Search results

Re: Social tools - I understand what you're suggesting. I'm telling you that some aspects of what you suggest will not work, based off of pretty extensive experience with online games and in-game social tools vs. out of game social tools. Your fancy map idea, maybe, if the devs ever decide to...

Words take time to parse, empty space doesn't. It's also a good practice because it helps you recognize quickly when you're rambling vs. when you're making a succinct point - You do a lot of rambling here. Presentation matters. But, for feedback that's more about content than presentation -...

Point of clarification - What I am saying is a central design conceit is not "there will be no AI and no form of PvE," it is that the world and it's content are "player driven." My personal subjective opinion is that those are largely incompatible concepts - not impossible outright, but very...

You're beyond high if you think "player driven world" only applies to the economy. Like I don't know what else to tell you, you're either ignorant or just completely insane. You could try reading like any of the dev blogs or watching any videos or attempting to understand the design ethos of...

Insufficient data to draw conclusion. That's the key part of this whole line of reasoning that is deeply flawed - your entire bottom line is derived from observing a half-baked tech demo that is nowhere near the full product. The motivating factors for any interactive content do not exist...

Dude what you're talking about is directly contrary to the core design conceit of the game. The "player driven content" thing isn't a gimmick, it's core to how the game was built from the ground up, and, very relevantly, core to how it was sold. What you're talking about is a totally...

Yeah, ok, waiting until this roadmap is done solves like 1/5th the issue here, but that is admittedly somewhat less insane. The core problem with this suggestion, and the dozens of others like it, is that you basically end up arriving at an idealized version of space engineers PvE, which is...

I mean I don't think it's an option that would make sense as like a design alternative, but I can see a ton of situations where it would make more sense to carry those parts in crates on an existing design without an FTC.

A generator that instantly spools up isn't a cool idea. That kills a core mechanic that makes ships interesting to build / design. The challenge is there for a reason, having to build around limitations means you need to come up with actual creative solutions to problems instead of just MOAR X...

Don't know if this has changed or not, but last time details on this came up, the plan as discussed had an "omni storage" crate, which purported to carry whatever you wanted but at a reduced volume capacity. So the concept seems to be that you can choose to 'specialize' in order to carry a...

Yeah, some solid points there, most especially about this being less than clear from the roadmap alone. They have talked about ore hotspots (including on the moon, FWIW) being a thing, so that's on the agenda somewhere, although priority isn't really clear AFAIK. By my read of what the devs...

Nobody is surprised by this. Basically every ounce of dev time not on bug fixes is being sunk into getting the core faction v. faction PvP feature out the door, because it's recognized universally that mining alone is not a sufficient gameplay loop to keep anyone interested. We're not getting...

They're out on the PTU. We have another couple features that need to hit PTU before they can come to live, namely, we need alloy furnaces. Latest communication indicates that we're getting alloys in the PTU and then alloys & civ cap ships will go live at the same time, followed closely by...

Lauri has said before that a voxel based damage system was where they initially wanted to take it but that accomplishing that was daunting and so they ended up falling back on part HP as a compromise. The implication with that comment, if I read it right, was that they wanted to do something...

The point I'm making here is that you cannot reasonably assert that this statement is true without any idea what the station will need to defend. As the attack surface area increases, options for defense decrease, and you need to start making compromises. We do not have enough information...

Because leverage. Note, I've seen the opposite for maneuver thrust - especially reverse thrust - too close to the COM along any axis and the MFC wigs out. The issue there seems to be that it can't separate rotational control from lateral movement and the wigs the hell out trying to fix it. I...

Yeah, no complaints here regarding transparency or direction on design. Honestly the date slipping didn't really bother me anyway, what I found confusing was that it never got updated when it seemed fairly obvious that making it was going to be a long shot - made me think maybe they were...

As much as I want to see a station designer, and I truly, truly do, I have to point out that declaring the station building meta to be set before we have, uh, anything at all, to build in a station, seems a tad premature. Like good on you for being ready to advance the state of the art given...

So, alright, this makes sense. But we've also been told we needed alloys to construct capital ships. So also we have a whole industrial process and related assets and code before this can hit live, yes? Or am I missing something? And with none of that even in the PTU heading into November...