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 - WSY

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12
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 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 mod 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.

General Discussion / Re: Improvements to Ship Generation are Ongoing!
« on: February 27, 2020, 07:47:40 PM »
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.

News / Re: It's Official - Avorion Leaving Early Access on March 9th 2020
« on: February 27, 2020, 04:37:00 PM »
Im happy for you guys that you want to call it a 1.0 release, but is that being honest with the customer?

I love Avorion, been playing for over 3 years, but i think giving yourselves 30 days to ''complete'' the 1.0 version of the game so you can tell everyone the base game is DONE, was giving yourselves not enough time and is maybe not entirely truthful. I could be totally wrong here (please make me wrong! I want to be wrong here!) , but this fan of the game having watched your current development speed over these years...i am worried you have lost the passion to continue development.

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

News / Re: Our new Public Relations Member
« on: February 27, 2020, 04:47:10 AM »
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?


News / Re: Beta Branch Patch 0.33.0 Patchnotes
« on: February 27, 2020, 04:40:53 AM »
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.


I keep feeling myself going back and forth on this.  On the one hand, I feel like small ships are always going to be inferior so long as they are not able to out maneuver and outrun large ships, but on the other hand, the devs aren't wrong about big ships being capable of higher speeds.  Just look at Naval ships.  A US Naval Aircraft Carrier is more than capable of reaching speeds that leaves the rest of the ships in its fleet behind, but in the short run, the rest of the ships are capable of reaching their maxes much faster and leave the carrier behind.  If they're going over enough of a distance, then the carrier can eventually catch up and surpass them.

I'd be willing to give the maneuverability nerf to large ships a try first.  And maybe a nerf to acceleration for them as well?  That way they can't just boost out of a string of weapons fire as easily.  Small craft may need a boost to accel as well, though.  Edit: Actually, I'm thinking the nerf to large ship accel I'd like to see is a nerf to their accel while boosting.  That might work.

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 :),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.

News / Re: Beta Branch Patch 0.32.1 Patchnotes
« on: February 21, 2020, 02:40:25 PM »
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.)

I see get /set turning speed of entities


DirectFlightPhysics complement available in scripts

Does this mean we can start modding ship speeds, manueverabilty and possibly give fighters an intercept mode so they can burn to a target?

I'm an experienced modder on some games once I have things figured out, but modding this game has not clicked with me yet. Any chance info will be on the wiki for these entries?

Not an expectation of course, just a hopeful ask.  ;)


News / Re: Update 0.31.1 - Enemy Variations, Damage Types & Hyperspace
« on: February 07, 2020, 04:50:56 PM »
Thanks for response, glad to see no invulnerability!

Completely disagree with an active tank though. No one is wrong here, I just simply would be worried about active tank in an open ended construction game. I feel it will become a game of thresholds, and becomes rather difficult to balance. Instead of "slap more shields on it", it would be "slap more resistance and regen" and then AI would have to do a smidge more than your Regen, and then would only be doing the difference in damage from your tank and their total damage.

Starmade struggled with this for a long time as well. -though without resistances even.  Do not remember what happened in the end as I stopped playing it a long time ago.

IMOP the only way this would be  interesting is if it was 100% reliant on reserved energy and your energy Regen went to zero soon as you took the first hit, and so your energy served as a additional "buffer".

For shields rapid replenishment and some form of hardening at smaller percentage levels would make sense, but again with resistance and Regen your effective tank and HP healed start skyrocketing when you talk percentages of larger numbers. For Hull only only hardening, rapid Regen Hull really shouldn't be a thing ever.  Unless lore deems it so. This of course is my opinion so naturally it probably stinks to some and others will think differently.

There is a lot of balancing to be done as is, I feel this would be a crazy level of complexity added to an open ended game.

Part my opinion of this also stems from the Devs shying away from CAPs on thing like damage, shields, manueverabilty etc. Which is fine it's the choice made for the game, but you apply that to ressistances, amd active tanking, and nigh invulnerable ships are possible.

News / Re: Update 0.31.1 - Enemy Variations, Damage Types & Hyperspace
« on: February 05, 2020, 10:59:42 PM »
To clarify impenetrable as impenetrable, and NOT invulnerable correct?

Part of the charm of a good game is tactics approaches etc, sure as they were, railguns we're king, but all weapons had a varying degrees of effectiveness save for certain circumstances like cannons struggling to hit further targets and balance was somewhat dependant on capability.

And while I am confident  this not what what you are doing, and I apologize for saying this before trying the update myself as it is uncharacteristic of me, but due to the criticality of this from my perspective: Please do not turn this into another Rock, Paper, Scissors game where the winner is determined because he happens to have his shield invulnerable to the damage type the other is using.

Combined arms is of course encouraged and hopefully that is the goal but I am hoping you didn't mean invulnerable to damage types.
Some resistance and vulnerability is awesome, but victory determination via Rock Paper Scissors combat and called "balance" hurts my brain.

EDIT: Sorry had a soap box moment, you guys have done nothing but make this game better with every release, was just worried when I read that bit. Will give it a go this weekend!

Troubleshooting / Re: Fps issues.
« on: January 09, 2020, 07:53:35 PM »
Ahh devil is in the details, you did say you login to a server.

How about when you start your own game for solo play, any issues then?

Troubleshooting / Re: Fps issues.
« on: January 05, 2020, 08:02:35 PM »
I apologize ahead of time as I am not sure where your PC knowledge level is but a few things to check.

Mouse trails or custom cursors? Sometimes and oddly can cause fps issues.

Any sort of weird dpi scaling set in windows?

Also, sounds odd as well, are you able to log and verify your video card clocks go up when you start the game?

And...can try setting windows mode, full screen, window full screen.

My last resort recommendation is to try the old clean boot.  So only essential windows services and drivers are loaded. (Not safe mode).

Basically standard startup but with non of the extras.

(BEFORE DOING CLEAN BOOT, I posted again with a few things you check and try before hand below.)

Full disclaimer: only do it if your confident and know what your doing. Dont be offended, I just have no idea of your PC knowledge level, you also may have done this already or know more than me- but just trying to help. If after clean boot still no go, then could be a bug specific to your PC config.

Clean boot info because I'm too lazy to type it out:

Also fair warning, if you overclock hardware etc, may want to make sure the specific softwares for temp control and over clock monitoring are not disabled, or set thing to non overclock in case those very softwares are somehow conflicting. AV software also sometimes gets a little angry and will throw warning that spyware is trying to disable your system.

Lastly if you rely on AV make sure to turn everything back on (also on webpage on how to re-enable everything) before browsing the internet etc.

If still no go, post dx diag and hopefully devs can help out.

Troubleshooting / Re: Fps issues.
« on: January 05, 2020, 08:00:21 PM »
While this may be coincidence your the second person to report issues with

16gb ram
A 1060
And a 83xx AMD CPU.

The other person had windows 10.

I will reply here in a bit with a few things that may be worth trying.

Bugs / Re: Horrible FPS In Game
« on: January 02, 2020, 01:24:08 AM »
I also forgot,

Mouse trails or custom cursors? Sometimes and oddly can cause fps issues.

Any sort of weird dpi scaling set in windows?

Also, sounds odd as well, are you able to log and verify your video card clocks go up when you start the game?

And...can try setting windows mode, full screen, window full screen.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12