More sandbox and balance (Feedback welcome)

[IllMurdaU]

... would like to see more feedback like this because sometimes this is the only way to get people to think...

If you have to insult people, so that they listen to you... your initial argument/point/reasoning/etc. was simply flawed from the start.
i find it so funny that i skipped most of your post because of your aggresive tone... and now you are defending your rudeness as "well thought out plan" ... that in the end accomplished the exact opposite

I BET YOU! Without your rudeness, you would have had half of the responses in total... but the same amount concerning your topics!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
but maybe you just like the attention... in total...

I don't insult anyone, please mark my alleged insults. There is a difference between insults and conductive and harsh criticism.

[Gavrushka]

Confucius, he say 'When your defence has become one of semantics, it is better to apologise, throw your arms skyward and shout 'my bad' rather than to obfuscate yourself deeper into the naughty pit.'

[CBJ]

We'll just take one line as an example.

the Khaak ships look to me like a kid from the 90s designed them.

If that's not an insult to a professional artist then I don't know what is. And don't try to pull the "it's not an insult if it's the truth" line, which carries with it the implicit "it's the truth because it's my opinion, and my opinion is fact".

The matter isn't up for debate though. Contrary to your earlier statements, your feedback will not be taken more notice of if you are rude. Quite the opposite in fact.

[IllMurdaU]

We'll just take one line as an example.

the Khaak ships look to me like a kid from the 90s designed them.

If that's not an insult to a professional artist then I don't know what is. And don't try to pull the "it's not an insult if it's the truth" line, which carries with it the implicit "it's the truth because it's my opinion, and my opinion is fact".

The matter isn't up for debate though. Contrary to your earlier statements, your feedback will not be taken more notice of if you are rude. Quite the opposite in fact.

Honestly, that's my honest opinion and when I say it looks like it for me, then I stand by my opinion. I'll say it again now there is a difference between an insult and a personal opinion / criticism.

I was recommended by an Egosoft moderator / employee to share these ideas in the Egosoft forum! He even sent me Bernd his email and said I should send it to him.

I don't care if your artist feels offended. This is my opinion.

[Johnson98]

Honestly, that's my honest opinion and when I say it looks like it for me, then I stand by my opinion. I'll say it again now there is a difference between an insult and a personal opinion / criticism.

You´re twisting the meanings of critisism and insults. Those are defined terms with a meaning behind them and you should learn them.
Criticism: "I dislike the ship designs in this game, they feel uninspired and lazy and look lame"
Insult: "The person designing this is at the level of a kid from the 90s"

You already know that my suggestion would be the solution to your problem? Because if we would do it the way I suggest then we can decide during the construction which paintwork a ship should have and, above all, change it at any time on an equipment dock. That would also be much more realistic.

And where exactly did I disagree with you on this part? I said setting unique paintjobs as a standard is what I care about and not how it gets implemented.

I see it from my perspective. And from the player's and even from the developer's point of view, it is absolutely badly and unbelievably integrated. Even if it should no longer be changed, the developers should take the criticism to heart and consider whether they are satisfied with the integration.

Which is a valuable opinion, all I said is that the change you proposed will not get intergrated because of the reasons I stated.

You don't seem to be very familiar with the game.

Keep the assumptions to yourself, I went out of my way and collected informations about weapons and weapon-heat-scaling in this game and published my findings on the X4 subreddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/X4Foundations/ ... _and_ship/

[numbers]
First of all, ship prices can fluctuate in the Extreme game. [...]
Second, despite its weaker shield, the Raptor can withstand more than the Colossus. Just add up the hulls and shield points of the ships.
Thirdly, the AVG turret output is more than 6 times higher than that of the argon ships.
And as a 4 point you should consider whether you have already seen more than 1 Colossus carrier.

1. Those numbers are bloated, you installed Mk.3 Thrusters on those carriers which inflates the price by 11 Mio which is about the whole hull price of a vanilla carrier. Of course this shifts the numbers in favor of the Raptor, but they´re not useful for the carrier´s performance. This is just number manipulation to suit your argument. From my experience vanilla carrier hulls cost about 12 mio, while Raptor´s cost 40-45 mio credits, with their equipment costing the same per unit.
And we´re still talking about carriers here, their main offensive tool lies in their fighters, not their weapons. Considering this 3 Colossus deploy their fighters 3 times faster (fighter bays oorah), have more of them in total, have way more internal volume for ressuplying (improving missile builds) and deploy M ships at 12 times the speed (which the Raptor just sucks at).
2. A Raptor has about 700.000 total hp. A single Colossus has about 600.000. This is not a big difference, considering you field 3 of them for the same price the Colossus´ combined hitpoints will be almost triple that of the Raptor.
3. Which is alot. I partly agree with you on this one, but I still think it´s somewhat justified because the Raptor´s not a straightforward carrier but a carrier-cruiser hybrid. I´d appreciate the vannilas getting a little bit more M turret coverage, but I don´t want them to go to Raptor extremes, 20-30 M turrets in total should be enough to enable reliable fighter defense.
4. This has nothing to do with ship balance. This is faction balance you´re talking about.

[IllMurdaU]

You´re twisting the meanings of critisism and insults. Those are defined terms with a meaning behind them and you should learn them.
Criticism: "I dislike the ship designs in this game, they feel uninspired and lazy and look lame"
Insult: "The person designing this is at the level of a kid from the 90s"

I'm not twisting anything here to make that clear again. I know exactly what the definition of criticism is and if you don't even know it as a forum admin, I just find it sad. When I say to me it looks like a kid from the 90s designed it, that's not an insult but an opinion! It is my personal opinion! And if you as an artist can't deal with criticism then you definitely have the wrong job. But enough of that.

Which is a valuable opinion, all I said is that the change you proposed will not get intergrated because of the reasons I stated.

Your argument was that, from the developer's point of view, editing and designing a new system would be more complex than making improvements to the old one. That goes without saying, only if the old system has been so badly and unrealistically integrated that there is hardly anything to improve it makes no sense. You said that you never had any problems with this system, which I can't believe, because since release (over 2 years) Egosoft has not been able to get the signals (for missions, blueprints and also those of ships that you want to take over) are always displayed correctly on the surface. They are still often under the surface so that there is no way to scan them.

1. Those numbers are bloated, you installed Mk.3 Thrusters on those carriers which inflates the price by 11 Mio which is about the whole hull price of a vanilla carrier. Of course this shifts the numbers in favor of the Raptor, but they´re not useful for the carrier´s performance. This is just number manipulation to suit your argument. From my experience vanilla carrier hulls cost about 12 mio, while Raptor´s cost 40-45 mio credits, with their equipment costing the same per unit.
And we´re still talking about carriers here, their main offensive tool lies in their fighters, not their weapons. Considering this 3 Colossus deploy their fighters 3 times faster (fighter bays oorah), have more of them in total, have way more internal volume for ressuplying (improving missile builds) and deploy M ships at 12 times the speed (which the Raptor just sucks at).

Nothing has been manipulated with the numbers, that's simple math. I don't compare hull to hull, I compare one fully equipped ship with another. And you can get the hull of a raptor sometimes for as little as 32 million. Anyway, that's the cheapest price I've seen so far. In addition, factions (including the player) can build their own ships even cheaper. Of course, you only sell a ship for a profit, so the right price is even lower.

4. This has nothing to do with ship balance. This is faction balance you´re talking about.

Yes, you are right, it is a factional balance problem which also results from the weak ships of the argons.

[PreSpawn]

I'm not twisting anything here to make that clear again. I know exactly what the definition of criticism is and if you don't even know it as a forum admin, I just find it sad. When I say to me it looks like a kid from the 90s designed it, that's not an insult but an opinion! It is my personal opinion! And if you as an artist can't deal with criticism then you definitely have the wrong job. But enough of that.

Well your posts read like they were written by a child from the 18th century
.......

Well and this is NOT my opinion just proofing a point.
And i say it again, the only thing that is critically discussed here, is your "rudeness"(call it whatever you want) and not the inital point(s) you wanted to make... and instead of just letting it go and admit you are wrong(god dammit, you dont even have to mean it), you keep on defending your "opinions". from line one of your post already a lost battle.

[CBJ]

I'm not twisting anything here to make that clear again. I know exactly what the definition of criticism is and if you don't even know it as a forum admin, I just find it sad.

Johnson98 is not a forum admin. I am. You were given some friendly advice, by several people, that your "criticism" would be more likely to be taken notice of if you avoided being rude and insulting, but you have clearly decided that you think you know better. That's your choice, but don't say you haven't been warned. As for insults, they are covered by the forum rules, and it's a moderator's decision whether something is an insult, not yours. If you have an issue with this then you need to take it up with the moderator by PM, not on the public forum. This is also covered by the forum rules.

Now move on. That applies to others replying to this thread as well.