Hiya,
I am playing 1.0.2.
I would like to put a few requests out there for consideration.
1. I would like to be able to change the cost of the upgrades.
2. I would like to add new upgrades.
3. Ship editor should be "smarter".
Let's start with #1.
I don't like the fact that techs are disabled as a whole.
I would very much prefer if they would still be there, even though they cost more.
Please allow the map devs to be able to set the cost for each tech - say, from 1 to 5 gems.
That way, the map dev could encourage the players from picking one upgrade over the others.
In turn, the player could decide which upgrade is worth buying.
E.g. if rock burner cost were, say, 5 gems, that would be quite discouraging - but not impossible without sacrifices.
Onto #2.
I would like to see a number of new upgrades:
- upgrades for energy efficiency for weapons (very much different from production efficiency!); much needed for those MK7s.
- upgrades for weapons fire rate (amp gems have no effects on it, it seems); min. cost 2 gems
- upgrades for weapons damage (amp gems have no effects on it, it seems); min. cost 2 gems
- upgrade to generate more emergents
- upgrade to generate stronger emergents
- upgrade to generate faster emergents
And finally, #3, the editor.
I would like to see some improvements in these areas:
- When I place a module (like the engine or a weapon) and there's no hull under it, the editor should automatically add hull under the module.
- When I place a module (like the engine or a weapon) and there's armour under it, the editor should automatically replace the armour with hull under the module.
- Brush size for hull editor (adding 2 and 3 should be enough).
- Any chance to increase granularity? E.g. by the way of splitting one hull "pixel" into four, nine or sixteen squares? Modules would remain the same size, but the placing could become finer.
Thank you for considering!
Some if this can be PRPLed, others would require changes to core mechanics (and likely break the balance of earlier Exchange maps).
That said, I like the idea of more costly techs, though I would implement it by capping the efficiency until more gems are applied. Disabling entirely may be PRPLable already.
Quote from: GoodMorning on December 09, 2016, 05:27:00 PM
Some if this can be PRPLed, others would require changes to core mechanics (and likely break the balance of earlier Exchange maps).
That said, I like the idea of more costly techs, though I would implement it by capping the efficiency until more gems are applied. Disabling entirely may be PRPLable already.
Agreed, I do like some of #1. I have an idea to expand suggestion 1. Say Increase Energy Range cost 2 amp gems, and u only have one amp gem. You spend the one gem you have on that upgrade and it's efficiency bar goes all the way to 50% instead of 100%. It would go to 50% because you only spent one gem instead of the two. Of course once you get another gem and spend it on the upgrade again, it will continue all the way to 100%.
That was my thought. A prerequisite using a "tech shrine" can be PRPLed now, though inefficiently.
Also, I have been considering the possibility of making techs available iff some structure is powered. This might provide a use for the indefinite amp factory.
Quote from: Csimbi on December 09, 2016, 04:09:43 PM
- When I place a module (like the engine or a weapon) and there's armour under it, the editor should automatically replace the armour with hull under the module.
My one and only problem with this is that it could cause a misunderstanding among certain players that the module was put over armor instead of regular hull. Until I started playing with the editor, I didn't even know that armor was a thing (despite being best friends with the Hammer ship), and I only learned that modules couldn't be put over armor when I tried to do so. If it had autocorrected to hull, I might have thought I had successfully placed it over the armor. But other than that, I'd be happy with that system, as well as the putting-hull-under-modules and higher brush sizes. They sound great.
QuoteBrush size for hull editor
Hey, I'm currently working on a custom ship editor, with selectable brush size and ship size up to 128x128. However it's early in development and still lacks a lot of the needed features.
Also created ships cannot be imported into the default editor, only added to your fleet with the "AddCustomShipToInventory" PRPL command, so the editor is probably not so useful. However you can import ship
from the defaul editor, so hey.