in the game a repair module is very much needed, which will restore the ship to its original state. At this moment, only damaged blocks can be repaired, missing blocks can not be restored. You must remove or disassemble the battered ship. But first you must pull out of it all items, resources, ammunition, fuel, oxygen. Then you need to build a new ship and equip it with ammunition, fuel, oxygen, pentoxide, resources. That’s why many players avoid the battle on their beautiful ships - it is are imposible to restore manually to the original state.
that’s why I built a ship with a simple geometry, named SpongeBob
Lot of pvp players knows it)) It’s very deadly and very easy to repair. I did it not because I like him, but because I had to make a simple and easily repaired ship. If the ingame repair could restore the whole ship, I would make different a beautiful real spaceship and I would be very pleased to fly on it.
Although, perhaps this proposal is likely to developers
This requires BP to somehow be stored in the core. Is that even possible using server mods? Sounds like a job for Eleon.
This core info could be updated when the structure is saved as a BP, but NOT after blocks are destroyed in combat, so each core remembers its “true form”.
Or if storing BP data on the core is not possible, and Jascha is feeling even more superhuman, some kind of new command …
egs : blueprint : STRUCTURE_ID
so players can store the “true form” of their structures on-server to be used for repairs.
That true form could then replace the original instantly using a command. It should cost loads of credits, to prevent abuse cheaply regenerating huge ships back from nothing.
I see it going something like this …
(1) Work out how to save BP in the core on spawn, and update that info after ALT+O saving the structure.
(2) To repair, player types a command … egs : repair : STRUCTURE_ID
(3) This starts a function that compares the structure to its true form. It calculates the cost to replace all damaged / missing blocks
(4) I can supply a spreadsheet of all device and block costs 
(5) Server Message …
“Warning : Structure will be replaced. Undock all ships, and remove all fuel and cargo before repairing”
“Cost to repair BoatyMcBoatFace : 1,256,750 credits are you sure? Type cb:yes or cb:no”
(6) cb:yes
(7) Server deletes the structure and respawns its true form in the exact same location.
(8) If it’s possible to do this including the current contents of boxes, fuel etc, that would be even more awesome …
(9) egs : repair could be upgraded to make it happen faster / cheaper / in PVP / etc
Dude. You described this process perfectly. As if these functions have already been implemented. Maybe I should already try the function
egs:repair:STRUCTURE_ID ? 
I am a javascript coder. I broke down the process into plaintext dry code ))
But 1,256,750 credits too much, i think 
egs : insurance : STRUCTURE_ID
This would cost credits in advance to “buy insurance”. The command stores the structure’s current form as a BP on-server, which can be used later for a free respawn or repair
Who do you think I AM?
Consider it done 
Sounds fun!
Will give me more ambition to blow a rhea outta the sky and slap a core on it!
A small extra bonus for players who left the starter planet without death.
Perhaps it could become possible to have a kill board for your pvp players? Where by you can post your structure command notices which have you killing or attacking people?
Additionally, lets allow CV’s onto planets, it is tiring to land SV’s, only to deploy an HV and either abandon it in a hurry (if running from someone), or deconstruct them all the time. Further, the CV provides the player with a base from which to operating out of, a base that the attacking player must first disable or destroy to ensure that they prey are trapped on the planet.
WoW I like this idea so much!
I will add few more ideas:
8. CSW should cost RP like 10-20 per one CSW - that way people won’t gather RPs in cheaty way
9. There should be an additional flag implemented per account per server regarding finishing missions. Server shouldn’t allow to repeat missions after cb:reset if they were done already on that account for current server - currently people are repeating those missions to get credits, cores, epic/rare containers. It should be blocked the same way as fa:supply which is blocked once per week no matter how many times you will reset account
Um, no.
Why not? You like to:
- get 5+ rare/epic containers, 50k credits, autominer cores everyday for free
- mine 20x 45k gold depsits as european player on american server while americans are sleeping
- play as different origin on other server
Smart player can get 50+ rare/epic containers, 1kk credits everyday that way and you say no?
CSW between EU and NA shouldn’t be free! If game/hws server allows such things then people will use this opportunity to get rich and to get RPs faster that way. This should be forbidden in any way. Adding RP/Credits price for CSW should solve this problem
And kill the server. If someone is gaining an advantage by killing themselves and repeating the noob quest, then that is what you fix. There are far too many who travel between the three servers each day, buying and selling good in one server and selling them in another. Find a different way to attack what you dislike, but do not imped the gameplay of others in doing so.
OR: Adjust the wipe time for Black Hole or rather run both servers in different time zones.
I don’t like the idea of paying RP for CSW. I used it once and the way I used it was not cheaty. If I had to pay 10-20 RP like you suggest I would probably not do it at all.
Why should players not be able to repeat missions? They have to spend time for doing the missions and this is why they receive a reward. They are not getting things for free! So this seems legit to me. Keep in mind that people who really love missions (and from surveys we know that they are many), will soon be bored if they cannot repeat them.
They also can’t be repeated immediately after finishing. You have to wait a certain amount of time until you can do them again.
I have to agree with @Lokiet: Your suggestions are much to restrictive for the gameplay of others.
I visit NA and EU every day to claim interest in my two banks. I’m not interested in repeating missions for a few Rep.
Charging Rep for CSW is a terrible idea
So many ideas… Will lead to so much hate 
hehe…
-
A steady economy: will not work, since people already have donated for bank. But an example:
All players start with 50mill in the bank, and none from previous season. Or maybe after leaving the starter planet.
There will only be one planet containing gold ore/meteors, but with restrictions to SV only… That means no hv/ba/cv…
This way the marked would really have a meaning, even with the Ocd… You can`t overcharge, since no one will be able to pay for it. The money would flee more natural on the server. Resources would also be more cost after needs… And you would have to work for more gold, and with others… Ofc, pvp space and planet. -
More playfields… And not a “highway” around the sun… Also, to encourage more teamwork, only one base allowed each faction. now you have like 100eds of factions, with bases all over… Almost none in use. Maybe if it possible, only factions with 5players + can build a base? This way loners are more forced to live in the cv… (of course, not on starters)
-
Faster lvl up… Yes, it is survival, but my god, it takes forever to level up after the fresh start… And, if you are smart enough to crash on a planet, you had to be smart enough to get there somehow
-
lvl 5 class Cv`s… i know, it steal performance… But just a wish =)
-
Less “races” what about Pirate, trader, guardians?
Thats what i had on my mind =) =)
dQ
Ok you have good arguments. Charging RP for CSW is only a proposition for solution but there can be other ways to block cheaters. I think that if we have some limitations implemented then they should be respected. Players playing fair can get RP like 50x slower than players who use CSW to get RP, gold and other things in cheaty way.
CSW is there for all of us to use. How exactly is it “cheaty”?