Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
6 
Report this post
No magical force.
fire detectors and fire extinguisher bots that get activated by them (like repair bots), that extinguish the flames without an oxidizer in it,
energy shields that need huge ammounts of engine power when active or charging, which absorb everything except for lazers and missiles, but can only slowly recharge when the shield is down,
nuclear reactors that provide said engine power at the cost of taking your ship with them as they explode,
powerful and inefficient jet engines that can also utilize that excess engine power,
anti-gravity device that works roughly like a helium pump with a much lower max altitude, but requires lots of engine power instead of an enclosed space,
in-combat tentacle repair speed nerf and the addition of the repair bot max operating range (which should be like 14 blocks, same as fire extingusher bots),
more ways to utilize extra processing power,
plasma based small weapon,
3x3 spin block,
small gauge CRAM projectile speed buff,
some kind of device that can provide amortization for mechs legs or can be used as a soft joint for mech arms with melee weapons on them,
drills should have their own damage type, that goes through rubber block resistances.
more missions for single-player,
an ability to join a mulitplayer game after it has already started,
a way to disperse enemy smoke for a bit,
fixing the sound would also be great. I want to hear my guns when they fire. Although i feel like in order to fix it, the game engine needs to be changed or something equaly massive.
eh? i feel like small gauge CRAM is already pretty powerful in its niche, i also don't see a reason to nerf something thats exceptionally hard to intercept and can do a LOT of damage at the same time
Not from my experience. PAC is super cheap. It's way cheaper than most weapon types. I've built many drones, but PAC drones always end up smaller, cheaper and often more effective in combat. The cost of both building and firing it is not as high as it needs to be for what it does IMO. It needs to be a super expensive.
"Can do a lot of damage"? "Hard to intercept"? Small gauge CRAM? Are we talking about the same weapon?
Small gauge CRAM is too easy to counter. Even if the target doesn't bob up and down, dodging all of your bs, if they have a decent anti-munition defense, you need a big volley of small CRAM shells to hopefuly deal some damage. Try fighting SS Victoria. Even if one or two of those shells reach the target, they'll deal a laughable ammount of damage. They're like a side weapon, that can be used alongside a main CRAM cannon to act as a distraction, but then again, wouldn't it be better to just build another proper big CRAM instead of 2 small ones?
Small gauge is somewhat useful as anti-munition, but it could also become a valid anti-aircaraft option if the projectile was a bit faster. Is this too much in your opinion? Realy? Most things in this game dodge them anyway. I'm not saying that they should be as fast as your average APS/AC shell. Just a bit faster.
as for PAC being super cheap - whar? pretty sure you can get much better resource efficiency with even APS, never heard of PAC being "super cheap" before
Wrong game, dude =)
Again, see? A "full volley". How much space on your craft would it take? How much slower is your craft going to move because of it? How much engine power do you need to move this huge blob of metal? I'll repeat, just try building a bigger gauge CRAM instead of multiple small ones. Bigger CRAM will pierce the hull and deal full damage to INTERIOR if it reaches the target, unlike 10 small cannons, where 4 miss the target completely due to how slow they are, 5 get shot down, and one blows up on a deck, knocking a couple of wooden blocks. It's a huge difference.
Replace all your APS turrets with PAC ones, your craft will become much cheaper. If we're talking about the cost of USING the PAC, the only problem is the size of your engine, which would be big anyway if you're making a railgun, a laser or a plasma cannon. PAC is as efficient as your engine.
Resource efficiency is important, but not to that extent. Sure, you can only use CRAM cannons as your weapons, have an RTG based engine for propulsion, build out of wood, but who are you going to compete against? Marauder? =D
Anyways, i stand by my suggestion to nerf PAC. It needs to be much less efficient as a punishment for being an unblockable hitscan weapon, that can change its damage type and charge time depending on a type of enemy it fights against. I know that BorderWise on YT have tested it before, and lasers won against pac, but i believe that the laser victory wasn't as overwhelming as it's suppose to be.
As for small CRAM, that is only useful either in the very early game, as a huge volley in mid-game and only as anti-munition late game, i think it deserves a little buff. Just the projectile speed and turret aiming speed would be enough. Because anti-munition this big should have an alternative use. Destroying small drones that go up to your face, for example.
I can also mention how sad the CRAM bomb chute barrel is. I completely forgot about it. You can't use it on your ship, becaue it doesn't shoot far enough, and you can't use it on your plane, because the shell doesn't share the plane's speed and sometimes blows up in your face instead of dropping down. And when it doesn't tear your face off, it gets shot down by the enemy, or just misses completely, since it's a very slow CRAM shell. What's even the point?
"Replace all your APS turrets with PAC ones" and lose the benefit of AP[warhead] shells? which is a downside and a very noticeable cost INCREASE due to the engines and power needed to actually run them? making them expensive? :/ PAC has pretty bad cost efficiency already and can't do anything resembling AP[warhead] shells, and considering the damage dropoff at range i still see no reason to buff it. its versatile and works well against every target in exchange for bad resource efficiency and suboptimal damage profiles (no AP[warhead] mainly). jack of all trades but you don't have good resource efficiency and you don't distribute your damage well against most targets - seems pretty balanced to me.
also, resource efficiency is actually very important :P a wooden rushdown CRAM with actually resource efficient engines (i.e not RTG) seems pretty terrifying if you can't outrun it (though if you're doing wood armour it might just be more resource efficient to go metal/alloy so you produce way less drag, meaning less engines needed, etc.)
i agree with a CRAM bomb chute buff though its pretty bad lol