How are we supposed to mine?

Flew 3x around PVP planet, found 1 meteorite that gave only 900ish ore… Lost more in fuel cost… Also some drop in the water (WHy… can’t we drill under water… And no the T2 drills are nerfed into oblivion now).

Try a HV with a turret on underside between two pylons. You can then drill under the water if its not too deep.

Added bonus of mining with an HV is that you can kill any CV’s you come across of someone doing the same thing.

Poor guy had no idea what was happening.

1 Like

I also shoot meteorites that are of a resource I do not want so the new type drops. It’s faster to shoot than mine.

1 Like

Also - 5.1:

1 Like

I’m worried about “Major revision of block info (weights, etc.)”. They may break some of my ships. But to be honest the weights have been super imbalanced for as long as I can remember. I wonder if they do it right now and balance the cost/weight/armor equally among blocks. Otherwise if it weren’t for the 20k block limit you would see flying (Shutter) windows again.

Drill turrets for CV’s are meh since asteroids don’t respawn. But good to have them nonetheless.

  • Fixed problem that resource meteorites sometimes spawned in space


I would like to see CV’s be heavier. They are far too agile in my opinion. I don’t think SV’s need a buff, I think CV maneuverability need a nerf.


Wouldn’t work. I’d just add another 50 RCS(2) then. Right now a tank-CV can be as maneuverable as a small SV by spamming RCS(2). Which you MUST have to be able to fight on planets otherwise they will always fly in your turrets dead angle. I pretty much standard put like 50 RCS on small CV’s even, bigger ones have even more.

But if you make them heavier, fuel consumption will go even more up. Thruster AI is still absent and they will burn max fuel even if they are not being used (unless you turn them off) among other problems.

A possible fix is to limit RCS by CV weight.

Or just cap rotational velocity…

No that is also bad. Because then a 10 block CV behaves like a 2000000 block CV… Unless the rotational cap is again dependent on weight then okay.

Only if you get enough RCS to make it happen. the 20 however many zeros that is would take up to 800 well say
then anything beyond that doesnt add to the rotation speed, just accelerated faster to that speed or something.
They are already doing something similar with the speed diff between sv and cv. CV is MEANT to behave in a certain way. Regardless of size. If you want something faster, make an sv. And the rotational cap doesnt mean all turn at same rate, just maxed out somewhere below ridiculous. And always below what an SV can reach.

I really don’t like this and I’ll tell you why.

There is a lot of discussion about CV roles. There have been some suggestions of specific cores like a support core and a heavy ship core, etc.

I don’t like this idea. Introducing classes means the devs are going to be spending their time balancing rock/paper/scissors that is only applicable to a single type of gameplay on a single server. The largest server, yes, but still only one server.

Here’s my dream scenario:

CV’s and SV’s have two sliders.

  1. The higher the block count the higher the device limit. Larger ships can fit more guns, generators, rcs, etc which makes them have more overall power than smaller cv’s
  2. The speed cap on CV’s/SV’s decrease as the block count increases. A small interceptor CV should be able to catch a large battleship CV

I feel like this opens up the possibility for very specific ship roles and, rather than balancing rock paper scissors, allows the dev to simply modify the slope of those two curves if battleships are overpowered compared to interceptors and vice versa.

Why I don’t like the idea of a rotational speed cap is that it undermines the possibility of ship roles in a game where there currently isn’t very much of a distinction among them already. If you want to make a 20k block ship with 300 of your 500 devices being RCS, you should be able to do that and have your ship design reflect that without an artificial cap.

I already don’t like the speed cap, but can understand that it may be an engine limitation at the moment, but there is no reason to add a rotational speed cap except for the purpose of balancing which can be addresses in many, superior, ways.


My only thought is that if you are thinking of a capital vessel, something that weighs as much as a city or an aircraft carrier, it should have a point where it just CANT turn any faster. It would fly apart, let alone the energy it would take to perform the turn. Since we dont factor rotational velocity into any sort of structural integrity, the devs need SOMETHING to stop cv’s from being giant sv’s. A balance between speed and power makes a lot of sense, but I feel would wind up with everyone owning death stars eventually if there were no block or device limits. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but lets be real, we are at a point where the balance is off to the point that sv is useless in space. Way better than in 4 when missiles first came in, or before when sv could rape anything. But still unbalanced, and no way to give sv’s a role in space combat. Why would anyone use them when they get shredded by turrets, and cv’s can maneuver as quickly as sv

  • Sliders won’t work well either. People figure out the sweet spot for the slider and then GG only that spot is used for combat ships forever and always.
    Another problem is that with fixed gun&turret ranges I would probably go for (almost) the fastest ship (depending on how much speed difference there is) and shoot closely at the max range and then quickly back out of range so that they can not shoot back unless they are as fast as me. Again this creates a ‘sweet spot’. Combine this with the broken core targeting mechanic we have now and I already found another exploit.
  • I also see not much point to the lower speed cap for CV’s.
  • I see many exploits still.
  • Heavier CV’s will balance nothing other than increase the fuel cost and more thruster/RCS spam. Even 500 devices = plenty for just 20k block ships.

The argument that they can’t turn fast because of our current understanding of existing materials is not applicable in a game where we are using faster than light warp drives to jump to other systems. I’m fine with the discussion about balancing games but I’m really sick of the argument of us not being able to explain it at our current level of technology therefor it can’t happen.

Earth shattering revelations about our understanding of physics occur every year, the most notable off the top of my head being EmDrive - Wikipedia

Moving on from that, let’s discuss it entirely from the perspective of game balancing.

CV’s turning faster than SV’s shouldn’t be common, but there shouldn’t be an artificial cap saying CV’s can’t turn as fast as SV’s and that’s the end of the story. If an SV is larger (in size, or mass, or both) than a CV, the CV should indeed turn faster given similar amounts of rotational torque.

If you want to build a death star you should be able to but, as you know first hand, a number of fights end with one person trying to run away while fixing their warp drive to jump out. If you’re flying a death start, disengaging from a fight will be impossible against a wolf pack of smaller ships.

An SV with a design showing any redeeming characteristics can out track any CV turrets. The only issue you have then is missiles and I am hoping a countermeasure system gets added as that would resolve the issue entirely.

Artificial, unmovable, caps are a bad idea in my opinion and should only be used as a stopgap while the game is being developed to allow more in depth balancing options. That’s why the device limit was increased in 4.0 and slashed back down in 5.0 when the performance implications were realized.

What do you base this on? If there is a sweet spot that becomes the only acceptable place then the sliders can be adjusted to put heavier penalties on that design while buffing the other options.

At the VERY least there will be two different designs. 1 to catch people and 1 to fight people. You can’t combine both of those into one ship. I absolutely love flying (relatively) small and agile ships. My faction mates prefer flying larger, tankier ships. We have very, very different play styles that require very different ship configurations. There is no good “only one ship design” option available already and that’s without any kind of variation in speed caps and device caps.

1 Like

[quote=“Xanif, post:15, topic:3200”]
What do you base this on?
[/quote]My experience with the patches in this game and how the devs balance things and how many major patches it takes to balance certain small and simple things (warp camping, turret ranges, offline protection, etc).

So then you catch up with a deathstar, but the deathstar has 10x more firepower&armor than that ‘catch-ship’ even after it’s severally damaged… And if you try to balance this in return you get that “sweet spot” again in various ways. Insanely hard to balance.
And oh well, the deathstar can at any point just warp out. It’s so big it has its’ warpdrive & core well protected behind sick layers of armor (so you also need a balance-fix for this, and that and whatnot).

I’m sorry but sliders for me is nothing but a big can of imbalance I smell it. They can’t even remotely balance BA/SV/HV/CV. Nevermind sliders or subclasses… No please don’t, at least not yet. Maybe after v1.0 or close to it okay.

The point of a single ship in a wolf pack catching up to a heavy CV isn’t to kill it by itself, it’s to slow it down and as turret targeting is improved (fingers crossed) you may be able to start targeting specific subsystems such as engines to slow it down.

I also think you severely underestimate how much damage you can dodge with an agile ship. I take almost no damage in 1v1 fights unless I’m flying in a very predictable fashion to close distance.

I see no reason why there should be artificial speed caps limiting the top speed of a cv whether it be a starter block with a single XL thruster or a 20k block CV with the same thrust. Maybe my implementation of the idea is bad but I think the idea remains valid.

I also thing you severely underestimate how creative people get with ship designs when you assume that there will be only one “sweet spot.”

Sure that may work IF:

  1. Targetting is better (waiting for that since Alpha 1.0 I guess). They announced it for 5.2 but that is only the start of it so it may take a while still.
  2. We can slow down enemy ships somehow (only need 1 tiny thruster to fly on max speed in space) after the others got blown up. And yes I make use of this in my ship designs.
  3. Some way to prevent the deathstar from warping or just opening the cargo box and smacking some more thrusters/whatever on it.
  4. Expect the devs not only to balance the CV’s but also ‘sub-classes’ of them. Sliders are basically sub-classes.

^ The above will take ages, if ever. And only then sliders may work. Don’t get me wrong the idea is super cool. Just, insanely hard to balance. Which is the reason I don’t like it.

The reason for the global speed cap is Eleon’s design and networking limitations. The reason for the CV ‘extra’ speed cap is intended for balance reasons I believe to make SV’s a bit better by nerfing CV’s. But this only lead to kiting and other forms of annoyance really because the CV has so so much more armor/firepower.

[quote=“Xanif, post:17, topic:3200”]
Maybe my implementation of the idea is bad but I think the idea remains valid.
[/quote]That I agree with. The idea is cool and valid. Just not doable within a reasonable amount of time to make it playable.

Actually I just realized that the SV is basically a ‘catch-up ship’ and the CV is a ‘deathstar’ already. I prefer to be in a CV most of the time though. Don’t care about that speed difference I want the extra armor, firepower & warp-possibility (my sweet spot).

Yes. This has to happen first or it’s entirely moot to have a CV designed to cripple an enemy’s engines if you can’t target engines.

I think the point of the small CV’s would be to catch these people and therefor be the only ones fighting but I wouldn’t be opposed to this.

Well, my CV design has a space where I can throw down a quick, temporary, and relatively safe place if my primary drive gets blown up. Honestly when I fly I have on my person a cockpit, a warp drive, a warp tank, a constructor, and a core in my inventory and the exact same set of components in a cargo box on my ship so I can make sure that I have replacement parts if needed but I would love to see warp interdiction of some kinds. Until then it’s pretty moot.

Yes 100%. The reason I suggest sliders is because I believe it will be easier to balance rather than specific classes.

I agree. It’s not there yet at all and I think implementing it with the game in its current state would be a mistake. I’m thinking it would be nice way down the road.

I got a bit off track from the original start of the discussion which was that I don’t think more hard caps (such as turn rate) would benefit the game especially because I want fewer caps going forward.