Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 10 Votes - 3.7 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Simple Request-o-matic
2017-12-23, 08:43 PM
Post: #1371
RE: Simple Request-o-matic
(2017-12-23 08:33 AM)Champion Of Sparta Wrote:  May I ask that the shield generator becomes bigger, not the shield itself, just the generator. It seems quite unrealistic (even for this games standard), for there to be 8 meters of steel that get blasted apart like nothing, whereas a shield generator the size of a rather stuffed up dufflebag (yes I know its horrible inaccurate analogy but a analogy none the less) can produce a shield that is quite powerful. Instead of the 1x1x1 dimensions, maybe something along the lines of 4x4x4. Which would definitely make players think before placing them, just a thought of mine. I know many wont agree with it, but that is where are differences as human beings lie.

4x4x4 is simply huge, and totally annoying to use, given that you would be projecting further, take much more armor, and it can no longer be used as an afterthought on a turret to protect the cap. Maybe make larger shields (15x15+) require 2x2x2 generator, but balance is likely gonna go towards making them weaker.

2000mm HE dakka enthusiast.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-12-25, 06:32 AM (This post was last modified: 2017-12-25 06:40 AM by Zman111.)
Post: #1372
RE: Simple Request-o-matic
Unrelated but I think an extra forum moderator (translation janitor) is required, all of the spam posts are getting ridiculous and I for one am sick of going to the general section of the alpha forum and finding every single post on the front page being spam. We need someone who can filter thru this garbage and get rid of it in a quick effective manner.

EDIT: I just reported 13 Trucking messages as Spam/Advertising of some sort.
EDIT: Sorry 16 I missed a few
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-12-29, 06:55 PM
Post: #1373
RE: Simple Request-o-matic
Can we remove the numerical restraints on the sliders and input boxes in the advanced cannon menus?

I don't mean that the actual limits on caliber should be removed, just the silly forced limits in the UI itself, especially the lower limit of 18mm. An increase on the upper limit of railgun power input in the shell designer would also be nice.

Right now it is very difficult to actually get an advanced cannon to a specific and precise caliber. If I want a 100.00mm gun for a max shell length belt fed system, I have to do a lot of fuckery to get to it.

For instance, I cannot simply type in 100 into the cannon size input box and get 100 out. Instead it will see the first 1 and 0 and default to the 18 minimum which will result in a caliber of 180mm instead of the 100mm that I needed for my design.
THIS SHOULD NOT WORK THIS WAY!!!!

Then comes the fuckery with the sliders. The sliders are very imprecise and often are 10 or more off with the smallest of mouse movements. I have to chance my mouse movement speed to the absolute minimum to get anywhere near the number I want. You also can't delete a digit off of the input box if your original caliber is in the 100s and your new last digit will be less than 8 because you default back to 18mm and are at square one again.
A numerical example would be: start with 165mm and delete the 5. You should be left with 16mm, but the game defaults it back to 18mm immediately and you again have to start the process over.

I spend way too much time fighting the UI when I could actually be testing/building/playing the game.

Sorry for the rant, but this horrendous UI stuff infuriates me to no end.

TL;DR
Remove the slider and input box upper and lower limits while still having the actual physical limits in place. Have a text warning next to the sliders stating that any number greater than or less than the stated limit will be changed to the stated limit.
Increase the railgun power input max limit because 100k is a bit low.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-12-30, 05:37 PM
Post: #1374
RE: Simple Request-o-matic
Please recheck the code which causes HE hits to throw vehicles around, and if it's performing correctly ( ISTR a discord conversation which implied it might be doing far more than it's meant to ) - tone the effect down considerably.

Poke my boat! mostly pre-2.0 learning & catalogue thread - Update: Heavy & light tanks 12/01/18 for 2.1. 6 ships made 2.0 aware. If it's not AotE I can't do it regularily - sea -> post processing -> eyestrain.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2018-01-02, 07:30 PM
Post: #1375
RE: Simple Request-o-matic
What about more stone and lead blocks,currently theres just the single and beam for each?
cus...its a lil hard to make complex stone structures with just those Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2018-01-12, 06:01 AM (This post was last modified: 2018-01-12 06:02 AM by blariviere.)
Post: #1376
RE: Simple Request-o-matic
Something I think is rather overdue, Mantles for the CRAM cannon.
Without the ability to transverse in a similar way on a single axis turret as Advanced Cannons can do, they are less useful.

Another thing, some kind of attachment for increasing Firing Range without increasing Gauge, for both types of cannons.
A similar attachment for increasing Firing Rate wouldn't be amiss either.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Yesterday, 08:43 PM
Post: #1377
RE: Simple Request-o-matic
I like CRAMs being mantlet-free, it makes them simpler, and if mantles were added, all the barrels would need removed except for normal. A simple attachment for range or RoF would be pointless and overly simple. You should design your gun to work well, not stick 2 parts on later to make it work way better.

To get more range without higher gauge, add more gunpowder or rail for APS, or different barrels for CRAM
For fire rate, I won't even bother explaining.

2000mm HE dakka enthusiast.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)