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.

Controversial Thrusters suggestion.

Discussion in 'Suggestions and Feedback' started by Kamoba, Nov 14, 2013.

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

    Messages:
    28
    Wow, so much vitriol!

    This whole argument really seems to boil down to the thrust to surface area ratio and how it interacts with the square cube law. Invoking realism/PVP Balance/Server Options/Dev Cost/whatever, is just distracting from that critical issue. All of us have different priorities for these things which makes discussions using them less productive. So how can we cope with the square cube law?

    ---------------

    My thoughts on the ideas that stuck with me:

    1. Treat the existing thruster blocks as the nozzle and a minimal engine, then add more engine blocks behind it to improve the thrust to surface area ratio. Engine blocks alone don't do anything but add mass to the ship, and nozzles don't work if there is a block from the same ship obstructing them. Engine blocks also need to be associated with a single nozzle, so maybe give them a direction. (This could also be combined with the RCS thruster idea, by using Armored Nozzles)

    This should counter, or at least mitigate borg cubing for PVP. I think it will allow aesthetically pleasing designs for the less PVP oriented players and even enable a fair few replica ships to be fully functional. I also suspect that it won't be too difficult to program.

    2. Leave things alone. No change to thruster behavior at all.

    This seems like a bad idea since there is so much strong feeling that something needs to change. Also, borg cubes are BORING, and I agree that completely internal thrusters will mean borg cubes are the only viable PVP ship.

    3. Various "make it an option" ideas, including Survival vs Creative

    Not a good idea for thrusters. If Creative and Survival follow drastically different machine rules you can't use Creative to experiment with designs for Survival. An option like this for servers doesn't really sound like a good way to support a healthy multiplayer environment either.

    4. Add "Magic" engines.

    I used to think this was a good idea for the base game but I've since lost my like for it. Some people (me) want to build pretty ships in Survival because earning the resources is very satisfying, I just can't imagine there's a good resource balance for any kind of Magic engine, either it'll be too expensive to justify in Survival, or it'll be too cheap to bother with anything else.

    ---------------

    From what I've seen on this forum the word realism means something a little different for the game to each person. I try not to think in terms of realism, instead I consider whether something is Plausible. Could a scientific epiphany enable this technology? Are there too many scientific epiphanies already implied in the game, like artificial gravity? Could the change plausibly make the game better for everyone?
     
  2. Antigeist Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    63
    I'm fine with some mechanic preventing internal thrusters, as long as they give thrusters non-puny outputs. Currently you need absurd amounts of thrusters to make a ship move at any reasonable speed. Coating the outer hull of a ship with thrusters pointing every which direction just looks silly.

    Make thrusters provide more thrust and people won't need to cram them inside ships. And it'll significantly reduce lag because people won't need 1000 thrusters to make their big capital ships move.
     
  3. Gentry Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,167
    People won't be able to build 1000 thrusters, and people won't be building supermassive capital ships.

    Balancing the game around creative freebuilds is stupid.

    The thrusters are incredibly strong currently, the fact they can make a ship sit mostly still as an equally sized ship slices straight through it at 104m/s.
     
  4. Spaceballs Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    32
    Interesting topic.

    When building ships I always try to have thruster placement make sense, so I guess I'm a realist in this debate. Seeing thrusters burn hull drives me crazy.

    To the people saying replica builds and creative builds will be made useless if thrusters can damage stuff, think of it this way. If thrusters DON'T do damage, then people don't need to think about their builds in survival pvp, everybody and their mothers will be building noob cubes. A noob cube to me is basically a birds nest of ship components clustered together and then covered in as many layers of heavy armor as possible, so you just ram everything.

    I really don't want to see survival pvp become a battle of the noob cubes, please make thruster do damage. The game should not be balanced around replica builds. So how about this for a compromise; let server owners toggle thruster damage in survival, AND let server staff be able to toggle individual players game mode like in Minecraft, so when a person is in creative mode, thrusters don't damage ship. This way people can still make their replicas in offline creative and still show them off in multiplayer survival, just toggle game mode for player.

    Also a valid point there. If thrusters must be the same for survival and creative, I vote they do damage, simply for survival pvp balance. I don't want battle of the cubes.
     
  5. Leonhardt Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,930
    It's kinda funny how people respond to people not wanting to lose their ability to create whatever kind of ship they want, by saying that those same people are not going to create whatever kind of ship they want, and just automatically build borg cubes.

    Nobody wants to build borg cubes. Nobody is going to build borg cubes, except for maybe 2 or 3 un-creative dorks.
    Who will then get their ship destroyed because it's an extremely inefficient design.
    I mean really. You put all your vital components in one central location? Lol, one-shotted by any guy with a kinetic torpedo.
    Oh, you covered it in heavy armor? Good luck getting it to move faster than 2 mps^2, dork.
     
  6. Gentry Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,167
    Squares and cubes are efficient spaceship designs.

    And kinetic torpedoes are useless in real situations.

    They're just the playthings of hitting stationary targets for bored constructors currently.
     
  7. Mengmoshu Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    28
    I probably should have mentioned that I think thrusters doing damage is the wrong way to prevent people from putting them inside. Thruster damage just seems like a complication to me, since it adds another kind of ship to ship interaction as well as not preventing players from constructing an obviously self destructing ship. I don't think there's a good way to balance thruster damage so that it doesn't wreck landing pads but still makes an appropriate mess when fired behind armor.

    If required to choose between thruster damage and leaving thrusters as is I would keep them as is. They may be silly, but they're easy to understand and hard (impossible?) to shoot yourself in the foot with.

    Only slightly related, but I don't think current thrusters are overpowered in terms of volume+mass to thrust ratio. Unrealistic maybe, but they seem to be one of those things required to keep the game fun. I think if ships were any more sluggish, or had to dedicate much more mass to maneuvering, they'd become tedious.
     
  8. Leonhardt Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,930
    I don't think they'd be useless against stations, or larger, less mobile ships.
    Especially since Warheads are now active.
    But, okay, you get hit with a rocket, or a few seconds of gatling gun.
    Or just accidentally run into an asteroid.
    Same thing happens, all your vital components are gone, your ship is now disabled and drifting because you had to be a dork.

    Even worse, since they can't put engines on the inside, now they can't brake in one direction without having to spin around to the proper angle and wasting a crapton of fuel or risk smashing into things.

    They're not too efficient if they're woefully easy to destroy.
     
  9. Stiletto Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    381
    This is likely the most amusing thread in the whole SE forums.

    Kamoba, I want your babies now! :D
     
  10. Kamoba Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,389
    I already have one set of twins!
    So any children I supply you with shall be your own responsibility ;)
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.