WSY

Wow re-reading my post I missed the word jump gates. I meant to say make the jump gates farther apart so they act as highways, and jumps act more my like local area jumping. This would bring back a reason to use them.

Forced mouse render/acceleration in graphics driver? Do you have custom cursor? Do you have mouse trails enabled? Or some high visibility feature enabled? I know the above can cause some issues with certain games. Also, you sure it is not your user name? The Hutt/nutt appears really odd in logs, wondering if that is the cause?

Are you able to analyze the sector files to find similar entrees? Thought for sure you had it with the fighters. With carrier command scripts maybe getting confused. Can you make a copy of sectors somewhere else on hard drive, then delete so the server regenerates them? Are you able to use gates to access those sectors?

I agree with the making hyper jumps smaller, which may make it more frustrating in some ways, they become near trivial by the time your naonite or trinium depending on size of ship and module farming. Spreading them a little further apart to make them more like highways and jumps drives the local area jump mechanic in later difficulty would be a great idea. I will have to say I partially agree and disagree on the crew part, mostly because it can be frustrating. On the other hand, being to hire without the Stonewall prevention of going above command requirement may make this easier, so you can run for a period of time without all the command crew until you find them. However definitely keep the crew shuttle request mechanic. Maybe make it more expensive, but if you have that large of a ship and money, you have been playing the game to progress through it without rushing. On shields, because they are "an absolute defense" I couldn't agree more. I am working on a suggestion post that will offer some balances possibly. Will have to let me know what you think when I post. Lastly, agree with the necessity for large ship construction requiring some form of an infra-structure to have. Though I think it should be more than just a money thing.

+ on the tab idea. Be really nice for alliance, and I can just drag and drop whoever's weapons in different tabs etc.

While I cannot speak to easy for the devs to implement, with some other balance changes this would be an amazingly fun mechanic and give capital ships a little more reason to stay engaged in what they are doing beyond jump in and make sure auto targeting turrets are on.

Also since power generation is function of volume that increase faster than systems that demand it, it only boosts the bigger is better meta.

If all else fails, easily fixed by turning music off and opening an epic music playlist on a stream page or app.

Honestly I like how it is setup. To your point on shield Regen. Starmade had this problem when they had implemented what you are suggesting. They had giga Titans that couldn't be destroyed because their shields we're able to regenerate too fast. Honestly one fighter should be able to take down the shields. That is if the station is completely undefended, and the fighter somehow had however many years to so. The AI would likely summon a small defense group by this point - well if you were in system anyway. Like any game mechanic, it can be abused. If you had Regen, pvp would probably turn in to pulse weapon and a ramming meta. As for pve, you would basically be able.to become a god in ship form as nothing could so enough damage to you to get past Regen and for some, pve is already easy. Now some people enjoy that, but some of us don't. Does it make stations or ships easier to kill, yes, but I feel something else could be done to address that. Shield disruption drones or something that can chase up 2000m/s or fleets that can chase or microjump or land on top of you. Think of it from another perspective, what would you do if you were stuck in a station and saw someone doing that? Maybe your right but I think it is a dangerous slope, and best avoided.

I have to disagree, I think he is doing fine with fighters. Experimenting to see what works. As they are now, yes they def need some tweaking. However they are lower impact on performance the way he has implemented them. I will say however to your point, if umbilical docking is implemented, I would like to see a captain or ai type that moves like a fighter. Fighters themselves will still be there but then we could have a series of gunship like ships. You could make them smaller and you would have something akin to what your wanting.

Are you talking adding to player once in game or adding to the right file so player can invoke whenever?

Can confirm, a buddy of mine appears to be having same problem.

Ok so I was able to do some decent anti-fighter testing last night. 1. With the exception of guided missiles, weapons will not hit fighters engaging a ship separate from themselves due to transverse velocity, and I mean they won't hit hardly ever. I am talking 8x 98% accuracy 18 round per second pulse weapons firing at one fighter. Along with 6 2k dps 12+ round per second chain guns. The fighter never had to do it's dodge, and the guns we're always behind on the tracking. This problem is also present on laser weapons. This occurs on a 6 core 3ghz server with 32gb ram sitting 6 ft away from my machine that is the client. 2. Chances of hits are much higher if fighter is actively engaging what is shooting at it. This is due to the whole transverse velocity being lower; the fighter flying straight at me, or away after an attack run actually uses up it's dodges and can be destroyed. Albeit at a still fairly disappointing rate, but not near impossibility such as in point 1. 1 and 2 we're testing with all weapons with auto-target. This includes rapid fire chain and pulse weapons, rail guns, lasers, and multi-shot variants of these weapons. 3. When I am flying a fighter, I get hit fairly often and I see the fighter auto-dodge. This was against single xsotan with fairly low rate of fire chain guns. 4. Fighters seems to be the best way to get rid of fighters probably due to closer proximity and transverse velocity being lower due to chasing. There are some caviots. Your higher rate of fire fighters will perform better than slower rof fighters. I was in a system with a faction war with 29 baddies and 7 good guys and the green had almost completely wiped out the 29 ships worth of fighters by the time I arrived with at least a dozen allied Tesla fighters still remaining after completely wiping out all the opposition. The enemy had much slower cannon or chain gun fighters. They just didn't have a chance against the Tesla fighters. I took one of my 12+ rps 2k dps chainguns made some fighters and they too ripped opposition fighters apart with no loss. However this still took a uncomfortable while. This of course leads to my next point. 5. After flying a fighter, I realize the dodge they perform lasts several seconds. If this is the case, this means ace (leveled) piloted fighters with a 1 minute reset on dodge count, can spend almost half of that minute in dodging. This gives you a super limited window with which to actually hit them before it resets. Especially since then it's a base 30% chance to hit. 6. Engaging fighters with your ship is just a bad idea in general. Especially since about the only time you see enemy fighters is when you are engaging in a faction warfare battle and you hit allied ships more than you do enemy fighters. Even with guided missiles, they spin/circle around the enemy fighter until they hit. If in that time the enemy fighter gets too close to an enemy ship, your missiles start hitting that instead and you lose rep. I have some suggestions to help counter some of this, but I will post in another thread as it will be a comprehensive suggestions thread. In the meantime I will perform some more testing and may begin to look at some game files to see what can be done to experiment with "feel" of fighters, as I love them, just need to be able kill em at a reasonable rate ;D

I'll agree, But at the same time, I see it as a salesman that shows up suddenly to try and sell you stuff, and maybe I'm just more cynical in my growing age but people are in fact, sometimes that illogical.

I play on personal server with friends. All of our owned factories have a lot of the economy changes such as configuration for price gouging *ahem* I mean adjustment, and request supplies, and even the crew shuttle request. This also includes already generated turret factories where you can make them independent targeting by adding targeting systems. As Hammel said there are going to be things that already generated factories certainly don't have. I just wanted to let you know that quite a few things do work on the ones that have been generated.

Yay a reason to leave work early and perform testing, you know, for "Science!!!" Edit: For those with hyper inflated pilot counts, go into hangar and you can highlight each fighter and it will tell pilot count. You can eject that fighter and it will effect both total and the requirement.

Perq, Ironically the same point you made against upgrade classification, also works against volume. Because upgrades are based on volume, but with computer cores a ships offensive and defensive capabilities can be drastically altered. Either 6 extra turrets or 140% more shields. Even hull or system blocks vs heavy armor; drastically different HP count and performance profile in the same "volume". So inversely then volume doesn't give you that much of an idea either. Honestly I think computer cores make such little difference EITHER way, that there is nothing wrong with using upgrade count or volume. I just think something simplified like an upgrade count gives a better idea of rough ship capability at a glance and strictly at a glance. Add a rough description role and one can get a fast generalized idea. (such as if it has heavy armor, or hangars or is light and fast.) If we want to go beyond that, then details come into play like checking ships specs such as HP, shield count, volume and mass as well as performance in Accel decel, top speed, hangar space etc.. However SageThe13th made a good point on material, a 13U Iron ship is going to be no where near as scary as a 9U Avorion ship. Maybe then we could develop something like [10i] (ship class) or [7a] (Ship Class). As has been pointed out, the class of ship is easy to change, however for the purpose of downloads etc and at glance classification this may work. What would be interesting is to come up with universal descriptives for roles: Such as breaking down fast attack, where fast means does not use heavy armor or uses sparingly, and attack means more offensive upgrade focused vs battle carrier where battle means balance of offensive and defensive upgrades and carrier meaning over a percentage of the ship volume/mass being dedicated to hangar space. (Since as has also been pointed out, most ships would likely have "some" hangar space)

Your probably right on the upgrade, I swap them out so often I forget it's not really meant to be used that way.

Rule of cool doesn't apply to 1km umbilical 8) At least not until we have actual attached docking would be fun. However a transporter module block or upgrade to increase dock range would work.

Start-> run (or start menu search) MSINFO32 Copy and paste results here.

A kilometer away??? I think at that point you would be using smaller ships to ferry goods/supplies back and forth. I am not sure of the scaling but I know bigger stations with bigger ships, you see the docks much sooner and I do not have problems docking, however I slide sideways into dock due to the shape of my ship. I have my deceleration at the right point where within 10k I just have to ensure my speed in 100ms increments matches count of km distance. This curves as I slow down, but I end up reaching 0 at about 0.23 and can manually move the rest of the way.

Do you have a VPN software installed? In another thread.someome found that hamachi caused the faction error. Could check that out. Thanks!

Oh wow, yeah that would def be a troubleshooting step, it is why I bring up the cold boot and listing processes because you never know what people are running on their machines ;) Glad that solved the problem. Interesting that would cause the faction error and not something more direct. Thanks for the update.

I figured you meant for multiplayer. The missions thing would be awesome. A great tool for others to start also building missions. Would be nice to see more actual fleets spawn to engage you, or something besides predictable xsotan and pirate spawns.

Guided seem to be effective for fighters. I also use a vls system (vertical to orientation of ship) and only ever have problems if I try to shoot someone under my hull, or inam flying 1000+MS and I am rotating my ship around while firing. I have a ogonite heavy armor ship meant to only after strait in bad situation to get out of Dodge, otherwise I fly it like a Capitol ship.