From No Man's Sky Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This whole page needs a rework. As is evident from the game at release, there are no distinct classes of ships. Any ideas? Brdy724 (talk) 03:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, and it seems as though you've made some really beneficial edits to change out the "class types" to visual cues, since it seems as though that's the only thing that's really different about them as far as we know. --Z3ther (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I have flied many ships during my repair-to-48-slots quest and there are definitely differences, most notable the ship hp. Hitpoints: Trader>Fighter>Explorer; Speed: Fighter>Explorer>Trader. Can't test if there are differences in shield strenth and maneuverbility. --TakaNoYaiba (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I have added these comparative references to the page. Ddfairchild (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Tried to add a reference link to the tips I added to the purchasing a starship section, but as I am a new user 'computer say no'. Someone who has link privelages please reference to tinTin15's post 'PSA: Upgrades affect the cost of purchasing a new ship (self.NoMansSkyTheGame)'. Thanks, Johnnyherb (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The tips have been moved to the Buying a starship page, with a note added on the original page about "for more tips, See...". The reference link you requested has been added on that new page. Ddfairchild (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

If the ingame values are rounded down, putting forth a perfect 5 or 0 percentage might be tempting, but it is misleading people, especially perfectionists looking for a true masterpiece. Those poor souls hoping to find a 39.5 without knowing they need a double or triple perfect 40. Oh well the absolute number is the truth I guess. Hello Games is just a perfectionists nightmare. Thamalandis (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Technology links need looking at The toastkid (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on what you mean? Thanks! Knottypine1979 (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Just click on them in the article. He is right, those are stubs or outdated... all 5! The Health Upgrades talk about suit upgrades not the ship shields even. The Hyperdrive area lacks the freighter versions. The one the least "out there" is the weapons page. Thamalandis (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Launch Cost in Next[edit source]

Concerning the Shuttle's launch cost: I don't think it's a perfect 1/6. After refueling Launch Thruster to 100% on a Shuttle one time in Normal mode, I did 6 fuel-consuming launches (without Efficient Thrusters) and had 1% fuel remaining. Quaestcomm (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe you. The game might be rounding it to the nearest .5 perimeter. It is without doubt that it was intended to be 1/6 though. To be sure we need a second test - to see 16.5% vs 16.6666% - so could you do the same with efficient thrusters on a shuttle?Thamalandis (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Questcomm, I need proof for this: "additional shield absorb from bonuses is calculated using a base value of 0.5"! The lowest bonus given is 10% ingame by modules and even less for some ships. If that is used you wouldn't see a 0.1 increase at all as 0.05 and below would be rounded down. While a 0.15 of 1.5 would still be seen as if only 0.1 increased at least. Look for a 7-8% ship. By 1.5 that is exactly around 0.1. If it is 0.5 it isn't close to 0.1. If the bonus is visually applied to be 0.1, you claim is disproven.Thamalandis (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I checked several ships now. While some could go either way (depending if you only round down or up), once you reach the HUGE numbers of %, your point is correct. It definetly does not use the default shield value of 1.5. If it uses 0.5? Not sure. But for now that is the closest truth we have.Thamalandis (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

16% would mean 1.5x1.16 = 1.74 (which is wrong) or 1.5+0.5x0.16 = 1.58 (which is possible if it rounds up unlike in ship %) or it could mean 1.5+1x0.16 = 1.66 (rounding down). The game LOVES to round down, it hates rounding up like the plague. Case a) is fully disproven. Case b) is likely due to 6% potentially being 6.74% etc. which would bring it over the 1.6 mark and allow rounding down to 1.6 instead of 1.5. Case c) is also plausible. However a second test with a +27% ship didn't show 1.7 as needed for case c) (~1.77) but did show 1.6 (~1.635) for case b). We go with 0.5 for now!Thamalandis (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The original ship that made me consider the weird shield absorb scaling was the Gravity Mother BS8, which, without any shield upgrades, had a value of 1.8 for shield absorb by virtue of a +58% Shield class bonus. The three cases for that ship would be a) 1.5x1.58 = 2.37 (definitely not that), b) 1.5 + 0.5x0.58 = 1.79 ~ 1.8 (closest so far), and c) 1.5 + 1.0x0.58 = 2.08 (not that either). If we want to really pin down the base used for shield absorb bonuses, I imagine messing around with Deflector Shield Upgrades and Ablative Armour could help with that. Quaestcomm (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
The problem is the ship % are rounded down... all of them. So for a neutral test enviroment you really need to focus solely on shield modules in a 0% ship, like my C-class legendary ship Elendis. There the only buff is definetly what you install.Thamalandis (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Technology Upgrade Synergu Bonuses[edit source]

The "Starship components and technology" section should benefit new users if Synergy Bonuses are mentioned, along with an example of Upgrades which receive this type of bonus. Kaizensan (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

It is 5% per link of any part that boosts ly (base tech + modules, not the colour engines). I wrote this down on Hyperdrive Upgrade. The real problem is actually the main page... it is antique beyond compare, linking to abandoned pages. No one uses the technology pages at all. Just rework the section and link current contemporary pages... not pathfinder relics.Thamalandis (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)