Outcome:
5/5 yes
0/5 skip
0/5 no

Outcome:
5/5 yes
0/5 skip
0/5 no

We already told about the fact that the regular trade shops will be removed in the future, and replaced by NPC-Faction operated shops, that plug into the player shop system.

Make sure you can toggle the togglebility

I say yes to either a special docker to become part of the mothership or a possibility to remove a core in total. the other turret dockers and such I disagree with.

I can neither come to a definitive yes or a definitive no, so I'll skip.

Personally I would love to remove the core entirely from docked ship parts to denote that they are actually part of the main ship and not ever able to operate on their own. So in that end you would not need any additional docks, as turrets and ships can easily use the same dock and you denote a ship part from removing the core but that's really it's own suggestion and more or less off topic but I think I'll vote no.

after reading the post again i figured that the three dockers is unnecessary. however the ship part one is something that could work. think of this as a partial suggestion.

Having 2 dockers would suffice (I think)
1 for normal
1 for decoration stuff on ships that would be part of the ship.

Yeah I would love to have a way to denote that certain docked entities are part of that ship and should be treated as such and not docked entities but I'm not sure having three different dockers is the solution.

In T1681#65732, @Megacrafter127 wrote:

I am unable to decide with this one, yes it can be useful, but I am not sure if using a separate raildocker is the best solution.

I am unable to decide with this one, yes it can be useful, but I am not sure if using a separate raildocker is the best solution.

In T1672#65565, @Crimson-Artist wrote:

Not to go off topic but this brings up an issue that i've been thinking about for some time. what happens when we, members of the council, come up with an idea for a suggestion?
do we need to create a thread on SMD first then link it to the council suggestion? would that be a conflict of interest? Do we go looking for a thread with our specific suggestions then? What if none exist? Do we create a thread then ask another councilor to make a council suggestion? isn't that a little redundant?
This is a very weird situation that i figured we'd run into sooner or later. Personally i thought i'd be the first one to do this since I got a boat load of ideas that I'm holding off on cuz i'm not sure if doing this is right or wrong.

Not to go off topic but this brings up an issue that i've been thinking about for some time. what happens when we, members of the council, come up with an idea for a suggestion?

In T1672#65479, @Megacrafter127 wrote:

In T1672#65403, @Sven_The_Slayer wrote:

I'm not really sure why we are bypassing normal suggestion procedure on this.

we are not, it is just that the suggestion in question has no thread.

In T1672#65403, @Sven_The_Slayer wrote:

I'm not really sure why we are bypassing normal suggestion procedure on this.

I'm not really sure why we are bypassing normal suggestion procedure on this.

-Schine reply-

-Schine reply-

Pulling to Schine meeting.

In T1651#64596, @lancake wrote:

In T1651#64526, @Sven_The_Slayer wrote:

This is how I thought the original multi stack was going to work. Full support

In T1651#64523, @lancake wrote:

NOTE: If we ever get support for multiple blocks on the same spot (2 slabs that together form a cube for example), the config will be adjusted for that. 1/2 slabs would have 50% less HP and mass + other changes. Because of that, this system would also need to support decimals. Placing down a 1/2 slab would deduct 0.5 of the block count and not 1.

Wouldn't it be better to leave the solo slabs the same but then make it so you don't get a bonus because you put two together? That way you won't be penalized by having weak points for using just slabs and you won't gain a buff for sticking two slabs together.

Targeting each individual ship to get their status in a battle is quite tedious. If we had this combined with an ability to individually order ships, that would be amazing. Check your nav, see a ship is heavily damaged so you order them to retreat or other ships to their aid.

In T1643#64457, @AndyP wrote:

This is how I thought the original multi stack was going to work. Full support

This idea was proposed back when we also introduced the Standard hardener and Advanced hardener to make it easier to craft the more common blocks.

So wedges, etc. would handle like slabs do now?
I like it, unless someone can provide a good reason against having it that way, apart from the workload on the devs.

Voting outcome:
4/5 yes
1/5 no
0/5 skip

In T1650#64427, @Megacrafter127 wrote:

Considering the stats of any selected ship show up in the top left corner, and that any ship in the nav menu can be selected, there is no difference, so I have no reason to say no to that part. Once that changes, the bars in the nav menu should also change their behaviour accordingly.
As for showing these bars for each ship in each of one's fleets, makes sense IMO, even if it will only be an average bar.

I say for now, Blueprints should get this feature because there is no efficient way to get ships.

Considering the stats of any selected ship show up in the top left corner, and that any ship in the nav menu can be selected, there is no difference, so I have no reason to say no to that part. Once that changes, the bars in the nav menu should also change their behaviour accordingly.

As whole we agreed to it, as a useful feature and want to implement it.

If a blueprint is too heavy you would have to keep it in a storage system large enough to hold the mass. This way you cannot have pocket battleships.

In T1643#64287, @Crimson-Artist wrote:

In T1643#64253, @Megacrafter127 wrote:

In T1643#64225, @Sven_The_Slayer wrote:

In T1643#64171, @Crimson-Artist wrote:

Understandable. However i feel that it's a nessecary game play element. Especially for new players. We can take steps to encourage the building of shipyards with some nerfs to blueprint spawning such as having a build time that's slower than a shipyard. But ultimately I think that blueprint spawningis how we're gonna eventually be able to sell completed ships at player shops

Slow build times doesn't address the fact that you can still store a huge number of blocks without any mass. I would much rather see the ability to hire NPC shipyards to construct a ship or buying ships from NPCs for early players.

This can easily be solved by forcing blueprints to have the same mass/volume as all the items they contain.

but then that brings up the problem of holding blueprints in your inventory. how do you spawn a ship whose mass is significantly greatly than the inventory space players have? Using Personal Cargo?

In T1643#64253, @Megacrafter127 wrote:

In T1643#64225, @Sven_The_Slayer wrote:

In T1643#64171, @Crimson-Artist wrote:

Understandable. However i feel that it's a nessecary game play element. Especially for new players. We can take steps to encourage the building of shipyards with some nerfs to blueprint spawning such as having a build time that's slower than a shipyard. But ultimately I think that blueprint spawningis how we're gonna eventually be able to sell completed ships at player shops

Slow build times doesn't address the fact that you can still store a huge number of blocks without any mass. I would much rather see the ability to hire NPC shipyards to construct a ship or buying ships from NPCs for early players.

This can easily be solved by forcing blueprints to have the same mass/volume as all the items they contain.

In T1643#64225, @Sven_The_Slayer wrote:

In T1643#64171, @Crimson-Artist wrote:

Understandable. However i feel that it's a nessecary game play element. Especially for new players. We can take steps to encourage the building of shipyards with some nerfs to blueprint spawning such as having a build time that's slower than a shipyard. But ultimately I think that blueprint spawningis how we're gonna eventually be able to sell completed ships at player shops

Slow build times doesn't address the fact that you can still store a huge number of blocks without any mass. I would much rather see the ability to hire NPC shipyards to construct a ship or buying ships from NPCs for early players.

So, all voted yes.
Great.

In T1643#64171, @Crimson-Artist wrote:

Understandable. However i feel that it's a nessecary game play element. Especially for new players. We can take steps to encourage the building of shipyards with some nerfs to blueprint spawning such as having a build time that's slower than a shipyard. But ultimately I think that blueprint spawningis how we're gonna eventually be able to sell completed ships at player shops

In T1643#64168, @Sven_The_Slayer wrote:

I am voting no because I feel that the ability to spawn from blueprints and to use blueprints to store items bypassing cargo requirements be removed from the game entirely. Blueprint spawning makes shipyards unnecessary. With massive cargo stores, instant spawning and no need for a specific structure there is never any actually need to build a shipyard over simply using blueprints.

In T1643#64159, @Megacrafter127 wrote:

If a player has multiple blueprints in their inventory, which one is shown? Or are all shown in a sort of tree like structure?

I am voting no because I feel that the ability to spawn from blueprints and to use blueprints to store items bypassing cargo requirements be removed from the game entirely. Blueprint spawning makes shipyards unnecessary. With massive cargo stores, instant spawning and no need for a specific structure there is never any actually need to build a shipyard over simply using blueprints.

If a player has multiple blueprints in their inventory, which one is shown? Or are all shown in a sort of tree like structure?