Taelessael

If shield hp were tied in to how much voxel a ship had via a mechanic like ccs, then it would have an effective falloff curve above which people wouldn't get much more hp. This curve would keep people from just filling the build volume with voxel.
 
While less artful individuals would just add a block of material over everything to reach their desired hp, there are plenty of people that would use it as an excuse to fly something that looks at least a bit nicer than your average brick or disjointed element string.
 
 
Regardless, I still think that if there was a voxel weight/volume floor beneath which the voxel did not alter a ship's mass/ccs/cross-section, then players from either side of the pvp line would have fewer hinderances in having at least some level of decoration on their ships.

I don't personally have my hand in major factory-stuff (only got a fuel factory for my mission-runner, and a voxel factory for my ship/structure designing), so I don't hugely care if it is properly cheaper or not. That said, as schematics already exist it would be easier/faster to implement them as research rewards than it would be to invent even more stuff (so we'd get the research mechanic sooner), and it would provide a method of obtaining schematics that doesn't require going and buying them off the market for those stubborn people that want to do it all from nothing themselves without the markets.

it is an absolute pain to go through and click, input and send tile taxes one at a time, this needs a optimization for those who have 10+ territories 
 
at 115 territories i have to manage, the screen is really laggy when i am paying and many people are on the same boat.
 
please NQ, make it so we can pay all bills for up to 2 cycles at once with the click of 1-2 buttons, that way people can have a MUCH easier way of paying for large upkeep
 
thank you! 🥰

eg an L shield on a ship with no CCS would have 5 million hp, while one that does could have the usual 20 million, maybe even more for larger ships. This would encourage players to use voxels on their builds instead of just using elements.

I'd suspect the pvp issue is less with disjointed stuff (nobody will much care if you go protoss and build the golden armada), and more that people are using disjointed element-needles with battle-ship-shields and interceptor-speed. In all likeliness, this patch will just make it worse, as now people will want to cut weight even more. If their vision for combat is to have epic-looking battle-ships slugging it out in big slow broadsides while swarms of smaller craft dogfight in the middle, then they will need to come up with a reason to have skin on a ship, a reason to not just fly a needle for cross-section tank, a reason to not have the biggest defensive element in the game on anything and everything smaller than a battleship that still has the build-volume to accommodate it, and a reason once they have all of that to mix in more resource efficient fighter-craft without negating battleships entirely (again).
 
I suspect what we need isn't a quick change-the-numbers fix for pvp, but rather the inclusion of more complexity.
 
-Solar-panels to generate power or radiators to dissipate waste-heat can take up a good bit of space on a ship's exterior, potentially requiring designs to simply include additional geometry/cross-section to allow for the needed greater surface area.
 
-Power generation/storage equipment tends to be big, heavy, or both, and the added mass would help cut in to the acceleration of super-high-twr constructs.
 
-If they changed voxel so that instead of affecting your CCS it affected your shield (more voxel toughens your shield, still with the falloff curve) then people would use some voxel if they wanted more defense. If they put the falloff at different points for different core sizes then they could manipulate how much mass was optimal for defense and thus encourage different core-sizes to mean actual different ship sizes.
 
-Shield-modification elements (stuff that trades max hp for resistances for vent-time for vent-recovery-speed for e-war resistance) could add additional mass or space requirements that would slow and enlarge more defensively oriented ships.
 
-Shields eating in to the the top speed of the ship they are attached to would make people chose between heavy defense and high speed.
 
-E-war equipment, much like guns and armor, take up space and add mass.
 
 
So essentially, they want people to pvp with a variety of ships that look like actual ships. The problem is that we are gamers, and if you give us a simple problem with one right answer, we are going to go for that one right answer. To fix it the pvp game needs to be more complex, to make sure there isn't just one right answer. The stasis-gun is a step in the right direction, and the speed-alterations are an extra variable to account for (albeit likely a poorly thought out one), but odds are quite high that we will need more.

I'd suspect the pvp issue is less with disjointed stuff (nobody will much care if you go protoss and build the golden armada), and more that people are using disjointed element-needles with battle-ship-shields and interceptor-speed. In all likeliness, this patch will just make it worse, as now people will want to cut weight even more. If their vision for combat is to have epic-looking battle-ships slugging it out in big slow broadsides while swarms of smaller craft dogfight in the middle, then they will need to come up with a reason to have skin on a ship, a reason to not just fly a needle for cross-section tank, a reason to not have the biggest defensive element in the game on anything and everything smaller than a battleship that still has the build-volume to accommodate it, and a reason once they have all of that to mix in more resource efficient fighter-craft without negating battleships entirely (again).
 
I suspect what we need isn't a quick change-the-numbers fix for pvp, but rather the inclusion of more complexity.
 
-Solar-panels to generate power or radiators to dissipate waste-heat can take up a good bit of space on a ship's exterior, potentially requiring designs to simply include additional geometry/cross-section to allow for the needed greater surface area.
 
-Power generation/storage equipment tends to be big, heavy, or both, and the added mass would help cut in to the acceleration of super-high-twr constructs.
 
-If they changed voxel so that instead of affecting your CCS it affected your shield (more voxel toughens your shield, still with the falloff curve) then people would use some voxel if they wanted more defense. If they put the falloff at different points for different core sizes then they could manipulate how much mass was optimal for defense and thus encourage different core-sizes to mean actual different ship sizes.
 
-Shield-modification elements (stuff that trades max hp for resistances for vent-time for vent-recovery-speed for e-war resistance) could add additional mass or space requirements that would slow and enlarge more defensively oriented ships.
 
-Shields eating in to the the top speed of the ship they are attached to would make people chose between heavy defense and high speed.
 
-E-war equipment, much like guns and armor, take up space and add mass.
 
 
So essentially, they want people to pvp with a variety of ships that look like actual ships. The problem is that we are gamers, and if you give us a simple problem with one right answer, we are going to go for that one right answer. To fix it the pvp game needs to be more complex, to make sure there isn't just one right answer. The stasis-gun is a step in the right direction, and the speed-alterations are an extra variable to account for (albeit likely a poorly thought out one), but odds are quite high that we will need more.

I'd suspect the pvp issue is less with disjointed stuff (nobody will much care if you go protoss and build the golden armada), and more that people are using disjointed element-needles with battle-ship-shields and interceptor-speed. In all likeliness, this patch will just make it worse, as now people will want to cut weight even more. If their vision for combat is to have epic-looking battle-ships slugging it out in big slow broadsides while swarms of smaller craft dogfight in the middle, then they will need to come up with a reason to have skin on a ship, a reason to not just fly a needle for cross-section tank, a reason to not have the biggest defensive element in the game on anything and everything smaller than a battleship that still has the build-volume to accommodate it, and a reason once they have all of that to mix in more resource efficient fighter-craft without negating battleships entirely (again).
 
I suspect what we need isn't a quick change-the-numbers fix for pvp, but rather the inclusion of more complexity.
 
-Solar-panels to generate power or radiators to dissipate waste-heat can take up a good bit of space on a ship's exterior, potentially requiring designs to simply include additional geometry/cross-section to allow for the needed greater surface area.
 
-Power generation/storage equipment tends to be big, heavy, or both, and the added mass would help cut in to the acceleration of super-high-twr constructs.
 
-If they changed voxel so that instead of affecting your CCS it affected your shield (more voxel toughens your shield, still with the falloff curve) then people would use some voxel if they wanted more defense. If they put the falloff at different points for different core sizes then they could manipulate how much mass was optimal for defense and thus encourage different core-sizes to mean actual different ship sizes.
 
-Shield-modification elements (stuff that trades max hp for resistances for vent-time for vent-recovery-speed for e-war resistance) could add additional mass or space requirements that would slow and enlarge more defensively oriented ships.
 
-Shields eating in to the the top speed of the ship they are attached to would make people chose between heavy defense and high speed.
 
-E-war equipment, much like guns and armor, take up space and add mass.
 
 
So essentially, they want people to pvp with a variety of ships that look like actual ships. The problem is that we are gamers, and if you give us a simple problem with one right answer, we are going to go for that one right answer. To fix it the pvp game needs to be more complex, to make sure there isn't just one right answer. The stasis-gun is a step in the right direction, and the speed-alterations are an extra variable to account for (albeit likely a poorly thought out one), but odds are quite high that we will need more.

An amusing thought, but in all likelihood a tax-free planet's method of stopping people from just claiming all the hexes would be territory warfare and atmo-pvp. If they do want to throw in atmo pvp though, then I'm all for it.

I was under the impression that procedural missions when suggested by myself or others were not in any way linked to anything anyone else did. The general idea is that the game would just generate them individually for each player. Nobody could hoard all the missions (and swarms of mission-runners couldn't run them dry) because everyone would have their own missions, and they couldn't stack a dozen alts or even constantly repeat the same loop because there'd be different start and end points for each person's mission each time they took it. If they shortened up the time to deliver enough (say to within a day or two of start, preventing loitering until lots of missions line up) and refreshed what missions were available every few days (to keep people from being forced to do missions they don't want to run after hitting all the ones they do). 
 
As far as keeping larger mission-haulers relevant goes, they just need to add even bigger packages than they already have with appropriately higher payouts. 

They know I'm flying, they know where I'm flying, I have an org-tagged ship and I know they don't like my org (player drama), and they've taken shots at me when I've gotten lazy about avoiding them. In over 100 pvp-space missions I still haven't lost a ship, and I do pay enough attention to radar to know it isn't for lack of them knowing or trying. 

Stay clear of the pipes, take care to avoid anyone seeing your final path away from the pipe, and be both willing and prepared to just turn back in to the safe-zone to go find a different direction to exit it from if you spot a anyone waiting in pvp space.
 
It isn't hard to avoid them, it just takes time and effort.

Please explain how a single wipe will stop someone from having 20 alt accounts.
 
Also, I appreciate that you are so in to solo/small org so hard as to believe that larger orgs can only be just a few guys and their army of alts, but 20 actual people aren't that hard to get in one org (one of my orgs has more officers than that, never mind the rank-and-file guys, and we are far from the biggest), and 20 actual competent people will handily out-perform 1 guy with 20 alts. 
 
 
Procedural generation to prevent alt-mission-stacking would be nice in that it would get all the "missions are OP" people to find something new to complain about, but someone (or some org) will always have more money than everyone else (more or less like I already said in point 4), and nothing short of entirely removing money and resources from the game will change that for more than a few minutes.

This whole wipe/no wipe thing is just absurd, and fundamentally seems to revolve around a few things:

1) New players trying to get good hexes.
-If you are here to champion having a monthly wipe so new players always have access to market-side hexes and t5 hexes and the like, please say so. For the rest of you, please explain to me how having just 1 more wipe is going to allow new players access to the best hexes after people have a month or two to claim them all again.
 
Everyone can see where the markets are, if someone wants to claim a market-adjacent tile, they don't need to scan it don't, they'll just take it. 
 
I can solo-run 19 scanners at a time off an S core quite easily. Setup, scan, takedown, move to the next area to scan, all in less than 30 mins per cycle. I am not any sort of scan-maniac, I play with guys that pull twice as many scans as I do in the same amount of time, and my org would gladly make good use of teamwork get us all those scanners asap. People won't claim all the best ore-tiles instantly, but give it a couple months and DU will be right back to where it is now for claimed hexes.
 
2) New players trying to compete in manufacturing.
-If you are here to champion having a monthly wipe so new players always have the ability to compete in industry with their ability to manufacture things, please say so. For the rest of you, please explain to me how having just 1 more wipe is going to allow new players to compete in the market a month and a half after the wipe when some org's industrial-guys have gone and collectively maxed their industrial skills again while their non-indy guys have gone and amassed the wealth to rebuild their mega-factory.
 
3) New players trying to compete with money/resources.
-If you are here to champion having a weekly wipe so new players always have the ability to compete in the market with their available resources, please say so. For the rest of you, please explain how a new player will be able to compete monetarily a day after the wipe when an org of old players have used their pre-existing knowledge of the game's mechanics to blow through the tutorials to collect all the money there, then combined it all to slap together a factory for territory scanners, claim/mining units, and group mission-haulers? 
 
 
I was on Symeon 4 hours after beta was live (delayed by download speed), while new people were still trying to get the hang of stopping their speeder without crashing on Alioth. My org was making hauling runs between the different planets on day 2 while the new players were still trying to get their constructs to fly. This isn't WoW, the learning curve will cripple a new guy's ability to compete with old players no matter how often you wipe. It may technically take a few months to max certain skills, but it isn't hard for experienced players working together to divide the work when trying to get something done. And while it will take solo players a bit to get back to where they are now, this is an MMO, and there are in fact large groups of people out there that trust and cooperate with each other, and they will always out-pace all the new guys.
 
...
 
Oh, and...
4) Old players with exploit-money.
NQ should have done something about this a while ago back when they were dealing with said exploits, but now its had too much time to get distributed. That said, if you seriously think we need to nuke the entire universe and take out all the non-exploiter's stuff alongside the exploiter's stuff to get rid of some extra cash... Well, that debate tends to circle around to point 3 above, so I'm just going to point you back to it. We'll lose old players if the game wipes, people don't like getting punished for someone else's transgressions, especially if they didn't actually have a way to prevent the transgressor from doing what they did. But in spite of that we wont lose all the old players, someone will still have more money than the new guys, and someone will still be upset that conservation of ninjutsu doesn't apply in a way that lets their new solo-ness effectively compete with a large old org.
 
 
 
Fair's a place where you get cotton-candy. DU's a place where limitless extractable resources, lots of cooperation, and time lets your org buy a moon while all the solos, casuals, and newbs wonder how you ever got that kind of money. If you really want to help the new guys, figure out how to improve the FTUE in a way that doesn't risk giving the game a reputation for pressing the reset button like a child flipping the game-board because they were losing. "Hard" is already enough to turn off a fair number of people in this age of "easy-is-too-hard gamers". "Randomly deletes all your work" is not something a game that wants to attract people should be known for.

A proper hybrid engine like that would be cool, and quite useful in cutting down how many links some things need, but I suspect we will be stuck just using rockets for that for quite some time to come.

Stasis weapons are used to reduce the maximum velocity of targeted ships, a measure towards bringing better balance to PvP. Big armored ships with powerful space engines will no longer have the advantage that allowed them to easily escape more agile smaller designs.
I appreciate you listening to the community on this, it will help bring some much needed complexity to pvp.
We are also altering the behavior around a construct’s maximum speed. Constructs’ mass will now impact their speed; the heavier the ship, the less its maximum speed will be. Thus, smaller ships will be able to catch up bigger ones despite the latter having bigger engines than the former.
Barring a truly absurd speed-mass line (like stopping 1kt or heavier ships from exceeding 20kkph) this seems near pointless. Most of the M and L cores I've seen for pvp were effectively fly-weight given the sizes of their cores. The ships it sounded like this was meant to nerf have this bad habit of functionally being 4-10 engines with a fuel tank, a shield, guns, and a control chair, so they tend to be lighter than they stuff they are out-accelerating anyways.
 
Sure, it will help pirates catch haulers out in deep space without needing those haulers to be in a warp-pipe, but it wasn't exactly something they needed help in or that will improve their returns by much. Not being spotted has always been a far more effective way to avoid pirates than hitting top speed.
 
You'd probably solve the issue more effectively (and in a way that brakes science-immersion less) by capping top speed to shield-size.
 
 
Unfortunately, no, M core constructs do not have a smaller cross-section. There is no minimum size mechanic for cores, hence why people keep seeing M or L cores on their radar when they get attacked, but if they get a good look at their attackers they realize most of 'em would fit on an S core and only have M or L to get at the weapons. Capping shields to core size (without other changes) will just result in M weapons and an L shield on an L core that would fit in to an S space. They probably need to add in a power/heat mechanic if they want to try an bump up cross-sections, using it to get people to put big solar-panels/radiators on a ship's exterior as would be appropriate to handle their giant engines/shields/weapons.
 
 
Amusingly enough, the maximum speed of a thruster's exhaust in real life does not determine that thruster's top speed, only the speed at which it can accelerate. The explosion propelling the thruster is not a fixed point in space, but rather a physical thing with mass that is itself moving while it pushes the associated thruster forward. Its essentially like the "throwing a ball while standing an the bed of a moving truck" thing, except your thrusters are (hopefully) accelerating for longer than just the second it takes someone to throw a ball.

If all L cored ships where L sized, If all M core ships where M sized, if all S core ships where S sized.  I would agree.  But you can get a medium core ship that weighs 10KT, and you can get a Large core ship that weighs 1KT.  
 
Core size does not reflect ship size.  And this is something I said from day 1 when they added shields to PTS. Shield HP should be a multiple of voxel HP. 
 
Restricting L shields to L core only would be bad for the game. 

Engines that work in space and atmosphere (like vertical booster). Use space fuel (or new fuel like space fuel). Same power as space engines. 1.3 times bigger.

Level the playing field whether you are a solo player or part of a large corporation. The current problem with mining, even with the small player base we have now, is that mining areas with higher tier nodes are quickly overrun leaving most others out of being able to set up mining units worth anything of consequence. Though I still enjoy setting up mining units, I miss the old days of digging holes and searching for the nodes. I do understand why they had to get rid of it however. Asteroids! Well, that's cool for the people who are here early after reset but diminishes quickly, especially in safe zones.
 
I propose keeping territory scanners for general area ground content like they are doing right now for the purpose of placing mining units, but add a secondary scanner with a shorter scan duration that is designed to try and find concentrated pockets of minerals. The ability to find mining nodes of tier 1 would be common place, but the higher your scanner skills increases the chances of finding larger nodes. Then for every tier, the chances of finding nodes at all gets harder and harder but the ability to find them and the size of the node would once again be based on your scanning skills. 
 
When nodes are discovered, you can get the option to open an instance, you and your cargo ship enters the instance, and you can mine away. The instance would only be open for a set duration (24 hours?) and once the timer is up, or you leave the instance, it is gone forever. This way there are no permanent holes in the world, the players that invest heavy in scanning skills will have the highest chance of finding valuable ores (as it should be), and mining goes back to being an exploration again.
 
A system would have to be put in place where the possibilities of finding something vary at each territory (just because one person doesn't find the good stuff, doesn't mean someone else with RNG something great at that location) and once and instance is entered and left, that territory will spawn another random chance of regular to valuable ores. 

I'd assume this cap prevents it from either running in to other issues in the client, or causing problems when someone either intentionally or not triggers a bad script, but such a slider in the game-settings somewhere would probably assist with optimization to a degree.

The CPU issue isn't an issue with NQ not assigning you enough cpu. The game runs mostly client-side, meaning the cpu-overload is happening on your computer, not their servers.

In so far as elements just touching, that is what I am referring to when I say NQ is working on it. Touching and stacking (clipping things in to each other) are two different things, I know that, you know that, NQ knows that, but the system to detect it is still imperfect, so NQ is still working on it. In the end it should only go off when things are inside one another.
 

As far as buried elements goes...
 
When NQ accidentally dropped the airbrake-patch on the pts, I was flying a ship that made use of internal-brakes. I liked that ship, I thought it had a good retro-look to it, but when I realized it wasn't going to work any more I took a print I could toss in a museum and built a new ship that did near just as well (or better) in all the same areas, and didn't make use of internal brakes. I like the new ship, I think it looks good, and if NQ drops a patch that makes it obsolete then I will toss it in a museum next to the old one and design another. 
 
The real issue is that NQ should have fixed it sooner, but I still stand by my statement. People have known certain elements would eventually need to be on the outside since before beta launched, we cant start making exceptions for old players, it would just get people to pre-emptively deploy stuff abusing old mechanics before it got patched and come across as letting old players continue to use exploits. This is a game where people know rules and requirements are still going to be added, when they change we will need to adapt our designs or come up with new ones. So long as the rules updates are reasonable and we are given fair warning of their impending implementation, we should have little issue admiring the old as stationary art while still producing new art to fly.

Given your previous comments on other topics involving things like wanting to be able to warp with aphelia packages, the desire to spontaneously delete your entire ship from the universe (on a thread about using such an option against pirates), or just generally how much you hate pirates, I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you are posting this less for physics reasons and more for fear of it being used on you by pirates.  While I understand such a point of view, I disagree with it.
 
Pirates will likely be faster than you after the speed changes even without this device, but unless NQ changes some stuff they will also be stuck using smaller guns than you. A stasis weapon would allow you to pin them down and ensure that when they start losing that fight, they wont be able to run away and will lose their ship.

They are called simulation games, they do both at once.
 
I appreciate the need for occasionally tossing physics out the window for game-balance or practicality reasons, but that doesn't mean it wont annoy me when I see it happen so overtly.
 
 
As poor of a mechanic as it is, it does provide a significant portion of the game's population with the quanta to buy things from industry players, and incentivizes people to slow-boat through pvp space so that pirates have something to do. 
 
Pvp is good, it can bring people in. but this isn't a pvp only game. As much as I'd like to just slap some guns on all my stuff and go to town on things, this game's player-base would probably fall apart faster than we'd pick up new people if we were to just start removing features that are boring or in need of work instead of fixing or replacing them. 
 
I understand why speed is being played with, it is quicker and easier to fiddle with the maximum speed of different cores than it is to introduce the game mechanics they'd need to produce a more realistic-seeming balance between the core sizes. Its the same thing they've been trying to do since they started pvp with that "smaller cores can't be locked from as far as larger ones" that had a lot of people flying XS cubes armed with L missiles.

NQ wants people to fly a variety of different ships, but they keep trying to do this with quick and simple fixes to force it instead of introducing enough design complexity for it to occur in a more natural-seeming way. I appreciate the reasoning, I appreciate the balance (assuming it actually works), but that doesn't mean I wont be annoyed occasionally by the imposition rules that are blatant quick-fixes when the addition of mechanics they've previously promised could do the same thing in a less overt "hand of the devs" kind of way. (Hint: there's a reason a lot of other games use Heat/Capacitor/Energy/Power)

Right... where to start...

@NQ-Wanderer : A bit more info on the nature of how the pvp rebalance / speed changes / stasis weapons / alien cores would allow players to provide feedback and or points of view on things that you may not have thought of. Sooner rather than later may subsequently make any potentially required changes of plan a bit less short-notice on the devs and less likely to outrage the player-base if you missed something big.
 
@The anti-pvp players: I am a mission-runner, I have run well over 100 missions solo in pvp space in a ship that wont win against a purpose-built pvp ship, never lost a ship, only been shot at twice (both relatively recent, both when I was being lazy about avoiding pirates).
-You can just watch radar and fly clear of the pipe, it isn't hard, you can avoid pvp entirely about 99% of the time doing this.
-Your cargo-heavy hauler will never outrun a purpose-built interceptor regardless of speed-caps.
-You can typically fit heavier than an interceptor and rely on your combined shield/hull hp to win the fight if you match their weapons.
-Your requested "security status" attribute would be more quickly achievable by banding together to put up a watch-list/bounty-board for the people/ships that attack you.
-If you don't want to use weapons, or make friends with/hire an escort or scout, or put in the 10 min of flying and maneuvering and watching radar to go around the pirates, or pay for the cells to warp past them, and still think you deserve the rewards of flying through pvp space without substantial risk of being a pvp target, you may need to reconsider what you expect from an area the player-base at large refers to as "pvp-space".
-If you wish to discuss methods to avoid/overcome pirates in pvp space with me then DM me on discord and I will answer when I can, but don't expect a "push button to disable pvp" answer, you must expend some level or both time and resources, and everyone gets unlucky once in a while.

Right... where to start...

@NQ-Wanderer : A bit more info on the nature of how the pvp rebalance / speed changes / stasis weapons / alien cores would allow players to provide feedback and or points of view on things that you may not have thought of. Sooner rather than later may subsequently make any potentially required changes of plan a bit less short-notice on the devs and less likely to outrage the player-base if you missed something big.
 
@The anti-pvp players: I am a mission-runner, I have run well over 100 missions solo in pvp space in a ship that wont win against a purpose-built pvp ship, never lost a ship, only been shot at twice (both relatively recent, both when I was being lazy about avoiding pirates).
-You can just watch radar and fly clear of the pipe, it isn't hard, you can avoid pvp entirely about 99% of the time doing this.
-Your cargo-heavy hauler will never outrun a purpose-built interceptor regardless of speed-caps.
-You can typically fit heavier than an interceptor and rely on your combined shield/hull hp to win the fight if you match their weapons.
-Your requested "security status" attribute would be more quickly achievable by banding together to put up a watch-list/bounty-board for the people/ships that attack you.
-If you don't want to use weapons, or make friends with/hire an escort or scout, or put in the 10 min of flying and maneuvering and watching radar to go around the pirates, or pay for the cells to warp past them, and still think you deserve the rewards of flying through pvp space without substantial risk of being a pvp target, you may need to reconsider what you expect from an area the player-base at large refers to as "pvp-space".
-If you wish to discuss methods to avoid/overcome pirates in pvp space with me then DM me on discord and I will answer when I can, but don't expect a "push button to disable pvp" answer, you must expend some level or both time and resources, and everyone gets unlucky once in a while.

This would be epic, and I would love it, and it would take an enormous amount of coding for a relatively low priority feature that would annoy a lot of people with navigational issues stemming from things like the coriolis effect.
 
No mistakes, I want this feature, but it would be way too much work for far too little return at this point in time.