Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. Hello Guest!
    Welcome to the Bug Report forum, please make sure you search for your problem before posting here. If you post a duplicate (that you post the same issue while other people have already done that before) you will be given a warning point which can eventually lead into account limitations !

    Here you can find a guide on how to post a good bug report thread.
    Space Engineers version --- Medieval Engineers version
  2. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

[1.184.6] Thruster damage increased- here we go again.

Discussion in 'Bug Reports' started by suicideneil, Oct 27, 2017.

?

Should Keen have made changes to thruster damage without consulting the community first?

  1. Yes! I love having my creations broken by poor decisions that could easily have been avoided.

  2. No! Keen should have considered the issues this would cause and found a better solution.

  3. They should have made the damage area the same size, but change it to a rectangle = no problems.

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. suicideneil Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    227
    I'm not gonna repeat the numerous posts people have made in the change log thread, so I will simply quote this one post ( below ), and ask a question; good idea or bad idea to change the thruster damage the way they did, with no consultation or warning ( again )?

    Please let Keen know how you feel about the change by taking part in the poll, thank you. With any luck, they might reconsider what they have done.
     
    • Agree Agree x 7
  2. Nikarampo Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    47
    The only possible explanation here would be that if they made thruster damage the way that's shown in the right picture, you could also place a half-block on the sides, thus leaving only a small 1x1 space exposed. That would not be an issue to me, since more ways to cover a thruster = more sleek and refined designs, but they probably don't feel the same way. All things considered I'm very upset about this change and some of the ships I've spent many hours on to cover the thrusters in an aesthetically pleasing way are now obsolete and ruined.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
  3. DrEarlInsanity Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    14
    yea....this broke all but my ancient pre-jump drive ships....keen is pulling a dumb.
     
  4. SunGod Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    24
    They should give a heads-up on major changes that could destroy ships and bases. It's a boneheaded move not too. I mean, seriously, what's the upside of ticking off players with no notice? It's no wonder the modding community is struggling and some of the better creators have given up - when things are consistently getting broken, what's the point? As a player, I'm feeling the same way. Today it's cockpits causing crashes, which means I lost an entire day of play when I cleared my schedule to relax and just do Space Engineers for the afternoon. So, really, why should I bother telling other people about the game when all it does is end up frustrating me? It's not my fault stuff is breaking, so why am I paying the price for it? It's just plain lazy community relations... or lack thereof, really.
     
  5. w0lf3y Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    152
    I believe your poll is against the rule as it is. I think they require 3 options to be a valid poll.
    I'd recommend modifying your poll to add an option, Use rectangular box within old cylinder bounds.
    I'd also recommend allowing people to change their votes.
     
  6. Forcedminer Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,207
    I'm afraid @w0lf3y is correct yes no polls aren't....really allowed.

    I will agree changing thrusters like this will clearly have major backlash against those dudes who are awesome at making fancy ships.
    I am not one of those dudes.
    .
    it was bad on keen to make a change like this suddenly without any notice.
    but then again we are along for the ride.
    i mean look at the workshop...its a huge pile of broken mods. :(
    and each update does tend to add some more to that pile.

    ....damn can't seem to find an image of IT pennywises little cart thing with the massive pile of stuff on top of it.
     
  7. Bullet_Force Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    281
    The changes seem perfectly logical to me. I don't see what the fuss is all about. The only ships this would affect are those silly aesthetic ships people like to make and even then if they just leave a one block square hole where the thrust comes out then all will be good.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 3
  8. Captain Broadstairs Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    469
    Would like to be able to change my vote by the way, I meant to choose the other option, silly me.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Thales M. Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    999
    This screenshot explains more than words.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. suicideneil Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    227
    If Keen were competent, they would have made the entire area in front of the thruster a no-go area for placing blocks. Changing the game after 4 YEARS would obviously cause issues for thousands and players of ships- not to mention that landing pads now take damage, another side affect of this poorly thought out decision. Stop being a sycophant.
    --- Automerge ---
    Poll has been updated with a 3rd option- the fact you are allowed to create a poll with only two options kinda indicates it is actually valid, and the two options I offered were fairly plain in their wording; the 2nd option obviously indicated that they should have kept the damage area the same, just changed its shape. Please learn to read guys, cheers.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Brain75 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    28
    Not going to argue the wisdom of the move or trash talk, but I will state the impact.
    Many folks have made motherships with short docking stems, and used soft easy moves to approach without washing the ship with exhaust. now even those soft easy moves are trashing not only the armor layer of the mothership, but the internals of the mothership as well. This has effectively made me rethink every design i have, not that that is a bad thing, I like an engineering challenge but it is a major change to all my ship designs.... I wouldn't care, but pistons are broken STILL so no other way to have a sleek ship with a connector / merge block - you have to have these massive spires sticking out now to dock to. It seems the damage rate is massively increased as well... one quick wash from a thruster completely disabled a medbay, not even the damper "override" thrust... that makes landing platforms useless as well, you would spend all your time fixing the platform unless you do long legged stork ships.

    I also forsee a problem with 2 stock cargo ships, the booby trapped ones with exhaust pointed at explosives, they no longer are booby traps waiting for a player to fall in. They are now a sim speed trashing time bomb the moment they spawn in just seconds from self immolation... Please don't wreck my server speed with explosions and damaged blocks that aren't even relevant to players.

    I think it would be a fine idea if better executed, don't insert a change that causes everyone's designs to break and even breaks stock ships... which is exactly what has been done.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  12. Sirhan Blixt Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    447
    I am not the most elegant naval architect, so it never even occurred to me that I might place any blocks behind an engine that didn't actually touch the flame. However, I think that it is bad and wrong that (1) flame damage gets applied on the far side of heavy armor and (2) flame damage gets applied to any blocks to the side of the engine block. I actually haven't had an opportunity to fire up SE yet and see if my landers get their landing gear fried off, but that would definitely be a bringdown.

    I would like to think that applying damage on the far side of a landing pad -- without actually burning through it -- was not intentional.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Lander1 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    44
    This burns the nose off my flagship... literally...
     
  14. scorpnoire Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    142
    Well, even their standard spawn ship Atmospheric Lander is now happily burning away it's own Landing gears on the side.

    A lot of new players will highly appreciate this change and ask themself: who designed that?
    Do you think the answer to their question will be a praise?
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  15. Hellothere! Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    412
    This is not just a switch from circle to rectangle. The definitely changed the size itself too.

    On one of my ships I keep getting these blocks here burned off:

    [​IMG]

    Even if the model switched from circle to a rectangle with the same border length as the old diameter it still makes no sense for them to be affected. Also, come on, the blocks aren't even near the exhaust this is ridiculous!

    Edit:

    WTF, seriously?

    [​IMG]

    I just replaced the blocks witch catwalk plates and even they get burned off. That's not even funny anymore. Are you telling me the new damage now affects the full 3x3 area in front of the thruster? Who the fuck thought something like this would be a good idea? About 60% of my ships are now broken.

    Yeah, no, sorry, but I will revert back to the latest update until this gets fixed.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 2
  16. CaD Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    113
    I'm not ranting but who thought of this brain dead idea. Did they not think of the huge ramifiations this would have on eveyones ships mine included. Playing survival I like most things turned on but now I'm turning thruster damage OFF = less realism. I have found blocks are getting turned into fried chicken that are not in the exhaust path and landing pads are getting damaged more than they used to. Having to put a grid shield on everything now.

    When are they going to add a grid shield to the default game. Now is the time.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Bullet_Force Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    281
    I'm not getting what the big deal is. Just remove the extra blocks which serve no practical purpose other then for looks from your ship and it will work fine. If you want to know the thruster damage works all you have to do is leave a 1 block space behind the thruster going back 4 blocks for small and 7 for large. Easy.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Lander1 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    44
    The big deal is that a huge proportion of builds are now no good, or won't look good if changed. You have to leave a 3x3 hallway for large Hydrogen thrusters now, you may as well add a neon sign that says "Board me here!" with a giant arrow pointing at the thruster...

    Also, Landing Pads don't stand a chance anymore, they also changed the way damage is applied so all blocks get damaged at the same time, meaning a conveyor or other vital component can no longer be shielded by heavy armor as it takes damage the same time the armor does...

    The Planetary Lander starter ship burns off it's own landing gear now...

    Apparently the cargo ship has a thruster trap that now self destructs the ship shortly after it spawns...

    I'm sure there's more, all in all a pretty game-breaking change.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 4
  19. Hellothere! Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    412
    Well if you don't care about ugly AF ships then sure, this won't affect you much. (Well, apart from the fact that one of my ships burns off it's own turrets that is) The thing is, the ability to armor up thrusters has been in the game for ages and all my ships are build with that in mind. Heck, for Hydrogen thrusters the recent damage model existed since before they even were in the game. Call me petty or whatever but I for one simply don't want to redesign my entire fleet and replace all the smooth lines with ugly sticking out thrusters simply because keen decided to give thrusters up to 9(!) times the damage output area as before for literally no reason at all.

    It's not just me either. A lot of people are affected by this. Damn it, even the top entry in the workshop this week is burning off it's own nacelles, not to mention the Keen planetary lander and some of their own cargo ships.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 3
  20. DrVagax Administrator

    Messages:
    821
    I have included this rule because a simple yes/no poll adds nothing to the table.
    If we wanted to see if a majority of the people wanted change they would check the feedback site, otherwise actual discussion and reasons would be more useful to us.
     
  21. Arcturus Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,649
    Plus heavy armor itself isn't immune to small ship thrusters anymore.
     
  22. suicideneil Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    227
    It's a shame the feedback site is kinda useless since you are limited to how many ideas you can vote for; there are over 800 last time I checked, and you only get 20 votes- not to mention it takes months for some ideas to be implemented which means other good ideas remain buried with just a few votes as no one can add votes to them. Then again, this isn't 'an idea' that needs voting on; the discussions and solutions already put forward on this forum are perfectly clear and understandable, even if some people disagree ( it's okay to disagree, we can't force them to be right... ).
     
  23. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,467
    But those in top would be in top anyway, so if/when those are implemented, your votes are returned and you can select your next priority. In my opinion it works very well in principle, because it forces you to prioritize. The only thing imo, they should simply shut down the suggestions that are never gonna happen like water and compound blocks, because people are wasting their votes on them.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  24. FoolishOwl Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    505
    A few of the "completed" items are actually ideas that KSH has rejected, e.g., the request to reinstate the F12 debug menu. As far as suggestions for new features, the top contenders stabilized quickly after the site went up, months ago. They implemented half-blocks and made some other small changes, but have only commented that they're working on very vaguely worded suggestions, e.g., a tech tree. It's hard to know how much the feedback results have influenced KSH at this point, as we're still waiting for the anniversary major update.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. Rdav Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    117
    I massively agree that they should shut down the ones that are never going to happen, they are doing nothing but sucking a) votes and b) front page space. My main complaint is that the feedback page is stagnant, although mostly because it's cluttered up with fluff like that that is not going to get either completed, or confirmed, meaning new genuine ideas never see the light of day through all the ridiculous suggestions.

    Also another complaint for the system is that top-voted page equates to more coverage & votes only for the most top-voted, like the steam workshop but not running a most popular in (x) rotation, so stuff on the most voted page will 'seem' like it is more popular, despite the fact it's only there because front page = more votes = stays on front page, most of the top voted page suggestions are there from the beginning few weeks, there simply because they were the first ideas, to shift anything from those crowning positions it will literally take a herculean effort and hundreds of supporters, so saying it's an accurate representation of public option at the moment is utter tripe. #endrant
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  26. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,467
    That particular one is probably intended to mean those things they promised to move to the SpaceMaster menu or something.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. suicideneil Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    227
    Yeah, they said they might consider doing it, but they haven't yet- this is the exact problem FoolishOwl stated; items they haven't done yet are listed as completed. Obviously, they should still be in the 'started' 'considered' or 'planned' sections.

    As for the other issues- you do get your votes back, yes, but only after the suggestion is completed; what about all the suggestions that never get completed ( that you voted on )? What about the fact it might take months to get around to even top-rated suggestions? As I said, it's a flawed system that starves potentially good ideas of votes due to the amount of time it takes to work on each one- I don't see a 'rejected' section for ideas that are duplicates or simply impossible either.

    New ideas don't appear on the front page either- as stated, the front page is entirely stagnant, you have to go digging to find ideas... digging through 800+ ideas to find any good ones that might be buried and no one is able to vote on them either as votes are tied up in ideas that are still being worked on, but not completed yet.

    Keen just have too much history for poorly implementing changes & ideas, not testing them, then botching the fixes half the time...
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  28. FoolishOwl Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    505
    Close to that, on rereading:
     
  29. suicideneil Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    227
    Malware, I don't know why you think disagreeing with me or FoolishOwl changes the fact that we are 100% correct about the issue of items being marked as 'completed' have not actually not even been 'started' ( or marked as such ).

    Like I said, disagree as much as you please- we can't force you to be right :)
     
  30. FoolishOwl Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    505
    Well, I was expecting that there would be a "rejected" status as well as a "completed" status, as two distinct final statuses, but I was perhaps incorrectly inferring that from bug-tracking systems I've used. In the case of the F12 debug menu, I was puzzled why it was marked "completed" rather than "rejected", but I did think they were done with it, in the narrow sense that they won't be bringing back that menu in its previous form.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.