This comes up because my last prospector mission was a hit on the first check. I wondered if it didn't matter which planet you visited as long as it was the right terrain and it always fired on the first try? Well now I know it doesn't always fire on the first try. But I'm wondering exactly how it does fire, as this will impact how I check candidates. Atm, I'm recording teh candidates b4 I check and then I'm starting with the ones with the most open slots first. Obviously, this is tedious. If it turns out the associated chance is tied to the number of candidates (If the total candidates is 12 then the chance is 1/12 at the beginning.) then I will proceed to check each candidate as I find them, as opposed to checking the best ones first.

For those who're confused by what I write above, I'm simply wondernig if the chance to find the site is what you'd expect it to be--tied to the total number of candidates in the quadrant--or if it's instead some kind of fudged math which makes things more convenient. Using the fudged math, it might mean you never have to check ALL the candidates. For example, it's feasible a very unlucky player has to check all of them to finally find the site. This might be deemed too inconvenient. Perhaps it's capped at n checks and n is always less than the total candidates? This would mean checking the best ones first is favored.

And sorry if this comes across very stupid. I'm 99% thinking the chance is 1 in (total candidates). I'm just wondering if some kind of fudged math was used so players do not have to sometimes check nearly all or all of the candidates to find the site.

Some final thoughts: It would be nice if the mission generator for prospector missions only included planets/moons with X open slots. The problem is a lot of slots are used up, even in the outer rings. And moons!!! Moons uusally just got 1 or 4 slots. It'd be nice also if I could easily send a message to another player and escort their modules somewhere else or relocate them without having to annihilate them or simply abandon the mission. And oftentimes these players aren't even playing actively.

The game definitely needs to consider this because more and more LAB's and miners poop up on planets/moons and the player who put them there do not clean it up and/or they leave the game and those slots are off limits to others.

I'm currently considering if I am to become a active prospector I'll need to remain open to destroying the modules and actively messaging those who placed them there to compensate the loss. Payment is certainly an option, if it's not too high. But if the player doesn't play actively then how do I compensate? Just messaging them without compensating might fail. If it were easy to "mail" solars to another player or even deliver their modules to them (instead of annihilating)...

Oh, yes. Player stations explode just as nicely as do NPC stations. All that can remain is salvage that belongs to the victor.

NPC ships do not 'explode in a ball of fire' either, they also are emergency jumped the same way a players ship can be forced from the battlefield.

Always treat modules on a station the same way you treat modules on a planetary surface. They are vulnerable.

Ahh. Significantly effects my plans for building stations.

Too expensive to lose a station, imho.

They're cheaper module space, but they can't move and everything is lost. So what's the usefulness? The cheapness is meaningless since most of the cost and manufacturing time is in the modules.

They might still be useful as a means to store cargo remotely. For ~$1,046,000 solars you get 82 * 100 = 8200 m3. But idk. Setting aside some ships for teh same role would mean you won't lose them.

.... that doesn't compute to me. What am I missing ... are there parentheses missing from the equation, or ... ?

Oh ... sucker has Improved Shields Mark X. That's gotta be it, right? [Edit: that's definitely it. 297,000 reduced by a factor of 1.65 = 180,000, which makes the math work. But STILL] ... why doesn't that improve power rating?? lol

Math looks right to me. Make sure you bring plenty of extra weapons because sometimes their shields are on roids.

Does anyone know if shields regenerate between waves? The first wave is viper/laser and the second is boarding.

[I'm ignoring PvP in this post and limiting it to COMS.]

I'm ignoring PvP in this post and limiting it to COMS.

Fights in games are always much better when you can win with the odds not always being in your favor. Typically in games this means exploiting the dumb AI, but that's at least better than nothing. Learning how the AI fails is part of winning. In fact, the essence of any fight in any game is to find your enemy's weakness. THAT makes it fun. I'd say the worst fights in any game are the ones where you do not find weaknesses and instead win almost solely based on your level vs their's. Yet even games where you search for weaknesses can become boring if the enemies always have teh same weaknesses.

My impression of the COM's so far is the tactical/strategic depth is shallow; boring; tedious.

So how do you win when the odds are less than 3 to 1?

I note Rostin said to use the weapon settings which lower accuracy and increase damage only when you need to desperately win a fight and are willing to lose some to win it. Could someone elaborate on how that works?

And what of hangars? Hangars seem to me to be a way to fit lots of weapons in one module slot. Basically a ship is hidden behind the hangar slot. You unhide it and BAM you have access to multiple module slots which can be used in an attack. Only problem is it's a whole other ship which needs a license and lots of solars invested to build it.

Are hangars useful in COMs?

If one of my stations is attacked and defeated, will all the modules on it be destroyed? Will the station be destroyed too? I'm asking this question because in pirate COM missions the station "explodes in a ball of fire". Do player stations do that too?

Was just thinking player ships do not "explode in a ball of fire" when defeated. They auto-jump to a safe point, suffering casualties. But as far as I know, they do not lose any modules.

If the whole thing is destroyed then it doesn't make a lot of sense to put too many modules on them, given modules take so long to make and can be expensive. I'd have to think some of my future strategies if they can be completely lost.

Agree. Ordering by these types, for example:
1 module
2 mineral
3 gas
4 passengers
5 other

Even if they're all included in one list, at least order them by type so it flows from one to the next.

Solar cost should be dependent on distance from SOL. Otherwise I agree. The payment option should be able to also use whatever is in your cargo in addition to automatically purchasing if necessary.

But I still think the original process wherein you upgrade using minerals/gases could still use some extra features. For example, a way to flag minerals/gases so that they're easier to identify in the cargo or when they're seen in the deposits list of planets. At this time, teh game only flags based on "common" or "uncommon" or "rare". It's incapable of flagging based on manufacturing priorities. The flagging would make it easier to spot what you need and also to not accidentally sell or eject it.

But ya I love this idea. It'd reduce the reliance on spreadsheets/calculators and having the cargo/manufacturing tabs open.

A few buttons:
Upgrade 1 Level - Research Cost: XXXXX
Upgrade 2 Levels - Research Cost: XXXXX
Upgrade 4 Levels - Research Cost: XXXXXX
Upgrade 8 Levels - Research Cost: XXXXXX

Why not also have a edit control to input a custom amount?

So far it's not a problem for me because I rarely have to click more than a few times.

As of now, a WHD only registers what is coming into it's range. If it is deployed on a ship, you can order a scan at any time, but it will only tell you a wormhole is either forthcoming, present, or closing. it does not tell you who is opening the 'ole.

If it is deployed on a station however, it will only perform a 'static' scan and not a deep scan.

But either way, you will only know that a wormhole is about to open, is open, or has closed.

(edit because - giggle)

A WHD on a station will only perform a static scan?

What's a static scan and what's a deep scan? You got me confused :0

(And how do I use it if it's on a station? I can't figure out how to do it.)

sigh...  the WHD only does static scans and is not capable of deep scanning. I have complained about this in another topic.

What do you mean?

Can I use a wormhole detector which is installed on a station?

How do you start an active scan remotely using a wormhole detector which is located on a station?

The WHD Logs section says you can start a scan using a detector which it says can be on a station.

1) How do I know if a big deposit is the result of a mission someoen else is doing? If it's the result of a mission and I put miners on it, what if that causes the player doing the mission to attack my miners?

2) If I click on "Rival Modules" and the Owner field is empty, what's that mean?

I like the removal of speed up for COMS mainly because it's not as easy for people to ninja each other. Good for PvP. But maybe it's possible to allow speed ups for fights against non-players?

How come there's no "close" for the System Scan dialog window in the System screen? Before, when you scrolled down, there was a Close button. Now I have to click on the "X" at the top-left or have to click "System View". I think a better way to do this is to rename "System View" to "Back to System View". It's more descriptive.

I can't speak for the rest.

EDIT: I see that speed up was re-enabled for PVP. Why? It doesn't make sense, from what I can tell. Why allow players to ninja/gank each other? Or am I wrong? Is it hard to gank players by using AP to kill fast?

Is this a consequence of AP allowing fast travel which allows the player being attacked to pull in all their military ships to protect an asset in the event of an attack, thus defeating any attacker who's not considerably stronger? So by enabling speed ups for pvp the attacker has a chance of winning against a stronger enemy?

The problem is still that the attacker is being favored over the defender. I think in any PVP game ganking/griefing should always be at a minimum. The aggressor is going to abuse if they're allowed to.

CAn someoen enlighten me how pvp actually works? All I have are fears and speculations.

Can anyone tell me if putting two stations in orbit is better if I want to protect the one which is weaker by putting them together? I know putting all your eggs in one basket isn't good, but neither is leaving your eggs unprotected!?

Well this kinda ruins the requirement for you to be online 24/7.

P.S Not a requirement, but I suppose you understand. The first thing I do when I wake up is to jump my ships, then when I'm going to sleep I do one final jump timer. Now suddenly there's not much point in doing these. :p Of course I do check in the morning to see if anyone has combat timers on me.  

Not really. If you set a jump before goign to bed and can jump in the morning, you can use any AP you gained during the night for additional jumps or to speed up ensuing combat timers. The extra APs don't mean walking away and letting a jump timer run down on its own is dumb, especially if you want to use APs liberally. You'd run out fast using them recklessly; only making 1 an hour. This feature boost the speed of everybody, but if you play a lot it's only a minor help. For example, I just used 7 ap to make a 12ly jump in seconds. That's 7 hours worth of AP. If I have multiple ship navigation and combat timers, gaining 1 AP every hour is only going to cut one of those timers in half by whatever amount of time is on that timer.

What I'm wondering is whether AP's cap? If I walk away for a year, will I have 8760 APs?

And do you have to be logged out the entire hour for an AP to be added for that hour?