Page 5 of 18 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 268

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.
Thread: New Limpets and Synthesis Recipes Discussion

  1. #61
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Hello Commanders!

    This thread is for feedback about the new Hull Repair limpets and Synthesis Recipes only. Please keep on topic, off topic posts may be deleted without warning!

    New Synthesis Recipes
    • Chaff Synthesis.
    • Heat Sink Synthesis.
    • Life Support Synthesis.
    • Limpets Synthesis.
    • A new limpet controller: Hull Repair. Allows limpets to slowly repair hull over time.
    • Hull repair limpets repair canopy, but do not repair a blown canopy.
    • Any damage dealt to hull or shields will cause a hull repair limpet to fail and destruct.

    We'd love to hear from you about these recipes. Are they working as intended? What are the long term consequences? Pop us a post!
    First impressions are: It's wonderful to be able to synthesize all these things.

    Specific comments from an Explorer's point of view:

    Chaff Synthesis

    Indifferent : I usually travel as a 'well armed and shielded' explorer - no paper ships for me - but I don't envisage needing to synthesize chaff much.

    Heat Sink Synthesis

    Disappointed : Needing to use manufactured materials is an extra inconvenience for the explorer who wants to Boldly Go, but will have to hang around in the bubble until they scrape up enough manufactured materials to be able to synthesize more heat sinks. As we all know, from time to time, a heatsink is required for those OMG moments whilst out in the Void. Being nestled within the hot zone of a star after hyperjump springs to mind.

    It would be really nice to be able to synthesize heatsinks using elements scavenged from planet surfaces instead.

    Life Support Synthesis

    Relatively happy : being able to synth more emergency oxygen supply will be a good thing. Notwithstanding the slightly jarring requirement for Iron & Nickel

    This could lead to some epic 'Mark Watney' type scenarios where your canopy has become completely busted and you're having to survive long enough to return to a starport - any starport! I like the 'survival element' possibility this enables.

    Limpets Synthesis

    Happy. Very happy.

    Hull Repair Limpet Controller

    Happy : I can fit my Anaconda with one and repair my own hull whilst out in the Void. Others have pointed out that the requirement for this to be fitted into a module slot makes for increased thought and limitations on the smaller ships, but I think this is a realistic choice. If you choose to go exploring in a smaller ship, you choose to limit your outfitting choices. If you despise the Anaconda, favouring a smaller ship, that's your problem, not Frontier's. The choice is there and you have to deal with your self-imposed limitations.

    Hull repair limpets repair canopy, but do not repair a blown canopy.

    Happy : As above, this could lead to an epic survival story a la 'The Martian', 'We're gonna have to science the bleep out of this!' kind of stuff. Although I'd be happy to see some kind of dodgy-but-working alternative to clear glass if canopy restoration was in the game. Some kind of 'just good enough but don't sneeze' bodged repair job on the canopy, with smudgy or slightly opaque appearance. Then you'd have a choice - constant life support synthesis or dodgy emergency canopy whereby you have to rely on instrument flying a lot more than visual flying.

    Any damage dealt to hull or shields will cause a hull repair limpet to fail and destruct.

    Happy. Necessary to prevent using this as an exploit during some kind of battle.

  2. #62
    so, it looks like what most player want is:

    1) one controller that can be adjusted to what the limpet will do
    2) controller working like hangars - having slots for how many limpets can be controlled at a time, and X reconstructs like SLF hangars have
    3) synthesis enabled for the refills
    4) limpets refill from cargo also possible

    that way, it would make sense that a class 7 limpet controller has a mass of 90t, when it could not only control 12 limpets at a time, but also has eg. 84 limpets ammo
    like earlier suggested,
    if i install one controller, it will show up all types in the firegroups panel, so i could say "primary fire" will launch a collector, "secondary fire" will fire a prospector drone

  3. #63
    Originally Posted by sedilbur View Post (Source)
    Hi Sandro,

    I liked the idea of the hull repair limpet but i can't test it right now.

    Would you at least consider the following, i am not the only one that feels bad when talking about limpets:

    A. Currently, we have 3 types of controller limpets. One for hack others ships, one for collect material/commodities outside, and now one for hull repair.
    B. Limpets need cargo storage. And you get bored by others foes IA when you have some cargo inside ... even limpets ... they look juicy like Gold for some IAs =p (haha)

    1) Can it be possible to avoid the need for cargo storage ? (for example, you have 1 or 2 or 3 limpets depending of the class of the module... they reconstruct in case of problem ...)

    2) And if devs can do miracle, would they consider to merge all three types and make possible for the player to switch role between all the 3? not easy to implement, i know. but maybe it future release ?

    I agree with this guy.

    No cargo (though, to be fair, with synth, it's not too bad)

    But merging the controllers would be nice, it's pretty mental having it split into four modules to do all the cool utilitarian things.

    Maybe just put two together, so, you could have a hacker/collector, or a fuel transfer/hull reparier, or a collector/fuel transferer.

    This way, it cuts the amount of modules down from 4, to two, to have all of them, but still gives you choices.

  4. #64
    I like the new limpets and synthesis and agree that synthesising life support supplies will make for much more epic stories than being able to repair breached canopies. This way a lightweight class A life support might be a worthwhile module for explorers, whereas it was pretty useless before.

    I agree with everyone who'd like some sort of delay and power/heat cost to all synthesis. Personally I'd like synthesis to require an proper internal module (rather than a free module), even if that meant that SRV synthesis could only be done by recalling your ship. I've never liked that SRVs are instantly repaired and rearmed by your ship, but not refuelled - so I'd be fine if synthesis (on your ship) was required for all three - or docking at a station to do it without synthesis.

    I've done a bit of SRV racing (I'm rubbish!) and repairing the SRV while flying at 200m/s or while somersaulting down a cliff is dumb. Needing to recall your ship for a 'pit stop' would be great. My only regret would be that it would have stopped the Planet Wilson story from happening - but maybe repair / fuel limpets could be made to work on SRVs?

    Given a choice between a class 2 module that took several minutes to synthesise anything and a class 5/6 module that could do it more quickly, but needed loads of power and generated heat like SCB use does, I'd opt for a small module on my Asp-X, but would appreciate the extra trade-offs required when deciding which synthesis module to fit to my combat ships.

    The extra module required on the DBX could be handled by added the often requested "advanced exploration suite" that combines a detailed surface scanner and a discovery scanner into one class 2 module (preferably with a 4t mass to make it a trade off again).

    I play mostly in open, but my only intentional "pvp" is racing, so I'm not sure how a fast, but high power / high temperature class 5+ synthesis module would affect the pvp-meta if it was used to spam heat sinks.

  5. #65
    Originally Posted by Raiko View Post (Source)
    I like the new limpets and synthesis and agree that synthesising life support supplies will make for much more epic stories than being able to repair breached canopies. This way a lightweight class A life support might be a worthwhile module for explorers, whereas it was pretty useless before.

    I agree with everyone who'd like some sort of delay and power/heat cost to all synthesis. Personally I'd like synthesis to require an proper internal module (rather than a free module), even if that meant that SRV synthesis could only be done by recalling your ship. I've never liked that SRVs are instantly repaired and rearmed by your ship, but not refuelled - so I'd be fine if synthesis (on your ship) was required for all three - or docking at a station to do it without synthesis.

    I've done a bit of SRV racing (I'm rubbish!) and repairing the SRV while flying at 200m/s or while somersaulting down a cliff is dumb. Needing to recall your ship for a 'pit stop' would be great. My only regret would be that it would have stopped the Planet Wilson story from happening - but maybe repair / fuel limpets could be made to work on SRVs?

    Given a choice between a class 2 module that took several minutes to synthesise anything and a class 5/6 module that could do it more quickly, but needed loads of power and generated heat like SCB use does, I'd opt for a small module on my Asp-X, but would appreciate the extra trade-offs required when deciding which synthesis module to fit to my combat ships.

    The extra module required on the DBX could be handled by added the often requested "advanced exploration suite" that combines a detailed surface scanner and a discovery scanner into one class 2 module (preferably with a 4t mass to make it a trade off again).

    I play mostly in open, but my only intentional "pvp" is racing, so I'm not sure how a fast, but high power / high temperature class 5+ synthesis module would affect the pvp-meta if it was used to spam heat sinks.
    I think a synthesis module is a terrible idea and it will create massive amount of problems for all the explorers who are already out, some of us for months, some of us in small ships that just don't have enough module slots. Let's not fall again victims to the "realism and immersion" trend because there are a million things in the game that are not realistic and exist to make gameplay possible. Calling down your ship to repair your SRV is not practical and can be even dangerous if you are in a non-landable zone. If you don't want people to use synthesis during combat then simply disable it. The ship already knows when it's under attack. Please don't make difficult the life for explorers.

  6. #66
    Originally Posted by Rhea Lorell View Post (Source)
    I think a synthesis module is a terrible idea and it will create massive amount of problems for all the explorers who are already out, some of us for months, some of us in small ships that just don't have enough module slots. Let's not fall again victims to the "realism and immersion" trend because there are a million things in the game that are not realistic and exist to make gameplay possible. Calling down your ship to repair your SRV is not practical and can be even dangerous if you are in a non-landable zone. If you don't want people to use synthesis during combat then simply disable it. The ship already knows when it's under attack. Please don't make difficult the life for explorers.
    I agree here, and generally, I agree with anyone saying "Don't add more modules!"

    Not everyone wants to fly an anaconda, but everyone wants to use a variety of modules.

    The Cobra Mk4 is actually pretty great in this regard, having 8 slots (but sadly, only two utilites )

  7. #67
    Synthesis by itself has one issue: it completely invalidates ammo in combat. With chaff and heatsinks, the problem gets even worse, but it already existed before. Luckily there is a rather simple solution available:
    .
    - Give synthesis some production time. It would make perfect sense that it takes a minute (or even several minutes) to produce ammo, heatsinks, etc.
    - Make synthesis produce heat while ongoing. Some additional heat doesn't trouble ships in normal operation, but will seriously affect ships already in combat.
    - Optional: make synthesis require hardpoints to be stored. When people ask you why, just give some technobabble about how synthesizion requires a lot of energy and that it's hardwired to take weapon energy or something.
    .
    This would not negatively effect the explorer and would not affect the normal PvE player all that much, either. In a RES you might have a minute of cooldown once a while, but that's it. In turn, not only would it help in PvP situations, but even more importantly the current material requirements could be lowered.
    .
    I fully understand that in current mechanics some rare materials are needed to cut down abuse in combat. This hurts explorers a lot, as they don't have access to scrap from destroyed spaceships several thousands of lightyears out. If in-combat use is limited by the above mentioned mechanics, it wouldn't be necessary any more to gate it by high material requirements.
    .
    So all involved parties, Explorers, PvE players and PvP players would profit from introducing production time (and heat), while in turn being able to lower material costs.
    .

  8. #68
    Well, I am an explorer when I'm not being a racer. I'm certainly not a pvp player.

    Originally Posted by Rhea Lorell View Post (Source)
    I think a synthesis module is a terrible idea and it will create massive amount of problems for all the explorers who are already out, some of us for months, some of us in small ships that just don't have enough module slots. Let's not fall again victims to the "realism and immersion" trend because there are a million things in the game that are not realistic and exist to make gameplay possible. Calling down your ship to repair your SRV is not practical and can be even dangerous if you are in a non-landable zone. If you don't want people to use synthesis during combat then simply disable it. The ship already knows when it's under attack. Please don't make difficult the life for explorers.
    Yes, agreed that a proper internal module wouldn't work out for explorers already out-there, I hadn't properly thought about that.

    A freebie module like the planetary landing module, as suggested by others in this thread would be fine though, as it could be patched into existing ships.

    I disagree with you that needing to recall your ship would be impractical to repair / refuel your SRV though. And I'd be 100% happy about that making some terrain dangerous. There's too little danger when exploring currently, and these changes while welcome all make exploration even safer.

  9. #69

    Heatsink synthesis doesn't sound like much but will have a HUGE impact on combat, especially the top notch PVP

    This aspect has already been brought up in several other channels, but i also think this thread is actually the right place for it.

    Heatsink synthesis doesn't sound like much but will have a HUGE impact on combat, especially the top notch PVP. Please be cautions of this great balancing game mechanic!

    Managing your heat has added a very interesting and unique feature to the game and also brought great depth to ship loadout composition and combat piloting. Top level pilots have perfected their skills to run their ships at a level right before damaging their internals. The ability to reload and spam heatsinks could take a lot of that balance and intricacy away.

    Permanently cool running ships with extreme damage output or near invicible ships with six or more sets of shield cell banks can be a result of this, even if only a single restock per launcher is allowed during combat. The fact is that it will significantly impact the current combat balance.

    Several ways to deal with this impact are already discussed ranging from cooldown timers and other features restricting its rapid and easy use during a fight. A solution must of course also consider automation by scripts, making a synthesis reload as easys as pressing a button.

    I would really appreciate if we could get some short confirmation that our concern is being heard. Thank you.

    deZpe

  10. #70
    Originally Posted by Sylow View Post (Source)
    Synthesis by itself has one issue: it completely invalidates ammo in combat. With chaff and heatsinks, the problem gets even worse, but it already existed before. Luckily there is a rather simple solution available:
    .
    - Give synthesis some production time. It would make perfect sense that it takes a minute (or even several minutes) to produce ammo, heatsinks, etc.
    - Make synthesis produce heat while ongoing. Some additional heat doesn't trouble ships in normal operation, but will seriously affect ships already in combat.
    - Optional: make synthesis require hardpoints to be stored. When people ask you why, just give some technobabble about how synthesizion requires a lot of energy and that it's hardwired to take weapon energy or something.
    .
    This would not negatively effect the explorer and would not affect the normal PvE player all that much, either. In a RES you might have a minute of cooldown once a while, but that's it. In turn, not only would it help in PvP situations, but even more importantly the current material requirements could be lowered.
    .
    I fully understand that in current mechanics some rare materials are needed to cut down abuse in combat. This hurts explorers a lot, as they don't have access to scrap from destroyed spaceships several thousands of lightyears out. If in-combat use is limited by the above mentioned mechanics, it wouldn't be necessary any more to gate it by high material requirements.
    .
    So all involved parties, Explorers, PvE players and PvP players would profit from introducing production time (and heat), while in turn being able to lower material costs.
    .
    Good points well made.

    Originally Posted by Raiko View Post (Source)
    Well, I am an explorer when I'm not being a racer. I'm certainly not a pvp player.


    Yes, agreed that a proper internal module wouldn't work out for explorers already out-there, I hadn't properly thought about that.

    A freebie module like the planetary landing module, as suggested by others in this thread would be fine though, as it could be patched into existing ships.

    I disagree with you that needing to recall your ship would be impractical to repair / refuel your SRV though. And I'd be 100% happy about that making some terrain dangerous. There's too little danger when exploring currently, and these changes while welcome all make exploration even safer.
    I'd be cool with a freebie modules like the planetary approach suite for it, essentially, just like the cargo hatch, it's a targetable module, that's all.

    Sounds cool to me.

  11. #71
    Originally Posted by clinton View Post (Source)
    I think it will be worthwhile adding two size one compartments to the AspX and DBX, and one size one compartment to the Asp Scout and DBS.

    You could restrict these to scanners but I see no need they are only class one anyway so won't unbalance combat particularly.
    Agreed wholeheartedly, however it would be much better (and more logical imo) sense to move discovery and surface scanners to the utility slots.

  12. #72
    Originally Posted by Pinchsmokey View Post (Source)
    Agreed wholeheartedly, however it would be much better (and more logical imo) sense to move discovery and surface scanners to the utility slots.
    This would be great, but unfortunately has the same problems that I'd forgotten to consider for existing ships. You'd need to have both the internal and utility versions of the scanner in game, as many existing ships will have both scanners fitted and all their utility slots filled.

  13. #73
    Originally Posted by Raiko View Post (Source)
    Well, I am an explorer when I'm not being a racer. I'm certainly not a pvp player.


    Yes, agreed that a proper internal module wouldn't work out for explorers already out-there, I hadn't properly thought about that.

    A freebie module like the planetary landing module, as suggested by others in this thread would be fine though, as it could be patched into existing ships.

    I disagree with you that needing to recall your ship would be impractical to repair / refuel your SRV though. And I'd be 100% happy about that making some terrain dangerous. There's too little danger when exploring currently, and these changes while welcome all make exploration even safer.
    You are 40 Kylies away from civilization deep into territory reachable only with the use of jumponium. You can carry only one SRV. You desperately need to gather materials otherwise you are stuck. The only planet is one with deep canyons and while prospecting you had an accident and your SRV hull goes down below ten percent. You are deep in a canyon and your ship cannot land there. You can drive somewhere but you have no idea where and you know the slightest bump will kill your SRV and strand you there. You will lose six months worth of scans. All because you can't fix your SRV on the spot.

    The SRV synthesis is there for gameplay reasons and there is nothing wrong with it. And also let's agree that we disagree on the fabled "danger". Not everyone wants to be an adrenaline junkie and not everyone wants "more danger". I want more content. Not more danger.

  14. #74
    Originally Posted by Rhea Lorell View Post (Source)
    You are 40 Kylies away from civilization deep into territory reachable only with the use of jumponium. You can carry only one SRV. You desperately need to gather materials otherwise you are stuck. The only planet is one with deep canyons and while prospecting you had an accident and your SRV hull goes down below ten percent. You are deep in a canyon and your ship cannot land there. You can drive somewhere but you have no idea where and you know the slightest bump will kill your SRV and strand you there. You will lose six months worth of scans. All because you can't fix your SRV on the spot.

    The SRV synthesis is there for gameplay reasons and there is nothing wrong with it. And also let's agree that we disagree on the fabled "danger". Not everyone wants to be an adrenaline junkie and not everyone wants "more danger". I want more content. Not more danger.
    Can't give you any more +rep, so will have to make do with a "I agree on every point made" and "Top notch post".

  15. #75
    Yes. I agree to disagree.

    And I certainly agree that my thoughts about danger aren't something that everyone else agrees with.

Page 5 of 18 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast