Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: January 09, 2016, 04:32:15 PM »The tech tree itself does contain a few surprises anyway, it's not all just bigger numbers.
Well it sort of is, but you know what I mean.
Well it sort of is, but you know what I mean.
Posted by: sloanjh
« on: January 09, 2016, 08:17:35 AM »Sure, it's there if you go looking for it, but spoilering the text keeps it that way. I was surprised last night when the base tech completed and I saw all the tech lines had changed values. I didn't want to spoil the pleasant surprise for anyone else.
The rule of thumb I use for whether content should be spoilered is if it hands you the solution to what's intended to be a puzzle. Generally speaking, this involves new information about capabilities, actions, and tactics of aliens.
John
Posted by: Prince of Space
« on: January 08, 2016, 03:40:27 PM »Sure, it's there if you go looking for it, but spoilering the text keeps it that way. I was surprised last night when the base tech completed and I saw all the tech lines had changed values. I didn't want to spoil the pleasant surprise for anyone else.
A quick search of the Mechanics forum didn't turn up any mention of it, and the wiki still shows the old values.
A quick search of the Mechanics forum didn't turn up any mention of it, and the wiki still shows the old values.
Posted by: GreatTuna
« on: January 08, 2016, 12:44:36 PM »Why are you spoiling spoilering genetic changes anyway? Seeing the entire biological tech tree is as easy as clicking the All Projects radio button.
Posted by: Prince of Space
« on: January 08, 2016, 10:42:12 AM »My sleep deprived brain must have changed some units around last night. Turns out that the base temperature reduction genetic modifications are in degrees Celsius, not percent, so -90C looked to my befuddled eyes as if it was -90%. I still like the changes, though.
Posted by: Vandermeer
« on: January 08, 2016, 02:02:37 AM »I like the changes, but I think they make it possible to bioengineer a human-derived race that can withstand temperatures into the negative Kelvin range.negative Kelvin range
"The future of humanity: Deep frosted ...at the other side of the multiverse." Star Trek scripters would be proud.Posted by: Prince of Space
« on: January 08, 2016, 12:09:48 AM »I don't know if this was intended as a spoiler, but I don't recall Steve mentioning that genetic modification techs got a facelift. I like the changes, but I think they make it possible to bioengineer a human-derived race that can withstand temperatures into the negative Kelvin range. Anyway, I can't find anything in the release notes about it. Was it mentioned in some thread other than Changes for 7.XX?
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: January 07, 2016, 11:32:21 PM »Answer to the above spoiler Im very sure I've heard people ask that before recently, it's pretty likely that's the case but I haven't got any proof
Posted by: sloanjh
« on: January 07, 2016, 08:15:20 PM »Added spoiler tags to the above post, since if the question is answered in the affirmative, it's probably something that Steve intentionally didn't mention.
John
John
Posted by: swarm_sadist
« on: January 07, 2016, 02:33:18 PM »Speaking of armour, does the NPR use missile armour now? I'm fighting an NPR with very slow missiles, but about 1/3 of my intercepts are not destroying the incoming missiles, even when they are hitting.
Posted by: 83athom
« on: January 06, 2016, 07:10:57 PM »I think we should just wait for a revamp of the armor system. Instead of armor just decreasing in weight as you get higher tech, I think they should have different properties to them and/or multiple types on the same tech level that have differences between eachother (ie; shock damage absorption, thermal/em absorption, etc). Maybe one type is lighter but more expensive, another would have a natural damage absorption, another would have a passive stealth to it (behaves like a cloaking devise a little bit) but doesn't absorb shock as well. These are just examples and something better could probably be worked out. You could also possibly incorporate the new "shell" armor (skeleton ships/stations) into this somehow. But then, this post might have been better going into the 7.20 discussion or the suggestion thread.
Posted by: Thundercraft
« on: January 05, 2016, 03:42:52 PM »Regarding the ablative vs deflective armor, I certainly do not suggest a completely deflective model. That would indeed be exploitable. But it is my opinion that the completely ablative model used now also has problems. Mainly, no matter how advanced the technologies become no weapon ever becomes completely obsolete.
Looking at the higher end armors, we have some pretty incredible and futuristic stuff there. I would expect that some armor named "Bonded superdense armor" would be capable of just shrugging off a tiny (damage 1) infrared laser, just to make an example. Or bouncing the smallest kind of railgun (damage 1 per shot also).
A possible proposal, considering we have 12 tiers of armor, could be: tier 1-4, 0 "deflection point". tier 4-8, 1 "deflection point". Tier 9-12, 2 "deflection points". This would be a small enough number not to create invincible ships, but would at least somewhat model the higher technology and encourage to build weapons a bit bigger.
...The original design was too imbalanced towards impregnable armor; the next iteration towards ablative armor. The "shock damage" change was Steve's effort to pull the balance back towards the center, and based on his post above he's happy with it, so it's unlikely to change
I don't doubt that Steve and others are happy with the way armor is currently. But, rather than drastically change the way all armor works, I'd like to see more than one type of armor as choices. That is, one type of "ablative" armor like we currently have, and also the ability to research a "deflective" armor similar to what Zincat suggested with certain deflection points at certain tech levels.
I'm of the opinion that, as long as game balance doesn't suffer, having more design options is usually a good thing. It makes ship design more interesting.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: January 05, 2016, 03:26:45 PM »Steve, I've had a thought about the deep space station we talked about on this thread. Are shipyards also tied to colonies like populations are? If not is there any reason a shipyard can't orbit a deep space station?
Shipyards are very much tied to colonies. As long as you can find any system body at all though, no matter how small, you can use shipyards and orbital habitats.
Posted by: Prince of Space
« on: January 05, 2016, 09:16:59 AM »Well, the move toward colony-free maintenance seemed to entail decoupling maintenance activities from mineral stockpiles, so I would assume that Steve doesn't want to have to track potential mineral consumption at individual task groups. That would preclude any kind of deep space manufacturing, including shipbuilding, if my assumption is correct.
Posted by: Sematary
« on: January 05, 2016, 05:49:46 AM »Steve, I've had a thought about the deep space station we talked about on this thread. Are shipyards also tied to colonies like populations are? If not is there any reason a shipyard can't orbit a deep space station?
