Skimmers used to show if they were wanted (and therefore illegal) but for some reason that stopped showing a while ago. If you can run in and scoop quickly and evade the trespass trigger you can also steal the stuff inside the zone.
-
Greetings Commander, want a more instant approach to your questions and need for help? Check out the Galactic Academy Discord server!
Feel free to join the Galactic Academy Discord server by clicking here!
Newcomer / Intro Things I find odd about ED!
- Thread starter F4fred
- Start date
"Green" is just a colour. There was clearly a list of colors used as part of the procedural generation for faction names - purple, crimson, jet, green, etc. They're very common.
That was fixed some time ago - they show the correct info now.
Yeah, well, they also don't run out of ammo and can spam you endlessly from their turreted railguns, sooo... yeah. AI cheats.
Two chaff launchers? If you're going to count chaff releases, you should probably look at the modules tab in the external panel and count the chaff launchers.
Thanks. Good idea.
Edit due to me being confused about chaff launcher capacity.
Last edited:
I bet that had you checked that NPC's modules in the left panel, they would have had one chaff launcher. If you were lucky. Sometimes their loadout doesn't reflect their... well... loadout at all.
Never managed to keep count, but it wouldn't have helped as I rarely bother to see what internals they have so wouldn't know how many chaff launchers they had fitted to fire out 10 each.
No chaff launchers have 10 per launcher 15 if engineered, not sure that the engineered NPCs would have that or not.
Chaff launchers actually have 11 - one in the tube and ten reloads.
Well that makes sense and of course FDev had no idea of the connotations that Green Party would have if included in the game!
Not seen any white, black or brown party factions in the game. So looks like some colours were excluded!
Last edited:
Got another one. Conflict Zones!
“Hey! Let’s get together and have a battle in some random bit of space!”
”Great idea. If one side has had enough we can all go home for a quick cup of tea and come back to exactly the same random bit of space in 15 minutes and do it again, and again, and again, and again.......”
”Excellent. I will put it on the nav beacon so everyone knows where to go.”
“Hey! Let’s get together and have a battle in some random bit of space!”
”Great idea. If one side has had enough we can all go home for a quick cup of tea and come back to exactly the same random bit of space in 15 minutes and do it again, and again, and again, and again.......”
”Excellent. I will put it on the nav beacon so everyone knows where to go.”
Never considered that there could be designated locations to battle out the conflict to avoid civilian casualties? Why would they fight it out everywhere? You don't see the legal/practical/administrative work that goes into making the conflict zones - there could be a reason the state is pending before activating!
Warfare gets so messy when unrestricted.
Why would they fight in a random bit of space? Battles are usually fought for an objective. Capture a planet or base. Drive off an enemy fleet That is threatening your possessions. Protecting civilians would be by red zone warning, much as it is with conflict zones now. You would get a message when jumping in system that the system was in a war state and anyone venturing into the system would do so at their own risk. That would make trading with the system more profitable as few would dare to risk it and there would be lucrative passenger contracts for those desperate to get away. But even if you accept the conflict zone as a concept, that doesn’t explain why everyone packs up and goes home, only to return a few minutes later and start fighting again. A fight would go on until it is resolved. Individual ships might leave to restock or repair damage and reinforcements join the battle. To the message you get “We have won commander” you get when it finishes should be added ”but only for the next few minutes”!
What do you think would happen to the potentially billions of people in the system if all space trade stopped during the frequent conflicts? I don't see why you couldn't have a designated conflict zone (as is obviously the case...) Where the change of power is decided between opposing factions.
About the duration, that could very well be in the future rules of engagement and the law of "war" in their version of the Geneva convention.
What would happen to the civilians? They would suffer and die. War is hell. It is meant to be hell, so governments don’t indulge in it too often. Have you thought how much more interesting a fully implemented war state would be, instead of just scattering a few random conflict zones around? There would be opportunities for traders to make money shipping in vital goods, smuggling of weapons, scouting missions, patrol sweeps or rapid response, escort missions for freighters, humanitarian missions, repair of damaged installations, rescue missions of pilots, passenger missions for people wanting to get out.
As for the duration, to what purpose given that all come back and start again a few minutes, again and again, like some ghastly forever war! The poor pilots trapped in an endless cycle of combat!
I see where you're coming from with regard to the CZs.
There is a good reason for it, however: It's down to how the game works - the background simulation (BGS) works by summing all activities over a 24-hour period and calculating all influence, state and conflict outcomes over that period. Think of the BGS as an asynchronous turn-based strategy game and it makes more sense.
Programming it this way means that even players who can never meet in-game, such as Xbox and PC players, can still compete for control over a system - all the platforms feed data into a single BGS. It also means that solo and private group players can contribute to a strategic goal without leaving the mode of play they prefer (or, indeed, might have to use - my mum's internet connection, for instance, is really flaky, and solo is the best option sometimes if there's a lot of contention on the line.)
There is a good reason for it, however: It's down to how the game works - the background simulation (BGS) works by summing all activities over a 24-hour period and calculating all influence, state and conflict outcomes over that period. Think of the BGS as an asynchronous turn-based strategy game and it makes more sense.
Programming it this way means that even players who can never meet in-game, such as Xbox and PC players, can still compete for control over a system - all the platforms feed data into a single BGS. It also means that solo and private group players can contribute to a strategic goal without leaving the mode of play they prefer (or, indeed, might have to use - my mum's internet connection, for instance, is really flaky, and solo is the best option sometimes if there's a lot of contention on the line.)
Last edited:
I am not sure a more immersive war implementation would be a problem for the BGS. As CZ’s stand you can either just dive in and pick a side or take a mission for one side. The results of war related missions could be tracked and fed into the BGS every 24 hours. As it stands apart from CZ’s and a few different missions systems in war are much the same as every other one.