Comments to RAMs update on development

This is where you can suggest new features and discuss upcoming features.
User avatar
User

davh62

Rank

Commodore

Commodore
Posts

1364

Joined

Tue Mar 17, 2015 8:40 pm

Location

UK

Re: Comments to RAMs update on development

Postby davh62 » Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:28 pm

RAM wrote:
Loke wrote:Bigger ships are needed, actually I have been thinking about what size would be adding most to the game, and I think we can skip the class 16, I dont see it useful if we get a 17. And we need a class 17, not just for terraforming but to have ship size that catches up with the increase in hauling, production, trading etc since the class 15 ship was released. No idea what terraforming brings though, might bring a need for class 18 or 19 :shock:


Big reason why Jam is thinking of bringing in the 17 with the 16. It is needed for both. He also looked at the amount of atmo to be moved and the limitations of algae. The bigger ships are to help with that, but atmo content will matter too. Finding planets that require less and still worth terraforming will really limit selection. "I" am not sure that is a good path. Will wait to see how things progress.

Again, we loose Jam on Monday, so we have to really focus in on the big issues. He will be doing weekend work on Ascent, but the guy can't work 7 days a week every week.

Black Sky will not be released until after TMG is done, 6 months or so down the road, or so is the latest response from Jam about Black Sky.


Hey if the 16 is a carrier I can see no practical use for it due to reduced cargo. So I guess it makes sense to bring out the 17 along with it. But why make another carrier? I can't see us using it. Or maybe I'm wrong in assuming that?
FG Fighters Guild Founder
Senator of Ferrite-Senator of Prime-Senator of Barons Rest- Hater of rams speaking date stamp
no avatar
User

RAM

Rank

Captain

Captain
Posts

648

Joined

Thu Sep 22, 2016 6:36 am

Re: Comments to RAMs update on development

Postby RAM » Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:00 pm

davh62 wrote:Hey if the 16 is a carrier I can see no practical use for it due to reduced cargo. So I guess it makes sense to bring out the 17 along with it. But why make another carrier? I can't see us using it. Or maybe I'm wrong in assuming that?


Jam was talking that both would be freighters.
"The UNCA is not your boss!" ~ Jessica Steele
Fan Fiction from an old timer - RAM Memories
User avatar
User

Loke

Rank

Lt Commander

Lt Commander
Posts

229

Joined

Mon Jun 30, 2014 7:39 pm

Re: Comments to RAMs update on development

Postby Loke » Sun Feb 25, 2018 7:34 pm

RAM wrote:so we have to really focus in on the big issues.

Thats why I was suggesting to skip the class 16, cause I dont think it will be used much by anyone. Who uses an ophan after they got a Lev? I think we are more than capable to upgrade directly from 15 to 17. So if there is a chance we can get 2 ship classes (I dont care if they look the same), wouldnt it be better if the second ship was 18 or 19 and had a porpose? If I remember correctly class 18 or 19 was the ship size Jam mentioned we needed for terra severeal years ago (migth not be correct anymore, dont qoute me on this). I am only guessing here, as we dont know what changing the atmo will need, but I do hope we get big enough ships to avoid the hauling become even more grinding than it already is.

If there is going to be a crowdfunding for the ships, the supporters would need to see a use for them. Personally I would be happy to support this, if I see the new ships adding something to the game or improving the game experince.

Just my thougths/ideas, dont take my post to seriously ;) Im not demanding or expecting anything.
Callsign: Fraaggii or Loke
Senator Loke of Primo Spe, 8086, New Horizon, Skadi, Darkfield and Niu Heimar

Statistics for Nio and Tin prices: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3427
no avatar
User

RAM

Rank

Captain

Captain
Posts

648

Joined

Thu Sep 22, 2016 6:36 am

Re: Comments to RAMs update on development

Postby RAM » Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:52 am

Loke wrote:Thats why I was suggesting to skip the class 16, cause I dont think it will be used much by anyone.


Or if we skip the 16, which should be a carrier. We could come back and add it later, when funds are flowing better. This would mean we develop a cl 17 alone, or a cl 17 and 18. The reason why some, like me, would use the 17 for an NPC ship as opposed to using the cl 18, would be the materials needed to build it if I did not need as much materials moved. Jam was even talking about adding some bonus to the ship for hauling atmo. Not sure if that that wll be followed through, but he was brainstorming and mentioned it.

If this sounds good to everyone else, I can present it to Jam.
"The UNCA is not your boss!" ~ Jessica Steele
Fan Fiction from an old timer - RAM Memories
no avatar
User

DemonicReaper

Rank

Lieutenant

Lieutenant
Posts

100

Joined

Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:14 am

Location

Iowa, United States

Re: Comments to RAMs update on development

Postby DemonicReaper » Mon Feb 26, 2018 2:09 am

Sounds good to me, with the request that class 18 be a mining class ship with ore bonus :). Making it possible for the class 17 bonus to include skimming, so we also have a skimming class freighter? hmmmm, the possibilities. It would also give him the opportunity to come back to the class 16 "carrier" after having the time to fine tune some more options as far as uses for it goes.
no avatar
User

RAM

Rank

Captain

Captain
Posts

648

Joined

Thu Sep 22, 2016 6:36 am

Re: Comments to RAMs update on development

Postby RAM » Mon Feb 26, 2018 7:12 am

DemonicReaper wrote:Sounds good to me, with the request that class 18 be a mining class ship with ore bonus


The size of the class 17+ would turn way too slow to be a miner. Skimming is not an issue.
"The UNCA is not your boss!" ~ Jessica Steele
Fan Fiction from an old timer - RAM Memories
no avatar
User

Wulf

Rank

Captain

Captain
Posts

718

Joined

Thu Aug 07, 2014 3:33 am

Re: Comments to RAMs update on development

Postby Wulf » Mon Feb 26, 2018 1:27 pm

would like to see more 'complete' ships, ones with MB and RS (salvage beam if it becomes a thing) could be class appropriate and not eat up the space, it's was kinda neat to have 'custom' designs but true is it's more a hassle and not fun to swap parts out. would be just nice to build and be done.

if all the class 17 is is a hauler then maybe skip it and ask for better npc controls,

pity the class 16 is a carrier, not much need for carriers.

anyhow disappointing if it can't turn. to be useful.

thx for the update.
no avatar
User

DemonicReaper

Rank

Lieutenant

Lieutenant
Posts

100

Joined

Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:14 am

Location

Iowa, United States

Re: Comments to RAMs update on development

Postby DemonicReaper » Mon Feb 26, 2018 3:10 pm

RAM wrote:
DemonicReaper wrote:Sounds good to me, with the request that class 18 be a mining class ship with ore bonus


The size of the class 17+ would turn way too slow to be a miner. Skimming is not an issue.


If it was a specialized ship maybe it wouldn't have to turn too slow.....I am not saying it would be as responsive as the mammoth, but something that you would be able to mine with efficiently after getting use to the ship. Perhaps it would make use of automatic positional thrusters to aid in turning better.
no avatar
User

RAM

Rank

Captain

Captain
Posts

648

Joined

Thu Sep 22, 2016 6:36 am

Re: Comments to RAMs update on development

Postby RAM » Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:11 pm

DemonicReaper wrote:
If it was a specialized ship maybe it wouldn't have to turn too slow.....I am not saying it would be as responsive as the mammoth, but something that you would be able to mine with efficiently after getting use to the ship. Perhaps it would make use of automatic positional thrusters to aid in turning better.

Mass and turn rate is set by neutonian physics in Unity. Not something that can be tuned.

Jam has shown no interest to date with adding turn assist. We talked about this a while back and he did not seem open to it. Not saying it is a no go, but he presented the idea of a special mining ship that has a filter in it that only retrieves the items you select. So no ejecting the junk. Cargo only fills with what you actually want. I do not think we will see this ship before the freighters.
"The UNCA is not your boss!" ~ Jessica Steele
Fan Fiction from an old timer - RAM Memories
no avatar
User

Wulf

Rank

Captain

Captain
Posts

718

Joined

Thu Aug 07, 2014 3:33 am

Re: Comments to RAMs update on development

Postby Wulf » Wed Feb 28, 2018 5:16 am

Wulf wrote:would like to see more 'complete' ships, ones with MB and RS (salvage beam if it becomes a thing) could be class appropriate and not eat up the space, it's was kinda neat to have 'custom' designs but true is it's more a hassle and not fun to swap parts out. would be just nice to build and be done.

if all the class 17 is is a hauler then maybe skip it and ask for better npc controls,

pity the class 16 is a carrier, not much need for carriers.

anyhow disappointing if it can't turn. to be useful.

thx for the update.


guess the class 16 parts i made will not be to useful ;p,
Any word if the non-subscription players will continue to impose penalties especially to mining? I would consider dropping in, chatting and mining a bit but i can't do a subscription.
just a note: we had a hauler before and it was not well received. the way the scaling works and cargo space (mats and MB) for mining just makes even the worst, biggest ship the one you have to use. mining nio and tin is still the only economy so....
PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Powered by phpBB ® | Style by KomiDesign | Modified by Chris Valleriani