Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - DivineEvil

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
Suggestions / Re: Player built gate networks, some ideas
« on: Today at 06:15:25 AM »
Gates now are just secondary means of travel mostly in pursuit of trade routines for smaller ships. Once the player gets the means to jump dozens of sectors across, the use of gates goes out of the window, even despite the lengthy cooldown timers, which still beat the amount of time it takes to move across the gate network. This is then only beaten by wormholes, that allow you instantaneous travel across the regions and tiers of the galaxy.

If you'd want to introduce Gates into the faction warfare, you'd first want hyperspace blockers built in a form of a station, that creates dead-zones of a certain radius, that prevents the hyperspace jumps into any sector within, hostile or otherwise, the same way space rifts currently do. In this case, Gates can in fact become an important strategic objective, that allows travel in and out of faction territories without constantly disabling and enabling the blockers, and also creates the choke points.

In order to balance these things out, both Gates and Blockers should require an enormous amount of energy generation and associated crew demands. Gates take up more energy the further the distance they cover, and Blockers generate the field proportional to the energy generation provided, meaning that they never have any spare energy after all systems are accounted for. Moreso, Gate connections cannot cross one-another, and Blockers will not activate if their field encroaches on the fields that are already there.

Suggestions / Re: Anti-fighter Turrets
« on: December 12, 2018, 10:51:45 AM »
FLAK or Anti-Fighter Turrets are a great idea, and cool as hell to see firing, but really, they're about worthless. Fighters, even the shortest ranged ones, can engage targets from at least four or five klicks away. These turrets only have a about a half klick range.

To make them useful, perhaps you can extend the range out to say ten klicks, but only let them fire on fighters only.

I agree that FLAK cannons are and should be a short ranged weapon, however, we are talking about space here; no fighter in it's right mind will ever get close enough to it's target for the FLAK system to be a threat.

Just my opinion, for what it's worth.
Fighters always enter the Flak range during their approach. They also stay in that range for the most time, because there's no algorithm for them to fall back to their maximum range. Ten clicks is a bit of an overkill either way.

I appreciate the work people put into beautiful ship designs on the workshop. When getting my friend into the game, they really helped him enormously.

I've just found workshop ships really hard to edit, let alone upgrade. My friend largely gave up trying to edit his ship, he just made it bigger and strapped extra things to the outside. Most steam workshop designs aren't modular at all. They're not designed to be something you can upgrade, or even edit really. Replacing internal components is tough, chiefly due to the difficulty of getting the camera to do what you want. For example, try selecting a block deep inside a ship. Its hard. You have to find some angle and zoom where you can get close enough through the ship to select it. Forget simply moving your camera freely - that, as far as I am aware, doesn't exist, and it should. In some of my avorion play sessions, the camera has given me more trouble than groups of enemy ships.

If the game simply let us move the camera however we wanted, ship design would be much easier.
That is true. For the most parts people just use way too many blocks to outline every detail - that's what bugs me the most. When a ship features thousands of blocks, where it could look nearly as good if made by few hundreds, given some deliberate limits to resolution (few or no blocks less than 1 in any dimension is a good start), it makes it hard to to make any mods. The relatively recent function of hiding blocks (which shows only specific blocks) on its own allows to work on internal components without messing with ship's hull. Focused-based camera is really not that bad. However, I've also noticed many ships has severely fragmented systems too, which cannot be worked around.

So for me the problem is mostly with that most players do not pre-plan their builds, and therefore have to add extra system blocks multiple times to achieve balance. The only reason I'm not uploading my own designs to Steam is because I want to release some of them together with the Google Spreadsheet toolkit for pre-planning and pre-balancing the design... and finishing it is tough, because mining the values manually is pretty tiring. There's of course some of them on wiki, but they are insufficient or even outdated:

I've always built my ships in a cube shape, for one simple reason.

Cube-shaped ships are easier to edit, in particular, easier to upgrade.

If I want to attach, say, a hangar to one of the ships I see on the steam workshop, I might as well scrap the ship and use a different one.

But with a cube-shaped ship, its perfectly doable. Cube-shaped ships are modular, you can easily swap out bits, upgrade things, etc.

That is THE reason I use cube ships.
Not any of this stuff about surface-area-to-volume ratio, or armor plat HP, or similar.

Simple ease of editing.
That's a reason to use ships with low block count. Shape of the ship has no bearing on that really.
Besides, even if the ship exterior is extremely complex, if it is built in few blocks on the inside, it is still possible to easily modify it.

If you want to discourage cube-shaped ships, then you need to make it easier to edit/refit/upgrade ships.

Start out by giving us better control of the editing camera. Editing something inside my ship should not be so hard.
You're always welcome to give specific suggestion on how that process can be made more convenient. From where I see it, its something the ship designers might consider themselves, and not something one should shove to the developers, who already made good building tools with very few apparent problems.

Alternatively, forget about the idea of making ships pretty. Avorion is a primarily single-player game. Even in multiplayer, the universe is vast, and I will never see most other players' ship. How ships look doesn't really matter. Practical concerns are vastly more important. We're building warships here, not luxury liners.
Tell that to the people, who spend weeks building absolutely amazing designs. These are warships also, but people build them for other people, who can't spare that time or have no aptitude to build them, but want to use pretty ships still. These people answer accordingly, which is why beautiful ships get the top ratings across the board.

Whether another player will ever see your or someone's else beautiful ship is largely irrelevant, because that's what you want to look at. Everyone has the ability to make modular designs, where internal components can be replaced block-by-block to fit the expectations of the player using the ship etc, but even then it has little to do with meta-game.

Suggestions / Re: Alloys
« on: December 11, 2018, 02:33:38 AM »
well, those alloys don't need to be stronger then the original materials to be useful. And we shouldn't think just about alloys, there are also composite materials (think about carbon-fiber or glass fiber epoxy materials, ferroconcrete,...).
Well considering the material/credit costs for different blocks, all materials are seem to be used as a composites. The majority of the block function is provided by the given material, and credits are used to purchase and assemble varied internal components, that are made of all sorts of other materials.

Ultimately, we can argue an addition of composites or even completely new materials as long as there's an actual problem to solve. There isn't. The objective here is not to demonstrate the advantages alloys give. It is to demonstrate why they are necessary to make the game better by introducing something otherwise unavailable or by solving something otherwise unresolved.
At the moment the idea doesn't seem to offer neither of those.

Let's think about the top material at the moment: Avorion.
The biggest problem with Avorion is: There's no Avorion Armor, if you want to mount Avorion Turrets on your ship, you can't get the benefits of Armor. If there was an Armor-Alloy, that allowed mounting Avorion Turrets and that stops railgun-projectiles, I'd use it, even if it doesn't have significantly more hp then Ogonite Armor.
You can first cover your entire ship with Ogonite armor, and then just make gaps in convenient places to place Avorion turret bases, hull, crew quarters etc to mount turrets to. There's actually nobody in my knowledge who would specifically target the turret mount to disable it, because its just faster and easier to destroy the ship entirely. It also has little bearing on railgun projectiles, because they do multiplied damage to the ship itself regardless of what they hit. As long as that's how the railguns work, nobody gives a damn about armor special feature, and everyone is using it simply for greater amount of ship HP given per unit of mass.

Which other advantages would alloys offer? Well, if you just started a game and start progressing towards the core, you usually have got tons of the old materials, the first material that you encounter that is not available in the whole galaxy is Naonite.
Naonite allows you to build shields for the first time, but it also offers advantages in generators (which you need to power those shields) and so on. So you would focus your efforts on constructing shields and upgrade your generators with the first bits of Naonite.

If there were any Naonite-Titanium or Naonite-Iron Alloys or composite materials, that would allow you to quickly upgrade your Armor or other important parts of your ship, wouldn't you use those?
No, because shields, energy blocks and protective hull (in case you're using it instead of armor to be more mobile) are the only blocks feasible to upgrade with Naonite. Everything else works perfectly fine as Titanium. Lack of Armor and other blocks in specific materials is a deliberate design choice to encourage mixed use. When you got tons of old materials, you sell them, just like you sell the outdated turrets when you have something to replace them with. This is the primary way of acquiring credits to meet the increased expenses of more advanced galaxy regions.

The only thing I can derive from the arguments given so far, is that you want a circumvention of the deliberately designed limitations on materials, which makes them better or worse to be used for certain things and choices associated with it. Unfortunately, I still fail to recognize why these limitations is an issue.

What's about properties of the materials? The first thing that comes to my mind is weight... Any Alloys or composite materials with Titanium or Trinium shouldn't be too heavy. Using those as Armor could offer some advantages to stats like maneuverability and acceleration/braking (well, just because of the mass).
Yes, or you can just plate your ship in Hull instead of armor, which gives you exactly the same effect. Or you can cover the nose of your ship with armor, and keep everything else wrapped in Hull. You can even substitute full blocks of Hull with Crew Quarters or Cargo Bays, which will cost more, but weight less for the same amount of HP and associated capacity bonuses. All of that with a single material. You know, because Avorion actually allows you to build you ship however you want.

It is difficult enough to balance the stats of a ship design as it is (unless you distribute and calculate them preliminarily, like I do) by just placing and removing blocks, and you suggest to make it even harder by introducing new materials? There is such a thing as "too much choice".

And finally we've got some blocks like the inertial dampener, which can be built just out of Iron or Avorion, because of some subspace-properties... Well, maybe some parts of these blocks could be built out of Trinium or other materials, too. These slightly upgraded versions might offer just little bonuses (like weight-reduction and maybe slightly improved stats).
Well, maybe not? Maybe players should just build the inertial dampeners to fit the ship? Maybe the massive weight and power demand of Iron inertial dampeners is a feature, that has to be dealt with, and not a bug?

Slightly upgraded versions that give slightly improved stats do not warrant the introduction of entire alloy mechanic, especially considering the same effect is acquired by simply modifying the block layout. Such features can be justified for the games, that use predefined modules with specific stats - there you would like to have mods/refits, that allow finer tuning. In the game like Avorion, where you can scale the systems to half-meter accuracy and get stats precisely relative to that scale, it is entirely redundant.

You see, there is no need to make alloys, composite materials or "mixed blocks" overpowered. There could be some minor advantages, like ferroconcrete offers to buildings (on earth).
Ferro-concrete does not offer "minor advantages" - its a combination of materials and structure, that makes the original components obsolete, and allows all of the modern skyline construction. It is used specifically because the introduction of a steel framework effectively covers the flaws of the sheer concrete for comparatively low difference in cost.

Similarly, Steel is used specifically because introduction of a tiny fraction of Carbon into the molecular structure of Iron produces the material, that is better than pure Iron in pretty much everything. In this situation for someone to use pure Iron, is if they cannot afford to forge Steel or if they specifically need Iron for unconventional uses (i.e. chemistry).

Suggestions / Re: Alloys
« on: December 08, 2018, 05:06:22 AM »
Actually, the idea about turning them into a commodity late game was precisely because of the rarity closer to the core. Supply and demand; iron and Titanium gain value once again in the core.

However, keep in mind, this is only a suggestion, and not everyone plays the game simply to get to the core. There's pirate hunting, and all the commerce options. Add the ability to build and sell fighters and shuttles, or even bigger ships and *poof* a whole new facet to the game is available. really, with only a little work, this game could be... well, infinite, really - think about it.  A player founded corporate conglomerate could easily become the size and strength of an NPC faction.
Yes, but the suggestion is a statement for developers to consider and act upon. A good suggestion has to clearly state what should be done, and then the reason why it should be done for the betterment of the game. With the suggestion given here as it is, we will either get the alloys, that are better than the pure materials, which will make the pure materials meaningless and applying them more tedious, or allows that are weaker than the originals, which will in turn render them unnecessary.

Like BlackGazebo have said, the only feasible way to somewhat improve the value of lower-tier materials is by making them better than other materials in some particular fashion, like making Titanium Thrusters and Naonite Engines more powerful for the same volume, where at the moment all Thrusters and Engines has exactly the same output and differ only in weight and durability; And these changes has to be to the magnitude, where players would actually consider sacrificing that durability and weight for the benefits granted. Even then the value of these materials won't change, perhaps only the frequency of trade would.

Other than that, Avorion as it is now has players too independent in their needs to facilitate any real commerce, aside from turret, module and material trading. Some of it does exist now, but limited in what players can reliably offer. Each player in itself is a faction leader, because he holds the control over as many ships and stations as he can afford to and is technically its immaterial, immortal agent. The only question is how much time you can spend on the development of that faction.

Personally I find the situation with materials more than manageable. Setup of the commodity trade market and general combat balance worries me much, much more, which is why I keep lobbying changes on those all the time to no avail.

Suggestions / Re: Alloys
« on: December 07, 2018, 06:52:00 PM »
Well, there's very few games (at least of what I'm aware of), that somehow maintain the value of early-game resources in the face of late-game analogues. There's nothing inherently wrong with leaving the old stuff behind. Low-grade materials can be mined much, much faster with the better, more efficient mining/salvage turrets and sold for credits, and you also can use them for stations, which do not depend on the size compression and efficiency of better materials unlike ships do. You can have a parallel disposition towards the weapon turrets of lower grade, but then the same logic goes - if you got a better sword, why would you care for you old, rusty one? Maybe you can some particular memories associated with a weapon turret, but that doesn't apply for the materials.

What is the point of bringing them back, apart from Iron, that is used heavily for Inertial Dampeners until Avorion and for producing cargo shuttles?

General Discussion / Re: Symmetrical turrets?
« on: December 03, 2018, 05:46:25 PM »
Unfortunately there's currently no way to duplicate or reproduce a found turret. The only options are turrets bought in Equipment Docks (which rarely can give something remarkable) or ones built in the Turret Factories (which will require collecting appropriate trading goods).

Suggestions / Re: Increase the rotation-speed of laser-turrets
« on: December 01, 2018, 01:36:19 AM »
You have both failed to argue from the realism perspective (since there's no mention of using mirrors in beam turrets anywhere) and from the balance perspective (why the hell do we even need these changes).


Other voxel games (e.g. From the Depths) lets you build the "guts" of a laser weapon in one spot and transmit the energy to an actual firing piece (lens assembly) on a turret base via Transceivers, which are fancy mirror assemblies.  What this means is the actual laser turret can be very small and light even though the damage it projects is comparable with a much larger cannon turret.  I think this is what the OP is modeling their idea on.

But that comparison is free of realism because very high-energy lasers (in the GW or TW order) can't be reflected the same way low-energy lasers can.  Any material that "reflects" light at a >0 degree angle is going to absorb some energy, and so a mirror is going to absorb 1) a lot of energy in 2) an extremely small area.  This causes all kinds of problems - even assuming that the mirroring material is able to "sink" this heat without vaporizing in seconds, it's still going to expand, which will create a non-flat surface, which is going to send your beam into a non-intended direction, potentially causing a RAD (Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly) event. 

So this means that the laser "guts" or cavity has to be in a position to "project" the beam directly to the lens assembly without any intervening mirrors, which means that it has to be part of any turret assembly. 

(lenses can also heat up and cause RADs but that's a totally different topic)
When the reply has no associated quotes to your specific post, you should presuppose it to be the reply to the OP.

I'm fully aware of all the things you've written, although I'm vastly more concerned about the balance side of things (which is the only reason I'm not screaming about the utterly ridiculous nature of Lightning guns in space at every corner). But even then, OP author haven't provided any balance justification for the change either.

a.) Ogonite is a perfect material to provide good amount of HP with Armor blocks, and Ogonite rock is great for additional mass. Considering it is otherwise only effective as a ship armor, it is hardly a challenge to mine enough for that purpose. No competent game developer would introduce an equipment piece to only alleviate someone's laziness.

b.) I've never encountered issues with that. 2 Km seems to be more than enough to  give enough clearance for everyone. Besides, if you place two stations too close together, its you mistake, not the developer's misjudgment.

c.) I see no reason. If you cannot bring the ship for contact safely, then its most likely the problem of your own control over that ship. I strongly oppose the idea of eliminating mundane player "hardships".

d.) Why?

e.) Perhaps, although there might be some unforeseen technical issues with doing so, like failing to track the crew payment or registering the insurance for the ship that has been renamed. It is greatly depends on whether the ship's name is a identifier (unique entity ID, that is referenced for interactions with game systems) or a header (independent object property, that has no function other than to display the contained text here and there).

Suggestions / Re: Increase the rotation-speed of laser-turrets
« on: December 01, 2018, 01:05:18 AM »
You have both failed to argue from the realism perspective (since there's no mention of using mirrors in beam turrets anywhere) and from the balance perspective (why the hell do we even need these changes).

a.) I think that claimable asteroids should generate with the chosen material content. That would mean that players would need more of these asteroids existing, so the asteroid-rich sectors should be more expansive to offer more than 3-to-4 asteroids per sector.

b.) It's not more realistic, since noble metals are often found in the same deposits together, but it just doesn't make much sense to have regular resources to have a whole mine dedicated to them. If I had to chose, I would make that every claimable asteroid has its own abundance of variable materials, which you'd need to scan to discover. Then you can simply found the mine on it and choose which materials you want it to refine. The more abundant the given material is on the asteroid, the higher the mining rate is. Since the decision is about "what ores I want to ignore", you can even choose all of the ores, but you'd have to dedicate storage to hold it, which in itself is a incentive to only select the ones you can use or sell.

c.) No. There simply should be less commodities in general. For example, Coal and Oil are different forms of the same organic decay products, that cannot be found in space.  Any space-faring species should be able to collect hydrogen gas and carbon and produce all the things, that Coal and Oil are used for. Economic part of the game is insanely oversaturated with commodities that are redundant (uselessly cheap or inconsequential), obsolete (unfit for the star-faring setting) or generic (specific for the human economies, not for alien civilizations). At least half of the economic goods has to be purged together with the unnecessarily long production chains and stations associated with them.

d.) Well, you can technically imagine using my prior-mentioned system of abundance and marry it to the ability to physically mine the asteroid in question, which would drop commodities according to the abundance values, but I doubt it make sense that you can get refined, tradeable goods from cutting the asteroid apart. As an alternative, perhaps Koonschi should add another loot object type, which is a medium-sized container with one or two random commodities held inside.

e.) Yes. In my opinion all production chains should end in some high-tier building, like shipyards and research stations, that are only buying these sorts of goods (civilian, military, industrial and technological). These stations consume the goods to improve the behavior of the factions, like having greater ships or better tech-level weapons on those ships and sold at Equipment Docks, etc. This way trading not only makes trading profitable, but also grants long-term effects for the AI factions you patronize. Goods like Toxic Waste should not exist at all, because almost any sort of production involves having remaining scrap, and in open space getting rid of any waste products is the most trivial task imaginable.

f.) Yes, but there should only be two or three such farms - crops, vegetables and fruits. Rice, Wheat, Potato etc are all Terran commodities - such names should not be used in a game, where not only the actors are alien species, but the game world itself is completely different galaxy.

g.) No. There simply should be no optional ingredients. Perhaps some factories should be able to produce different commodities using different components (you chose which one you want it to make, and it will use the specific recipe). Fertilizer is not optional - without it the soil will become barren and unable to bear any produce.

h.) The economy system is riddled with these cases. Wheat is a Plant. Oil is a Fuel. Wire is a Conductor, etc. When I was talking about wiping half of the commodities from the game, these are the ones which come to mind first.

Suggestions / Re: Useless Upgrades.
« on: November 25, 2018, 02:26:13 AM »
Mostly agree with the sentiment, however I will add my personal thoughts on the matter:

Object Detector - The effect range should be kept in realistic brackets - something like 6/12/18/24/32/sector + 2/3/4/5/6/* for permanent installation. Also, it might be justified to even equalize the bonuses to encourage the permanent installation, but players who are used to swap this module around all the time won't like that.

Tractor Beam - I consider it a first category, similar to Quantum Hyperspace Upgrade - Neither are needed all the time, but performing their corresponding actions without these is pretty encumbering.

Shield Reinforcer - Agree, however the issue is also with the frequency of shield-penetrating weapons as such. Not only the player may never need to use shield-penetrating weapons, but he also rarely will encounter them where they are the issue and the given module is a solution. Given that SP weapons are extremely rare and rather unremarkable compared to their conventional analogues, there's absolutely no reason to sacrifice that much to get so little in return. It costs an absolute ton to sell, and that's as much of a positive as you can get from it. It's a Useless category item.

Engine Upgrade - The system module itself is fine, but it has little use considering the generic nature of engine boost, that essentially negates most of the need for conventional thrust. Engine boost has to be nerfed in one way or another, so that players will have to rely on base thrust and welcome the use of this upgrade.

Trading System - More useful than you seem to describe it as. It is good as long as it displays the discount/markup ratio, which the player can use to buy and sell for best prices. Since commodities do not degrade and can be stored anywhere, its unnecessary to run specific trade routes. When the rarity level allows to sort lists, it also adds a lot of uses, like quickly finding the places to sell the goods you currently carry.

Scanner Upgrade - Agree, but the solution is to make something dependent on it. For example, scanner can be made necessary to acquire lock on distant targets, and without it you cannot send the fighters nor launch torpedoes

Shield Converter - Not entirely useless, because it can be placed on small ships to improve their survivability much better than Shield Booster for the same system slot. Since power demands are percentile, it wont take much energy from a ship that needs less of it. However, it doesn't make sense, that the backup charge is placed on the Booster, rather than converter. I personally would prefer Booster being just that, maybe having a chance to reduce damage against particular weapons, but the Converter should have the backup charge and maybe some other options, like mitigating a portion of incoming damage at the expense of ship's energy storage. In fact, it may not have any shield capacity  bonuses at all as long as the functional nature of the shield is changed significantly. Also should be renamed to Shield Modulator.

Mining System - This upgrade is an artifact from the times, where rich asteroids were unrecognizable from all others until you'd have this system. One solution it to somewhat complicate the mining again and require this module for efficient harvesting, but allow players to scan nearby asteroids to see if they're rich without it. Another option is to add bonuses to mining turrets (damage, efficiency, range) that this module can give from permanent installation.

Battery Upgrade - The upgrade is fine, but the power management in the game is non-existent. I have already commented on that in another thread.

Cargo Upgrade - Also more useful than described. A percentage bonus is amazing for massive cargo haulers, and flat bonus can give the cargo capacity to a ship, that otherwise has none.

General Discussion / Re: Get rid of a faction - never ending faction war
« on: November 19, 2018, 09:02:05 PM »
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.

I see a lot of people sort of linger outside of the core, in xanion space.  And a lot of people don't use turret factories.  Before you get into the core, or before you use turret factories, there's a good chance you're properly scaled with the AI.  I think a lot of people enjoy that.  On the server I play on, we have a 250M volume limit.  I wonder if a 100M limit, and a cap on turret factory damage multipliers, and a fix of rocket launcher range would help the game.  That way you could have a few mil shields, weapons better than  ones that drop for the most part, but you're not one shotting everything, and you're having to fight more toe to toe with the enemies.

I think something close to those things would fix quite a few things.
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.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18