing to have! There was some more but I will post in a second thread if/when I remember. Didn't play with torpedoes at all.

0.33 On multiplayer client a few feet away from server: I could just be an idiot and missing a nuance somewhere, but fighter info says it heals Hull and shields and my healing fighters are only healing the shields of another ship, not the hull. Squadron management: moving a combat squadron constructing a fighter to above a salvage, mining, combat and then healing squadron made several squadrons launch and messed up what fighters were in which squadron. Game client slows down when picking anything above 200 blocks when building a fighter, noticeable fps drop, and not because it is a larger blue print, happens if I pick a 250 block blueprint as well.

Lol probably, I haven't messed with scanner upgrades for the longest time. I will have to mess with them.

I would like to see the above and maybe even a little more on this. A target list box with filter or organizable stats OR/AND option to have enemies bracket info contain omicron and HP so you know what targets to prioritize would be handy. Of course all of this should be a toggle option in case someone doesn't want it. A bit too EVE like for my taste in some ways, but it is valuable tactical info and really it's more of a wheel situation in that there are only so many ways you can do/reinvent it. Would be quite useful for rts mode too. (Edit: disregard - I'm an idiot and didn't realize entity selection in rts mode is already there.) In addition, a module that gives you the details of ships at farther distances would be nice as well. Such as getting the omicron and HP values farther out. Would give meaning to a recon or scout ship.

Palad1n makes a good point with weapons banks. We do not have the ability for multi target engagement save for auto targeting. Could be some interesting opportunity here. As for the pirate fleet on top of you when you jump in. I can also agree that is an issue and that justifies some need for boost. The question is, is that more a risk you as a player take end game by not having a big enough ship or fleet.to go exploring in? Early game you should have the boost and the speed so it isn't as relevant, but late game it is an issue. What if it is because you always emerge mid sector? Change the jump so it's a little outside the sector? This gives a little more options with opportunity and would address some of the issues.

I agree with fury. In addition, I rather the generator of opposing npc ships prioritize look vs having a total consideration of all these variables for their own internal balance and end up looking like tooth picks on crack. Statically or semi rng stats rolled into a npc ship that looks pretty (and is nothing but armor or Hull blocks with a few engines) is preferred over the previous ship generator. Not saying this happens but it would be a sacrifice I could easily make in order to watch prettier space Barby ships get blown to pieces.

Still have played this more than I have ever played Anthem for which I paid much more money on and it was "Officially Released."

Hi Sue, Glad to see the team expand and include a community oriented role! I was going to start you off with a request if you could provide comments on speeds which seem to be an overall common topic to the community, and list some threads, but I see you have even already responded to one of them! Do you have anything on if fighters will receive some sort of intercept or boost ability to their target to make them more viable vs ships that have far higher dash speeds resulting in a situation where they cannot ever catch their target? Thanks!

I support Omicron Banana Lemons

That is some amazing info Fury! Glad to know what is going on! Divine, I have to agree, if we could make it so using such destructive rail guns in the game had a massive power detriment would be a good answer them being the last weapon you will ever use....either scaling power usage with DPS or Tech level, so fielding more than a couple would be problematic to a 15 slot ship with power chips. As for Halo MAC guns, while massive, they are nowhere near 50% light speed. If they were, the amount of internal shearing - forces, and potential mass/gravity generation from the round itself (areas we can guess at but are not 100% certain) would tear the system firing it apart I think. Though the MACs themselves are still freaking awesome - and scary :) I have to agree with Divine - even at the speed they advertised MACs (4% C-speed of light) are essentially game enders if they hit anything at 600 tons lol. Of course in Halo - the covenant just have that powerful of technology so makes for a fun universe.

Sorry Fury but I have to call you out on this one. Your using modern naval capabilities argument in a way that I feel does not apply to justify bigger should be faster in space. 1)Your Medium is different - the ocean produces a much higher resistance - which contributes to the max speeds (space really doesn't until you get to some very significant speeds double digit percentages of light I believe - and even then it is very little) 2)The modern US Aircraft carrier uses Nuclear Reactor produced steam for propulsion and for overall power generation, compared to most other ships which do not, with the exception of two I believe now retired US cruisers, and some russian ships - and of course modern submarines but those are slower for other reasons. 3)Age of designs - this can play a portion of the effects your are referencing - a lot of us navy ships are older designs then you think. Though I suspect the Zumwalt class destroyer with electric driven turbines could very easily keep up with the carriers over long distances. Your statement of the smaller ships reaching their max speeds faster and summarizing they have faster acceleration in short distance goes along with my point - in space up until incredible speeds there is no resistance so those smaller ships could maintain that faster acceleration indefinitely. Your on the right path but I think made the wrong initial conclusion to justify why bigger ships should be faster. Happy to discuss this in my thread of why I argue against bigger ships being better in all fields - happy to be wrong and learn something :) https://www.avorion.net/forum/index.php/topic,5977.0.html However, I do agree with NOT nerfing weapon ranges. The hit scan capabilities of the high DPS railgun need nerfed because as they are, they are king for many reasons - also discussed in my thread (and I don't feel like repeating myself), but keeping long ranges is fine, but make it skill shot based. Such as the cannons with their much slower shots would be perfect for this. Hard to get a hit, but a really nice big booming reward when they do connect. Boosting in ships over a certain size need to be brought under control as well. Large ships should not get the benefit of condensed firepower - acceleration, manueverability, performance overdrive (boosting) engagement control (ability to disengage and re-engage due to superior max speed, accel), and massive HP pools. It makes them king, and why ever build smaller? But again it depends on the devs vision on the game. I honestly would be happy if boosting, and acceleration to ship size scaling were configurable options so players could tailor to their preferences. Fighters suffer a similar problem (Again also in my thread). Fighters really are a power projection tool (along with a carrier) and establish zones of far reaching control with the ability to engage rapidly , however being unable to keep up with the very things they are supposed to take out means they don't have much tactical or strategic purpose beyond staying near a target area for the few AI ships that decide to engage at close range in the game.

Will speed become a mofiable difficulty setting or will this remain a hardcoded setting at the moment? That's great to hear military outposts are getting fighters! (Moar fighters for everyone!) Will fighters be getting either a speed boost or some sort of intercept ability to counter faster ships? (Burn to a ship then standard attack speed.)