Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

A couple issues + suggestions (Survival, Star System)

Discussion in 'General' started by Chojun, Nov 16, 2015.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. Chojun Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    111
    Hey Everyone,

    I've been on Space Engineers hiatus for about 6-8 months now while I waited for planets to come along. Wow, a lot has changed! But the core gameplay is the same, I'm happy so far, except for a couple things.

    I like the survival aspect so I've been playing that on Star System. 'Easy Start' feels too much like a tutorial (without instructions).

    1) If you play on realistic inventory sizes, the 1x1x1 container on the Atmospheric lander truncates its inventory and you can't build the promised blocks
    1.5) If you play with any inventory size, you still don't get all the promised components. If you aren't able to find a source of Uranium then you're toast and will have to start over.
    2) The jet pack is entirely useless on a planet. The first time I played I accidentally landed with the ramp too high. I had to restart the world :)
    3) Tool reach. The hand tools have basically no reach at all. This is most annoying with the hand drill, as you have to basically face plant into the rock to get it to drill anything. Not being able to use the jetpack whilst mining has revealed this problem.
    4) Mining isn't too bad by hand because you can target where you're mining. But on any kind of mining rover it's nearly impossible. Keen, I suggest you make it possible for the mining drills to swivel or pivot with mouse movement (maybe up to 45 degrees up/down/left/right) so that you can be on level ground and mine above or below. This would solve a lot of problems people are having.
    5) Ore detection is buggy. Ore is indicated where there is none (but is found nearby).
    6) Mostly useless batteries. Semi-auto mode SHOULD be: discharging when there is a power deficit, charging when there is a power surplus. At night batteries would automatically power the grid and during the day, recharge (solar panels). Additionally, if you don't have enough reactors and kick something into overload, batteries can help meet the peak demand.
    7) Weak atmospheric thrusters. I think most people likely are not keen on loading up their vehicles with tons of thrusters to get things around. The C-17 globemaster has a max takeoff weight of 265,000kg with 4 jet engines. For space engineers, I would expect the same of 2 thrusters.
    8) BIG issue for me - without the jetpack it's SO difficult to construct anything. In fact this is such a big problem for me that I'm nearly completely stumped. Because of limited reach construction scaffolding only works so much. This is a huge issue! I'm surprised I haven't seen more threads about this, does no-one play survival anymore?

    That's all for now, other than these small issues it's a great update!
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  2. BlackUmbrellas Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,818
    I'd make a bug report about the cargo container cutting off its inventory.

    I think that your issue with batteries can be solved by just not checking any boxes; if you leave them like that, they should do what you want (that is to say, charge when power is available, drain when its not).
     
  3. Casazzo Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    13
    Just check nothing and it'll work that way.

    Edit: Upps. Blackie was faster.
     
  4. Kielm Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    507
    Alrighty...

    • Jet pack is working pretty much as advertised.
    • Tool reach seems to be the same as it's always been?
    • If you want to mine in a rover, you'll have to get creative. Try hinges conveyors, rotors, pistons etc. Designing is half the fun!
    • Ore detection is finicky, and seams are thin. I'd say it's realistically difficult, but that's my opinion.
    • Batteries are bugged at the moment :(
    • Generic atmospheric thrusters without aerodynamics vs specialised engines in aerodynamic frame = apples vs hammers
    • Scaffolding...I had to learn how today when putting together my first big ship on-planet. Never built one in gravity before! Just remember, you can put scaffolds on your platform AND your ship... and when building on a platform, leave a couple of blocks free underneath so you can weld the underside.
    Final point... I agree, it seems many people are in creative mode making craters out of their big ships. I'm playing on a DS in survival 10-5-5 (normally lower but resources are brutal on planets!), and it takes hours to even start making progress, the learning curve is that steep.

    But that first time you get into space, and bring back a haul of platinum without pancaking your ship into the ground... Yes!
     
  5. PureEvil Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    73
    I don't find it to be an issue, just throw a solar panel, remove unused blocks from the lander, conserve the power and you are done.

    Rotor + piston is the way - you are supposed to engineer your way right?

    I agree, the reach could be a little longer.

    I agree, very annoying.
     
  6. SillySil Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    26
    Not a viable solution for rovers. 4 wheels + some rotors and pistons and the whole thing is so wobbly it's going to be falling over or exploding all the time.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  7. PhysX Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    17
    Ideally it would work that way, but batteries (and the power system in general) are currently bugged and don't always behave that way.
     
  8. Chojun Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    111
    Thanks for the reply, guys, and thanks for the tips on the batteries!

    This is precisely the reason why I suggest that the small/large ship drills be allowed to swivel. Engineering them to do that with pistons/rotors is prohibitive in terms of complexity. Nagging complexity issues that the game engine has always seems to prevent elegant solutions. I'm a software engineer with experience in UX and I will tell you that newer users will find this frustrating and will generally not be willing to put in the effort to design around these subtle and potentially frustrating issues.

    9) I also remembered something else that I'd like to have - thrust capacity indicators.

    Knowing the amount of thrust you have on the X/Y/Z vectors would help you know how many thrusters you need to offset your ship's weight against gravity fields.

    10) Artificial anti-mass and/or anti-gravity generators.

    Artificial anti-masses, when powered, will reduce the effective weight of a grid (NOT including cargo). Anti-gravity generators will create a field that reduces the effective acceleration due to gravity of objects within the field. The anti-masses would help us design ships that aren't required to have a ridiculous number of thrusters on them.
     
  9. Casazzo Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    13
    There is a workaround. By using more thrusters, than can be supplied by your energy source, the you can read the "energy-used" percentage for that.
     
  10. Devon_v Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,602
    If you carry 25 steel plates around you can build your way out of almost any situation by dropping one-plate armor slope scaffolding to reach what you need to.
     
  11. mhalpern Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,119
    don't go crazy with it and that won't happen limit the speed, lock pistons and rotors when moving ectera.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Zyfe Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    64
    Stop complaining about jetpack being useless on planets.

    If you want to use jetpack to fly around and build, then build in space. Planets are supposed to be a different gameplay challenge, not just a change in scenery.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  13. Chojun Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    111
    ^ Maybe I didn't explain my premise well enough.

    The roots and premise of the game is construction in 0g. The jetpack was part of that premise. I'm not disagreeing with you about using the jetpack on planets - indeed you shouldn't - but what I'm asking is that Keen take into consideration that construction on planets without the Jetpack is next to impossible. That's why I asked if anyone is playing this on survival anymore. Those who are would've picked up on this VERY quickly.

    One way to offset this problem would be to give the pack a 1-2 min burn time and allow it to recharge when turned off (2-3 min recharge time).
     
  14. fourthquantum Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,286
    I think that's the reason why they allowed you to build from the cockpit. Have you tried constructing a welder/grinder small ship?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Chojun Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    111
    I'm trying to construct that ship right now :p

    This is a serious problem, I'm really surprised people aren't screaming about it.
     
  16. BlackUmbrellas Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,818
    As I believe was pointed out earlier, you can place blocks while inside a ship cockpit now; once you've built a simple welding craft, you'll never need to use scaffolding again for the most part.
     
  17. Spets Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,214
    wow, yes, the tool reach it is really annoying, I thought I was the only one. Also I agree, the batteries needs more tweaks. and for using scaffolding for building, this one I like it, but is just me.
     
  18. WhiteWeasel Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,086
    I have been playing survival on planets for a few hours and ran into some issues on the starting plants. Is it really an easy start? Sure it't easy in the regard you have a bunch of starting capitol, but the bases have several issues.

    1) Connectors are the new landing gear. They explode very frequently when trying to connect the ships to the landing pads. Even with magnetic force disabled the still can explode because your ship snaps to the connector. This is especially bad with the constructor ship. Then I had to remove parts of each ship to make sure that only the connector was the lowest hanging part in addition to turning off the magnetism to stop it (for the most part) self-destructing. Sure someone can say it's "engineering a solution", but that's a poor excuse, plus a newbie might not know what's going on. The whole point of an easy start is to give a player a base to play with and introduce new ones to the mechanics of the game. Is it too much to ask that what's given to you works right out of the box?

    2) Drones attack too frequently. While the base has defenses, they take good few moments of shooting before they disable the drone. I think they should attack once about every half hour or so to make them much more manageable. This causes a variety of problems:
    -Since the drones take a while to stop, that means they will inevitably damage something.
    -"Build moar turrets" is only shifting the problem elsewhere as you'll burn through your ammo supply faster, and thus require more mining.
    - Because of the constant harassment from drones, players have to take extra time either performing operations such as mining far away from the base, or arming their craft with bulky turrets.
    -Space master helps out a lot, but drone corpses are annoying to manage. They can hurt performance if left to build up, they cant be lifted with landing gear into the grinding pit because my ships always lose control when locking on to them. and the falling drones leave craters everywhere.

    3) For the alien planet start at least, the drones need better pathing, as they frequently crash into the cliff side around the base.

    4) Jetpacks. The devs have nerfed them so you need a ship to get to space, but they are almost useless, dare I say liability on planets. They run out too quick for any meaningful amount of mobility, and can kill you if you say fall and try to turn on your jetpack at an inopportune time. Bumping them 30 seconds worth of fuel is enough to be useful, but small enough for players to be mindful of.
     
  19. kcjunkbox Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,131
    The problem I have with scaffolding is that you cannot "lean over" the edge to attach the next scaffolding piece to go higher, say you are bulding a 1/1 slope. You have to jump off and try to place the block as you fall...and then go around and do it again, seriously teadious.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Hotshot Jimmy Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,500
    Well either scaffolding or build one of these that you can stand on and blast about, and yes it is possible with vanilla blocks too, just means you might be standing on a solar panel or have it a little taller with more reactors/batteries;

    [​IMG]

    I've found it perfect for welding large buildings and saves so much time and materials.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  21. Chojun Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    111
    Yep it's true. Scaffolding is a good cheap idea but doesn't work in practice because of limited reach. BTW Jimmy the construction platform is a good idea. The only issue is that even constructing THAT would be a chore.

    Honestly I haven't tried fighting through it by keeping 100 hydrogen bottles with me. I'll have to try it to see how feasible it is.

    Unfortunately I think that the issues highlighted by myself and others on this thread show that the Survival aspect of the game has been somewhat neglected throughout development.

    The main 4 issues being:

    * Constructing *anything* without the jetpack
    * Mining with vehicles in a planetary gravity field
    * Dodgy physics interactions between sub-grids. Honestly an easy hack-ish fix for this, for the time being, would be to treat all sub grids as a point mass connected to the main grid.
    * Reach limiting construction and mining/repair
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.