-
Posts
1,540 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Lurkily
-
-
If You need to control three turrets, you need three circuits because you need three outputs that do not crosstalk with other turrets.
I think what you're really looking for is something that can take a turret1, turret2, or turret3 "enemy left" input and convert it to a "turn left" output for each of those individual turrets to use, without actually assigning all three inputs or outputs. I think it represents a more foundational change than I is obvious from the post.
-
Sorry, I missed that. Thanks for clarifying.
-
I'm proposing a solution to rigidity that requires no rebuild of how connectivity works, doesn't challenge physics with interconnectivity, and with energy consumption, has a metric you can adjust to balance it with.
The Inertial dampener would have an adjustable radius, energy consumption scaled to radius and other objects would dampen their response to any physics impulse away from a part's configured position. This would be more forgiving when you have intentionally moving parts, and avoids weird physics calculations with frames of reference and such that might make a mess.
The main challenge I see is with moving parts - establishing that a part's configured position should be relative to the hinge, spring, or whatever, and that decoupled parts should be relative to the ultimate parent.
-
1
-
-
37 minutes ago, Ian S said:
The reason to isolate them is that unless it's isolated you can't have more than one of them on a ship.
Why not? Just use different inputs and outputs on the internal logic, and they'll remain logically separate, even if there's a potential for badly designed circuits to crosstalk.
I often use logical criteria that I use to calculate one condition as an input for a totally different condition later. If circuits were kept isolated, I would need to find a way to use the circuit's output, which may nor be suitable, or rebuild that entire bout of logic separately elsewhere.
For instance, I have a ship that uses several criteria with directional sensors, to generate behavior when its over the hopper, not over the hopper, below 90 altitude, above 90 and below 100, and over 100. That's a lot to fit in one circuit, but each separate behavior needs a number of those criteria.
If you have to keep a set of logic unique and isolated, prefix it, and it's logically isolated.
-
Your topic mentions digging3/short laser, as well?
-
Upgrade bugs
in Bugs
I think multiplicative upgrades are appropriate to gatling. It doesn't make a lot of sense for an energy-efficient weapon to take the same hit for firing faster.
But I also believe that energy efficiency upgrades are overpowered.
-
I don't think you're 'Wrong' in much of this. But it reads as a rant, appears to have emotional content, and is largely "This game needs fixing" instead of "You've done great, have you also considered . . . ?" You can see how this kind of presentation can invite a negative reaction.
-
You can push the shield-up button, AND have a shield go down under damage.
-
If it was the core, it would also twist under downward thrust - or upward thrust would also be stable.
-
Use more than one, suited to ship shape - and stop putting shields right on top of each other.
-
Diep.io appears to be an online twin-stick shooter, and damage seems to be characterized by bullets that do continual damage as they pass through a target - and i guess the bullet is destroyed after dealing some amount of damage. (I just visited it for a few seconds to investigate.)
In short, it looks like he's proposing a railgun concept; perhaps a 'penetrating bullet' upgrade to blasters.
Edit: "Railgun" as it's represented in most game mechanics that is, a fast, acccurate, penetrating bullet.
-
Congrats! How did you guys enjoy Paris?
-
2
-
-
And has a star inside her.
-
This is a tracking system, remember, not a forum per se, and its use includes tracking the completion of features.
-
I thought his post specified that they were zero-power lasers before, but perhaps I assumed it because that's the only way I expected this to happen.
-
More slightly unbalanced parts, more twist.
There is definitely a culprit in either the core, fuel tanks, or thrusters, as it is revealed when using only those.
EDIT: Thrusters are my bet.
-
2
-
-
I don't think TNT is too weak, really. Just that some sensors and utility parts have more HP than armor.
-
Unmog, reduce radius until it's entirely inside your ship.
-
The subway cut off the remainder of my post.
I agree with local logic. But with local logic, I don't think switchable splitters are strictly necessary.
I agree with a box to contain logic (processor blocks) to help streamline builds, and make very complex and responsive builds without crushing part count limits.
There's also much (everything else) I don't agree with, though.
And yes, if you need a metric buttload of shields, you should need a metric crapton of energy.
-
I think balance is a future concern at the moment - it is pretty weird that it takes 4 tnt to blow one directional sensor.
I also agree that heat seeking is currently freaking worthless - I had to test repeatedly to verify that it had any effect at all.
I agree that directional sensors need more range. I believe it once was 100, and even then there were requests for more range.
I think energy generation is currently okay; no need to make massive energy consumption easy to achieve.
I am in favor of larger shields IF they are modified so that they only stop things at their perimeter - thus enemies inside your shield can shoot you. Then large shields are essentially self balancing.
I agree with explosive decouplers, with configurable pushback upon decoupling.
The factory is overpowered, but I expect it to have new requirements as we move ahead; my preference would be to have it consume both energy and fuel.
-
Be sure you add your voice to existing feature suggestions, or add your own. (After looking to see if it's been posted already, of course.) The game has been growing in response to the community's involvement, so feel free to get involved.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, TheAlbinoNightfury said:
Guys, the earth is so obviously a CAT...
So many things are beginning to make sense...
-
1
-
3
-
-
40 minutes ago, Markus said:
Good ideas. Currently you have to use TNT, Heaters or physical force to destroy unwanted parts. A new part which makes this process more streamlined and "clean" might be useful. Though it's fun to explode things
I would use tnt, but it takes four of them to destroy one directional sensor, and that slows down factory build rate. A controlled burn, with tnt being the last thing to catch (to destroy the heater) currently works better.
-
1
-
-
No, no shaking - just a twist showing that the balance or thrust is off-center somehow. It twists.
Nothing is made impossible. It's just a visible discrepancy, when you specifically build for symmetry. I wouldn't be all broken up if this didn't get corrected. though you might see it come up again.
-
2
-
Add a seperate Logic Circuit builder
in Feature Requests
Posted
No; I believe you have to use separate inputs and outputs for both, and split the logic.
In this case, the brain can still hear both turrets, so it can't command them separately unless the turrets have unique signals, and they brain handles them with separate logic.
The circuit would have the sane problem. It needs to control them separately, so it needs to "think" about them separately.