Concerns about the combat system

One of the issues with the first game was its combat system, which yielded highly inconsistent results. I worry that the sequel—despite the advantages of its physics model—will repeat many of these same flaws due to limitations in its engineering implementation. Here is a list of my concerns: 1. Capital ships don't lose combat effectiveness quickly enough. Due to the game's simplified engineering node connections, there likely won't be any systemic degradation of ship functions as damage accumulates. In the first game, I frequently encountered ships that remained combat-capable with only 15% of their hull integrity remaining; as long as the turrets and power supply stayed intact, they could keep fighting. Consequently, instead of capturing a damaged ship, you were often forced to destroy it almost completely. 2. As I’ve noted before, the turrets in the first game were far too versatile as combat modules, combining firing, detection, and target-locking capabilities into one unit. They also required minimal infrastructure to operate, which inevitably led to the "porcupine" meta. I fear a repeat of this scenario, where bypassing defenses made of dozens of turrets was easier using exploits—like camera-guided torpedoes—rather than engaging in fair combat. 3. The "guy with an angle grinder and a jetpack" tactic was often more effective than standard combat engagements against NPCs. Dying ten times just to damage an engine or breach the hull was simply more cost-effective. 4. Small ships were generally useless for direct combat. My thoughts on the matter: The game is evolving, and these concerns may well prove unfounded. However, we are still dealing with simplified logistics and communication systems—aspects that are unlikely to become more complex. I don’t know if the turrets are intended to be a universal combat module or a full-fledged infrastructure component featuring various targeting and fire-control systems—something that could add a new tactical layer. Right now, the game strikes a balance between accessibility for casual players and complex engineering mechanics. However, in my view, it is the repair process—not the engineering design itself—that needs simplification. Many of the concerns raised in articles discussing the increased complexity of infrastructure and communication centered on the difficulty of making repairs. Sorry, that came out a bit disjointed.