Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Alpha

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

HamyMac's Achievements

  1. So all the scraps are in their tiers, but within the tiers each scrap repairs the same amount of a chosen element. The difference between the scraps within a tier is only that of mass... yet the price of each varies wildly. Would it be a good idea to add another quality to the mix to help to define a scrap's value by it's usefulness, rather than just how much of it you can haul off Alioth. Could scraps be additionally separately classifeid as more effeicient for Engine elelements, Aerofoil elelments, Braking elelments and perhaps additionally for Adjustors to create four preferntial uses that would be truthfully represented in the market price. I could still be possible to repair an Engine with Aerofoil scrap, but it should perhaps use much more of the consumable to do so.. Does this sound like a daft idea, or would it work and also rationalize the market pricing? Currently on Alioth Rare Scrap prices are these: Cobalt - 347.97 Fluorine - 179.00 Gold - 209.95 Scandium - 487.00 There is no reason for the vast price difference except that of availability. Adding one other specialization factor to scraps within the tier might get some sense into the prices.
  2. That sounds alright, but do we have to dismantle all excess Org owned constructs? Or is there another way.. If so, how?
  3. I think I'd agree.. I tried two asteroids and lost two ships... second partly due to lag. The fact that once engaged you're in a fist fight with no opportunity to warp is a killer... it would be better to have the ability to warp away from a fight if you have too. Asteroids are basically solo ventures, but anyone scouting for pvp targets will be doing that in pairs or gangs and in L core ships... So the advantage is never going to be with the miner in an M Core hoping to pick up a few rares. If 'might is right' rules the game then were just going to end up wih a blob fest where single players never succeed. There needs to be some form of escape beyond just engine power without making it unfair on the hunters. If alien cores work like the asteroid system then it'll be more of the same.
  4. I didn't know that... alternatively, could they not just make the cores all one size and flexible in area and height... so you place a core and choose the perameters, set volumes but different dimensions, so you could build a tower from one core or a massive landing pad a few metres in height?
  5. Yes, but you don't have to place them, or stack them... you would just build off the ground and up as high as you wanted, so no need for a hundred cores to build your towers.
  6. Ahhh... makes sense. But if you divided each territory into a dozen build zones, each with an integrated server-side virtual core, that could work, no? ie: create an internal hex to the territory hex, about half the size and divide the whole thing into 12 segments, each highlighted on hitting the B key so you could see the build area available for that segment.
  7. To be honest, it looks more like pollution than mist...
  8. I'm not trying to be weird or anything, but, are things starting to get bogged down in 'limitation'? First, it's Territories, now it's Cores. Just spitballing, but... How hard would it be to remove static cores altogether and handle the Territory Unit itself as the Core for all static constructions on it? 'Tagging' honeycomb as generically 'static' (honeycomb that is not attached to a Dynamic or a Space core) would remove the issue of having to add cores to expand a base on a Territory and release the 'player tension' related to core limitations. If the actual limitation on constructions is really how much honeycomb you can stack on top of itself to make buildings, then you can remove the core limitations for ground constructs. For Mining Units and other (possible future) deployables, you could have a Deployable Core that can be placed as a temporary structure on Terrirtories a player wants use but not build a base on. A Deployable Core would preclude any further building on that Territory. On claiming a Territory, player could have to declare the nature of the claim by identifying it as an HQ Territory (of the 5 permitted) of which the equivalent of an L Core area must be built on in order to substantiate the claim or as an Outpost Territory at a lower rate of rental on which only a Deployablle Core (smaller than an L Core) can be placed and no unattached honeycomb building can be constructed on that Terrritory. This way, you can build anywhere across your own HQ territories regardless, but if you wish to mine or place a temporary pvp outpost you can only have that single Deployable Core on that Territory. Thus the nature of the Territory defines what you can buld on it. Additional Territories could be claimed as Subsidiary Territory in the name of the player or Org. Sub-Plot: If planet based pvp ever comes into play, then the Territory Unit itself could be the 'Capture the Flag' objective, rather than repetitive core destruction (as in space combat) and a Land Grab objective could be determined by the aggressive deconstruction with weapons of any constructs on the Territory or by taking possession of them with an area-defined, time-limited Battle Unit that asserts conquest from the aggressor that must then be neutralized by the defender or must time-out in order for the defender to repossess their property... perhaps it should take the placing of ten Battle Units to control a whole Territory so an aggressor has to decide on the amount of firepower to bring to the battle and whether they want to posess or demolish the Territory and its assets and a defender has to decide which assets require the most protection. Dev Blog Constructs
  9. Could we please, in some future patch, have a shopping basket.... and a 'buy all' button? ....And a 'This Market Only' option on the market dialogue... And... Can we have a message board for VR visits, so we can leave a compliment and thank you at the VR places we like. (And if you haven't visited Dolphin Cove yet, do it )
  10. That's all great. If you don't choose to generate rocks below the MUs, could we plase have a waypoint system that allows for setting half a dozen waypoints so we don't have to return to base for each new rock deposit. Actually, a waypoint system would be bloody brilliant anyway.. I find I am always opening and closing the map... the ability to choose and set a small route across half a dozen markets, MUs or player bases would be a real benefit. Oh... and please, please, please could we have a small green dot on the minimap that permanently locates the direction of your active ship when you're away from it?
  11. ... could we have a little less mist over Teoma please. there isn't a day without it and worse than that, things keep appearing in my flight past with less than five seconds to change courrse,,, Perhaps three or four sunny days a week... or just a little more general visibility would be nice... it is bginning to seem like the planet of eternal darkness... or England!
  12. It would also be nice if the windws for the market, crafting etc were scalable and movable and you could have more than one open at a time.
  13. Well, yes, I made antoher thread about a way of making it better for players still in game to profit from abandoned tiles.
  • Create New...