…while the base 3 warp is nice, it doesn’t make much sense that the 2nd-tier engines have a faster top speed than the top-tier engines. I reccomend increasing them to warp 5 or 6.
I’ve yet to look on the efficiencies. Is there not an improvement?
You take them for the free warp, so you dont have to bother with fuel cells, I reckon.
However, fuel consumption for T2 and above needs some rebalancing. As mankind, I can build a T2 goliath freighter, fill it up with fuel cells till I carry some 24800t of fuel. But then, my engine eats up 400/LY, leading to an effective radius of 62 LY. That’s not even half way towards my ally, on the ship which would have to carry the fuel rations for the rest of the fleet. I don’t dare think what my T3 ships eat up in fuel, but I’m fairly certain I can’t spare the slots for fuel cells that’d make going dark matter engines even a remote possibility on them.
Thus, we’re back to the free warp engines for the big ships. making their fuelled speed entirely less relevant.
I think that is the differentiation…
ZG and HS are for the free warp, and the Dark Engines are for the Longwarp.
I wish we had MORE engines.
Honestly what I would like to see is this
--------------------------------------------------->Zero Gravity (2/6) > Hyperspace (3/8) >
BASE ENGINE (1/4) > Improved (1/5) ---------------------------------------------------T5 (3/9)
---------------------------------------------------->Dark Engines(1/7) > Void Engines (2/9) > /
Base - (1/4) worst fuel eff, 2800 kps
Improved - (1/5) 30% better fuel eff from base, 5200 kps
Dark - (1/7) 50% better fuel eff from base, 8000 kps
Zero - (2/6) 20% better fuel eff from base, 6500 kps
Void - (2/9) 75% better fuel eff from base, 10,000 kps
Hyperspace - (3/8) 40% better fuel eff from base, 7700 kps
Tier 5 - (3/9) - 50% better fuel eff from base, 8000 kps
Warp 1 - 0.75 ly/hr
Warp 2 - 1.5 ly/hr
Warp 3 - 3 ly/hr
Warp 4 - 5 ly/hr
Warp 5 - 7 ly/hr
Warp 6 - 9 ly/hr
Warp 7 - 11 ly/hr
Warp 8 - 13 ly/hr
Warp 9 - 15 ly/hr
Neugo Sor would have 2 technologies the first would increase their base warp speed for Base, Improved, Dark, Zero, and Void engines from 1 and 2, to 2 and 3 for warp speeds. Their second tech (much much much more expensive) would change their base speed for Hyperspace and Tier 5 engines to warp 4.
They also might have some intermittent tech that would increase fuel consumption for all ships by 5% > 10% > 15% between these two techs.
In addition tech that can improve fuel efficiency would be nice… lv 1 (days) and 10% efficiency saving through to lv5 (months) and 50% savings…
I would like the ability to add thruster amplification module to a design… such that you could increase the base thruster speed by upto 200Kps. allowing multiple modules per ship… so a large freighter with a couple modules could reach 8100 and be faster in system than the Dark engine if you base engine is the Hyperspace engine.
Each engine could have multiple levels too each granting more fuel efficiency, and slight speed improvements… e.g. lv 1 Hyperspace - (3/8) 40% better fuel eff from base, 7700 kps through to lv 5 at (3.5/8) 60% better fuel eff from base and 7900 kps.
A new module called fuel scoop, it collects small amounts of olzine while travelling at free warp, so you can “top up” while on deployment
A new hull type, refuel hull, embedded module to allow fleets to transfer olzine while on deployment… This hull will be semi restricted to fuel capacity… (it could be done through a module but hull seems the best option)
I feel that as a general rule, when I add a medium fuel tank to a ship, I should at least be able to jump to the next system 10 LY over, at 400 fuel/LY, that’s just not going to happen. That’s almost 2 medium fuel tanks, which will have compromised my ship’s combat strength quite a bit for the ability to microjump from friendly system to friendly system, and god forbid I should fall asleep or need to intercept something that’s not in range of a refuelling system by the time I arrive there. It’s just not viable at these rates to fit dark matter engines.
I already spend olzine to fuel that fast warp, a resource I need to mine instead of something that’d allow me more ships. Compared to the one time zyril cost of a hyperspace engine at 5000, I can fly 12.5 LY with 5000 Olzine 400 fuel/LY with the same investment into olzine mines.
I get that they want both engines to play a role, but then at the very least I need to be able to reach my border or ally for the same investment in olzine as when I’d invest it in zyril. So lets put it at 5000 olzine = 100 LY, meaning the a rough max for fuel consumption should be around 50/LY. Maybe 100/LY as absolute max on the most extreme guzzlers. But these are the sorts of rates which we should be looking at if olzine is to be a thing. I’d still be paying more per ship compared to zyril, if I ever fly further than 100 LY at 50/LY, but that’s a fair price for speed. @joe @mel pretty pretty please?
When it comes to warships, the Hyper3 appears to be the only viable choice given that not only does it offer highest free warp for larger vessels, but it also provides by far the most power generated for on-board systems.
This is bad design – the choice being offered here is too obvious. It is far better to sacrifice travel time in favor of strength, and it is particularly true for Mankind.
Engines used to be better all the way around.
They used to give you power based on how many engines your ship had, they also used to cost based on how many engines you had to have. Free warp for 1 and 2 were much better, while the rest were slower.
I prefer the old style.
Well something certainly needs to be done. Cant see using olizine guzzlers for combat role due to sacrificing to many slots to fuel and even at that having rather limited range.
I really hope we get a lot more variety in ship hulls and options of what we put on them. As far as engines go i don’t mind if free warp engines provide a good power source as well as a decent free warp and a fairly efficient max warp that is less then the fastest olizine powered engines which should be WAY more efficient then free warp.
I don’t know that i’d ever bother to try mounting olizine guzzlers unless they changed to the point you could dedicate a rather negligable slot requirement to fuel tanks, or had a fleet tender which holds most of the fleets fuel. It would also be extremely helpful if you could choose a speed to travel and based on that fuel efficiency can be maximised or not depending on need for speed or efficiency.
Pretty much everything you said changes when you get into a large-scale war. You learn to use freighter-tankers for fuel, design your ships to compose solid fleets, establish supply chains, and so on.
Adding to Teeos comment, I would say that the chances are High fleet combat will change again before Beta release (well maybe it wont and the Game will die in 48 hours on the open market instead I shudder to picture the reviews of this ultra dumb battle system if the game was released I truly do!) and I live in hopes that we will once more get sensible mixed fleets where different ships with different roles will become the norm instead of the mindless “Death balls” that we have now.
Freewarp 3 engines are disproportionately used in battle fleets coz the fleets themselves are hilariously broken is all I am saying. Saying we need to buff/nerf engines with such a hole in the mechanics is patching over the bigger problem.
On reflection the following is a bit “Ranty” even for me so its an optional read now inside the Rant link
You mean like we had for the first half of Alpha 2? The idea that has several threads begging for its reinstatement? The one where they said “we want to test this and we said OK: Right we tested it and we HATES it precious we hates it forevveerrrrr…!?” See the response original realese of this Non Update OVER A YEAR AGO NOW! Here
Not being sarcastic to Veq or Teeo here just pointing out that yet again a Good feature was taken out with insufficient reasons given and well it makes the game suck just a little bit more!
@Joe when oh when are you guys going to see the pattern here: Simplification attempts like this are radically disliked by the players you actually got! The game overall is a masterpiece of interaction between mechanics and a balance between Micro and Macro management its great. But screw up one thing like this (and as the Forum shows you have) and it all falls into other bits like dominoes.
I’m sorry you only got 6% of the player base forum active: I’m really sorry if you think that its just noisey old farts like me that are trying to get the game their way. But its not that simple. Those of us that don’t have any issue typing up a storm are reading in game chat and listening to the the less forum active players… Are you?
OK Rant over going back in my cave for bit…
Again I will point this out:
- Being able to adjust my max warp needs to be back in game.
- Being able to place my ships where I want needs to be back in game.
- Being able to turn off buildings to divert power and man power else where needs to be back in game.
- Warp 1 and 2 at .75 and 1.5 needs to be back in game.
- Ships having different size deployment zones, and different flagship levels needs to be back in game.
- Engines bringing more power, and costing PER ENGINE needs to be back in game.
- Higher speeds for ships in system also needs to be back in game (I understand why it needed to be turned down, but you have had a huge amount of time to correct the issue, or find the best speeds possible for us to use).
So many good features have been removed from the game, all because of a few voices.
Been a YEAR feelings have not apparently changed whatsoever: Time to make good on your word. I refer you to:
My added emphasis
Taken from this Post about a year ago . Now slightly harder to access due to the change of domains. This was posted before the now tested to death & closed Alpha 3 Galaxy by my count thats quite long enough to evaluate a mechanic, any disagreement?
I also quote from the Blog:
We have three important community tenets which govern the way in which we work:
- Respect the Community .
- Value Community feedback .
- Build for the Community , not yourself, not another group of players you can’t identify.
Full article here: https://outscape.net/current-priorities-role-of-the-community/
Face it after a year of being HATED this idea is a flop and needs to go. Sorry there only 6% of us saying it but that doesn’t mean to say the 94% don’t agree. I’ve been practically begging any new name I see with a good idea in Global chat to post something on these forums. But folks will do as they feel comfortable, so this is the only feed back you will get.
Sorry I take no pleasure in these strong posts. But it has to be said.