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.

Halloween Update 1.184.6 - Skin Crafting & Ghost Skin

Discussion in 'Change Log' started by flexx, Oct 26, 2017.

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

    Messages:
    469
    I would also like to point out that Ion thrusters, which is what they are named now even it it wasn't always the case, don't actually produce significant heat, nor does the thruster exhaust expand out of the thruster in a cone in the same way that a chemical rocket does. For those asserting that thruster damage should in fact be even larger do take into consideration that these propulsion systems may not work as you might assume if you are only familiar with how more conventional jet and chemical rockets behave.

    Ion thrusters don't burn or melt things behind them, they erode them by ejecting charged particles at high velocity, I completely agree that only blocks directly in the path of the ion beam should be subject to damage.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 6
  2. Roxette Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,399
    Indeed. Ion thrusters CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS! ... in the real world. Nor can dead wolves be a source of old PCI graphics cards and stepper motors. ;)
     
    • Funny Funny x 7
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Darkheyr Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    42
    For that matter, not even jet engines are even remotely as destructive as hydrogen rockets. They might have considerable jet blast which can blow lighter craft away, but nothing close to the fiery inferno an actual rocket creates. The thruster damage isn't realistic by any stretch of imagination. I understand the need for simplification, but cries for realism should take actual realism into account first.

    That being said, what tends to be forgotten is that we build and design stuff within the limitations of the game. Some designs include self made thruster nozzles because the normal thrusters don't fit the aesthetics - we can't just alter the thruster block itself. And, naturally, it's already difficult enough to make good-looking small large grid ships without thrusters placing evermore restrictions on what we can or can't do. We also, quite often, need obnoxious amounts of thrusters or a really large one - which, again suffers from extensive thruster damage range which might become difficult to accomodate on a smaller ship.

    All those points should be taken into consideration. We need less restrictions, not more.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Like Like x 1
  4. EnjoyCoke Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    72
    This is sad.
    Several of my builds involve using half-blocks or similarly "smaller framed blocks" in front of thrusters.
    This no longer functioning means that my ships break - and will aesthetically look less appealing (more clumsy).

    Would've been better had they done less damage, imo.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. Pharap Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    175
    This would be a good idea, but the one downside is that it allows players to put thrusters inside ships.
    There's probably a way to balance it though, like checking for immediate obstructions or something.

    In fact, obstruction checking could be done when blocks are being placed on a grid rather than every frame/damage tick/whatver.

    It depends on the implementation of the gravity interaction.
    If it has to be recalculated frequently it's bound to hurt simspeed, but it's probably possible to only update the force calculations when absolutely necessary or to cache the calculations somehow.
    Or maybe even offload them onto another thread (though that would be very difficult, threading is a wonderful source of bugs).

    That or make trash removal only remove grids that weren't built by players.
     
  6. Delzaros Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    8
    I'm not sure if others have noticed but for some reason the order of id's in my BlockCategories.sbc don't matter ingame, my blocks in this categorie gets scrambled. I checked the original file and found out that the order of id's do not work for other categories aswell. For example Production blocks are scrambled to. Is this a bug?

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2017
  7. krypt-lynx Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    175
    This image is not completely relevant: It shows how works "universal" nozzle. Most efficient mode is the middle one. Engines which intended to work in space only have this type of exhaust.
     
  8. halipatsui Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,253
    Hot gas expands very quickly in space no matter what kind of nozzle you use
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  9. Whiplash141 Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    958
    Thus making convective heat transfer almost negligible due to how quickly the gas will disperse in a vacuum. The main source of heat transfer, in this instance, is radiation since there is no real medium for convection.

    Radiation falls off pretty quickly over distance as can be approximated with view factors:
    [​IMG]

    Now this is for square geometry, but this can easily be shrunk down into differential areas to approximate the amount of radiation that would reach a surface from a specific distance away from the emission source. Note how when the W/H ratio decreases (or the separation distance, H, increases), the view factor approaches zero quite quickly. This means that the intensity of the radiation would reduce significantly at range.
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Syncaidius Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    824
    You sound very bitter. I get that it's frustrating when Keen don't always fix the bugs that seem long-standing and obvious, I'm completely with you on that. But to say you hope they fail is absolutely shit. If that is your attitude in life when things arn't quite going your way, then I'm sorry, but you've set yourself up to fail.

    Space Engineers has done many things that other games either pull off badly or don't do at all, such as combining full-ship destruction with massive voxelized planets. The game is extremely complex on the code side of things. There is much more to be done. Keen are well aware of that fact, as are many of the players. But to continue developing they need a steady, reliable income because game development isn't cheap. Skins are a good way to fill the gap without fudging anybody over by locking them out of certain gameplay mechanics.

    They've already told us the next update contains some huge game changes. If you've been around long enough, you would know Keen only say something like that when they really mean it. Last time, it was planets. Before that, it was near-infinite space. I don't recall Keen ever lying once about SE development.

    A little patience goes a long way.

    Either way. Good luck on your future endeavors. :munch:
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Like Like x 3
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  11. Ondřej Nahálka QA Lead Staff

    Messages:
    88
    should be fixed (hotfix 1.184.604)

    please let me know if it works without any issue
     
    • Like Like x 4
  12. Forcedminer Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,225
    it would be nice if blocks could visually show overheating to demonstrate a block taking damage before it just poofs out of existence. :(
    .
    like the robots from fallout 4.
    .
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. TheDeinonychus Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    87
    It's not so much not knowing that a block is taking damage, so much as the blocks that are taking damage now are ones that, if you look at how they are placed, shouldn't be taking damage. Since damage is being applied for the entire area that a thruster block takes up, blocks out of the path of the actual thruster flame are being damaged. While this might not seem that strange for small thrusters (considering the block is only slightly larger than the flame itself), for large thrusters, this means the damage area is quite a bit larger than the thruster flame. This means that not only are player-made cowlings around engines being destroyed, but also 'flat' blocks such as windows, sensors, cameras, and control panels. This means that, to avoid having your ship burn itself to death, you now have to have your engines completely exposed and the area around them completely open of anything aside from bare armor blocks. This has resulted in tons of ship designs (including some by Keen themselves, according to some people) self-destructing.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. FoolishOwl Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    510
    Honestly, it seems like this is a good time to take a break from Space Engineers for a few weeks, until the major update comes out and we see what the new rules are.

    For me at least, I don't want to start on a new project that may or may not be compatible with whatever's coming -- or, on the positive side, might benefit from as-yet-unannounced new features.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Forcedminer Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,225
    nothing wrong with that...i did that with KF2 then along came gunslinger,sharpshoter,survivalist and swat. with a generous handful of new weapons. (cough)..... and a key crate skin system. complete with ability to (cough) recycle duplicate or unused skins for tokens
     
  16. halipatsui Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,253

    Thruster damage buff was inside job!
    --- Automerge ---

    Especially so because keen has been pretty careful not to raise any unneeded expectations as far as i can tell.
    Now they say that changes will be amazing so i am quite exited.

    We know few possible blocks of survival revamp already.
    Who knows what else they are cooking?
    Skins for example came totally from bushes.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  17. Captain Broadstairs Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    469
    While I can't say I'm anywhere near as upset as Meteo was, I do have to say things like these unannounced changes to gameplay menchaincs have somewhat reduced my inclination to chip more money towards the game.

    I had been tempted to show a little goodwill and buy the new Halloween skin, not because I want the skin, but to support the game a little bit more. However these sorts of changes, that restrict designs and cause problems has caused enough frustration for me to reconsider that purchase. I'm not putting this up as an ultimatum or threat of witholding future purchase, I'm giving honest feedback that this sort of change to gameplay, intentional or otherwise, without forewarning does harm my faith in the game continuing to be as enjoyable as I currently find it.

    Don't take this the wrong way, I love playing this game. Its a veritable playground of design possibilities that I very much enjoy exploring, and I can still see myself enjoying the game for a long time to come. But please I do think more communication on significant changes such as thruster damage and perhaps more fore thought on seemingly minor things if this change has had more impact than you originally intended. Sudden alteration to the way we play the game like this has a noticeable negative impact on my desire to play and I suspect I'm not alone in that.

    In all Honesty I want this game to succeed and I want to support it, but that becomes harder to do when the rug is pulled out from under us at random with certain updates.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Late Late x 1
  18. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,074
    Heh.

    I played SE all weekend long completely unaware that there was a change to thruster damage. As a matter of fact, a made a design change to one of my ships about a week ago in order to avoid any potential thruster damage.

    This change (thruster damage) reminds me of when they introduced oxygen. Oh! The Humanity! All existing ships now had to be completely redesigned! That does it! I'm QUITTING THIS GAME! Everyone stopped playing and Keen ceased production of Space Engineers.


    Wait...

    What really happened is that Keen ignored those posts (not entirely ;)) and continued to improve their game. In order to appease those that did not want to change their designs they gave us the option to turn oxygen off. This did not totally solve the problem for those that did not design their ships to be airtight, but it allowed them to play the way they want while Keen continued to move forward with the game. The same is true now with thruster damage, and the day will come when they will become forced to seriously rethink the Gravity Generator. Yes, this rather unlikely device which has enabled people to make pretty ships that move via magic has lost it's original value with the implementation of planets with real gravity, and one now has to wonder why the area of effect of the GG is so immense.

    For those who are upset because their ships can't be pretty any more, please consider that the engines and everything else in the game are inspired by NASA. Not by Star Trek, Star Wars, StarGate or any movie or TV series. The stuff in the game is inspired by a space program run by a government that doesn't budget for looks. Most of the ugliest things in the Universe are NASA spacecraft. They work, and that's all that matters.

    The thing about SE is that it works really well. So well in fact that instead of playing the game as if it were 2077, most people want to play it as if it were 2250 or beyond. Do that, and you will often be frustrated. Because the game accepts mods, people can get what they want from third parties. As a result players believe that because a Modder can add something out-of-context to the game, the Developer should too? Should Keen just rename their game Garry's Mod II?

    Every time Keen makes an improvement it seems to get harder for them to stick to the original plan. It appears more people than not prefer to use exploits to get the results they desire. Adding a feature garners a few posts of praise. Eliminating an exploit causes eight pages of hate, and the haters seem to feel that Keen should feel bad because you have to redesign all those ships you put so much time in to. Well, for perspective I currently have over 5800 hrs in SE and I redesign my ships all the time. No ship is perfect. Any ship can be improved. Once Keen or a Modder makes some dream-come-true block and/or script my ships get modified, and that could take months. If you like quick and dirty SE might not be your game.

    For those that are... upset... because Keen did not give "fair warning" about the change, you are a bit off base. You were warned BEFORE you purchased the game that everything in it is subject to change. Without Notice. Ignored that little fact, did you? See what happens?

    Don't forget that there are a lot of wannabe developers that are watching Space Engineers very closely. They would love to produce a game very (VERY) similar but that doesn't have any of the stuff in it that pisses this crowd off. These... people... would love to hear about anything Keen intends to do to improve their game. So that they can get to it first. For this reason Keen employees have to keep their mouths shut about most of what they're doing. This is hard to do in a pre-release game cause after paying less than full price all these so-called "customers" think they own the company and want (demand) details they shouldn't have and they want those details made public. The thruster damage might seem like a minor thing to us, but for the developers it's huge. By not revealing their solution until it was published they allowed the wannabes to continue work on their cheap/sleazy solution that will ultimately not work with all the other things from Keen they plan to copy. The hard truth is that, in most cases, we won't find out about stuff until it happens. That's why the caveat is there. Stuff will change without notice. That's what you paid for. Don't be mad when it happens.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 7
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  19. Captain Broadstairs Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    469
    Ah so the Lander burning its own landing gear off is A okay then.....frankly this stinks of a change that was made without proper consideration since its breaks the games own pre built scenario's

    The changes to thruster damage and inclusion of Oxygen are an innapropriate comparison.
    Adding oxygen never caused peoples ships to actually break or become unusable, neither did it massively affect the games pre built scenario ships as oxygen could easily be added to any ship or bottles could be stored in its existing cargo.

    The inclusion of oxygen was a new feature, and an important one to make space survival actually survival. What prey tell is the new improved aspect of gameplay that has been introduced by abruptly changing thruster damage mechanics? point me towards one positive aspect that it has introduced that warranted larger thruster damage profiles.
    Not including minor computational performance improvement as this could have been achieved without significantly increasing the area of damage and instead changing only its shape. this change goes way beyond that and makes the area significantly larger.

    What has been the positive impact of causing all block in range take damage rather than be shielded by other blocks, making ships landing in a hangar burn blocks in under the deck.

    What is the actual benefit from any of these changes in actual gameplay?

    I'm waiting.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 5
  20. suicideneil Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    227
    Only one issue with your rather childish statement there chap; adding oxygen ( and hydrogen ) to the game IMPROVED it. It is true that ships had to be partially rebuilt or upgraded, but Oxygen added realism to survival mode ( and thus, creative mode builds/designs ), and Hydrogen gave us MORE options for building and faster ships, whilst also adding the element of resource management.

    Increasing thruster damage for no reason other than it saves a fraction of a percent of processing requirements did nothing to improve the game and broke ships- it didn't force people to rebuild them to make them even better, no, it forces us to rebuild them to work around an illogical design change. You need only need to look at where a circle inside of an octagon touches the sides to realise that the increase in damage area is 100% unrealistic and unjustified.

    I'm gonna ignore the rest of your post since it entirely ignores the above statement that destroys your long, pointless ramble ;)
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  21. FoolishOwl Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    510
    My impression is that KSH isn't interested in maintaining its prefab designs and scenarios. There are some prefab designs that obviously received some changes at various points, but it's erratic.

    Maybe that's because they've got some great changes coming that will replace all the existing prefabs, so they don't want to waste time on maintaining the old ones. But mostly, it looks to me like they don't have anyone permanently on staff tasked with level or vehicle design.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  22. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,074
    Your assessment of the effect of the change to thruster damage is your opinion, and one that I don't share. I believe the change does, in fact, improve the game by forcing people to make ships that work in SE rather than ships that look like they work. Keen's game is not about providing you with a platform to build any ship you want even if it comes from another game or franchise. Keen's game is about building Space Engineers ships which had to have been built in the 21st century and not the 26th. In that sense the game is scripted and the lack of damage caused by thrusters (should be saying rocket motors or engines) is not in line with the tech level of the game. Also, it's entirely possible that Keen might be a bit disheartened that people would want to hide their engines. I myself rarely hide them.

    I understand the need for some to cover engines with armor because engines are targeted. That is a valid concern, given the way most people play SE (which is not the sole way to play the game). In the 21st Century armed conflict in space would still be pretty rudimentary. Engines would, indeed, be legitimate targets. Therefore, combat spacecraft would have engines built to withstand punishment, rather than buying off-the-shelf engines that, say, I would use for my freighter which I intend to keep out of harm's way at all costs cause there's no profit in it.

    A "combat grade" engine would reduce the need for cover armor. There could also be an additional block with a hole in it that couldn't be damaged by an engine cause it's made of ceramic materials or something (perhaps some sort of liner block). Blocks adjacent to this block will also not be damaged. Point being ships intended for combat are not actually in the design philosophy of the game and that's why vanilla battleships suck. You can build a truly spectacular mining or cargo ship but battleships and fighters built from the same parts make for lousy battleships and fighters.

    Over time, hopefully after they have nailed down most of the MP issues and stabilized performance, Keen will return to providing features including blocks more appropriate for combat. As it is now though, you shouldn't put blocks near the exhausts of engines. They'll get damaged.
    Never should have been able to do that in the first place.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 5
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. FoolishOwl Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    510
    We're talking about ships that *did* work in Space Engineers.
    Which franchise did KSH's atmospheric lander come from?
    --- Automerge ---
    I'm impressed by your detailed knowledge of the relative states of the art in engine cowlings in the distant future.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Funny Funny x 1
  24. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,074
    So am I. Those ships that "worked" with blocks near the exhausts, shouldn't have. The builder depended on an exploit that was obviously going to get fixed at some point. The game is not finished yet.

    Which franchise did KSH's atmospheric lander come from? I'm guessing the Space Engineer's franchise. I don't see anyone from Keen kicking over furniture because that lander will have to be rebuilt.

    --- Automerge ---
    It wasn't my intention to impress you but, thanks :woot: !
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 5
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  25. Captain Broadstairs Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    469

    Your assessment of how YOU play is not representative of how the game is ACTUALLY played by the majority of the community.
    Your opinion that thruster not need covering being based on your designs not being combat oriented is a ludicrous justification for removing the possibility to build protective engine slits, especially when a quick glance at the workshop will show you how many players like to design and use warships.
    This game is played in such a varied degree of ways that any restriction of ship design without justification can only be a negative thing, removing that freedom that allowed us to play the game catered to our individual tastes. Unless of course KHS wish to establish a "proper" way to play the game in which I doubt will happen given that the sandbox element forms the basis of this games appeal for many.


    Furthermore the notion of a "combat grade engine" or coated blocks only holds up if we actually had a combat grade engine or said blocks to use.....which we don't. If that were their intention I would expect the update to address such aspects of gameplay now when the changes have substantially altered ship design and not to leave us wondering why such a change has been justified on the grounds of a negligible performance increase.
    Communication of intent, if there is a definite intent behind the change, is appreciated. If communication is not an option due to secrecy then they ought not to make substantial negative changes now such a long way off from the rest of the changes that offset those negative changes.

    Of course I don't expect any of those ideas to materialise given that they are ideas you plucked from the ether.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 4
  26. FoolishOwl Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    510
    My point is that you're arguing as if KSH has some clear vision of what ships should look like and how they should be constructed. They don't -- as you can see just looking at their own prefabs. They have all sorts of inconsistencies, in structure and style.

    This change wasn't a clever move, progressing towards the articulation of their clear vision of space travel in 2077. They simply screwed up and broke stuff.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  27. mojomann71 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,774
    • Like Like x 2
  28. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,074
    First, I'll just insert this from Keen:
    In other words, the survival of the game depends more on how well it works than what your ships end up looking like.

    I couldn't agree more. That's why I suggested it in the first place.

    Keen is not worried about how ships will look. That's up to the player. No one at Keen will tell you what your ship is supposed to look like.

    However,

    THEY make the blocks we use and THEY decide what can and can't happen in THEIR game. THEY have decided that engines should cause more damage than they did. As you can read from the quote, they made the change in SP long ago and no one noticed or cared. The playing experience has to be the same in SP and MP. One of the things that made SP "playable" was increasing thruster damage. Unless you can show me in the code that the change does NOT result in a significant performance increase (and just because you don't notice it doesn't mean it's not happening), you cannot say for certain that the change was not warranted. Keen, which has bills and employees to pay, decided the game has a better chance of survival with the change than without it. If they're wrong about that they will be in a world of shit. For you, the worst that can happen is you end up with an unfinished game, which you already have so, no damage.

    Playstyle is not the issue here. No two people play SE the same, and there are several million copies out there now. The issue here is attitude. Some kind of expectation that if you let Keen know you are mad they will reverse their decision. They did it for the good of the game, not just to piss you off. They didn't tell you about it ahead of time because they couldn't. You shouldn't be upset because when you bought the game they told you this kind of thing will happen and continue to happen until the game is finished, and no guarantee they'll finish it so don't be mad if that happens, either.

    Having said all that, since most of my ships are at least 80% mods I expect the next major update will break all my ships and make the game unplayable, so I'm fully prepared to punish Keen by not playing the game.

    That'll show 'em.



    Mess with ME, will they? Weeell...
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 4
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  29. TheDeinonychus Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    87
    While I appreciate the work done to attempt to fix this issue, and this does reinforce my belief that the modding community is more than happy and able to fix what developers break, I do have to honestly say it feels a bit like putting a bandaid on a broken arm. Yes, reducing the amount of damage the thrusters do will help some, but the remaining issue is that thrusters are damaging EVERY block around them, because the area of damage is just too big.
    --- Automerge ---
    Doesn't matter if the game runs smooth as butter on a coal-powered potato PC. If it's not fun, it fails as a game. The recent change has negatively impacted the enjoyment of a large portion of the player base. That is an issue just as, if not more, important than the game's performance. And considering the game's primary draw is the ability to build, design, and fly your own space ship, this is an element of gameplay you better be damned sure is enjoyable for the majority of your players.

    And yes, players will take developers to task over changes that make the game less enjoyable for us. And we should. Developers are beholden to the players. Not their publishers, not their share holders. And players are certainly not beholden to the developers. Without the players buying their game, they have no business. We want a game to be successful, we want it to be enjoyable. Because the more successful a game is, the more likely we are to get even more enjoyable content and games from said developer. And if that means telling a developer when they've made a misstep, then we should. You could even go as far as to say it's out duty as gamers to make our views known. If we sit back and not let our thoughts be heard and let a developer go on as if they could do no wrong, well.. We get things like triple A developers pushing out shinny, over-priced shovel-ware year in and year out.

    Keen isn't a deluded triple A developer. They opened up the door for us, because they wanted a better relationship with their player base than other developers. And we give them the feedback they asked for. That doesn't mean it's always going to be positive. I would honestly be suspicious if it was nothing but praise. We play their game. We crawl all over it and find the cracks they miss. And when we get something new form them that's full of cracks, we need to tell them. And if a developer is smart, they'll listen. Because not only are we the best resource Keen has to ensure their game is as good as it can be, we're also the ones Keen has to please for their game to be a success.

    Yes, some of us may be more vitriolic than others, but that doesn't invalidate what we've been saying. The thruster change was a misstep. One that Keen can fix without steering things too far off course. That's the point of having an in development game out in the wild like this. They try something. If we the players find a problem with it, we make it known to Keen. Then they can take out feedback into account and fix things. There's already been many ideas put forward to do so. Now it's Keen's job to decide which way is the best way to fix the problem.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  30. Captain Broadstairs Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    469

    No, the thruster damage volumes weren't implemented in SP already. As evidenced by people loading up their SP worlds post update to find their ships breaking. What had been the case for"some time" was a linear extension of the damage volume, not its increased profile that has only recently been implemented.

    Increasing the range was justifyable, it reduced the exploitable nature of thrusters inside vessels. Changing the profile of damage so that blocks that have NEVER been in the visible thruster flame nor crossing the path of the thruster exhaust that is exiting into space without visible obstruction are now being damaged isn't the same.

    Oh and as for the "good of the game" I've asked multiple times for ANYBODY to find any justification in terms of performance and I've yet to get a single person reply who can demonstrate any noticeable performance increase. Effectively the game runs about the same and we just have an arbitrary change made to thrusters yielding no gameplay improvement.

    I also pointed out to you earlier, which you have completely ignored while going on about your little attitude rant in regards to negative feedback ( feedback on the forum! Players, no customers, expressing feedback that isn't positive oh the horror) that this performance increase with which the change was "justified" didn't require the damage volume to be drastically increased in area, only its shape going from a cylinder to a rectangle.
    [​IMG]


    So drop the performance increase angle, its not a valid reason to increase the volume. If anything its increasing the number of blocks for which damage need be calculated so wheres the sense in that from a performance increase angle?

    Yes things change, sometimes they need too, but here we have a case of fixing what isn't broken for reasons that just don't hold water. That is something that people are voicing objection too and rightly so. We don't expect KHS to make reversions on every little thing, but for changes that genuinely are negative we do expect for KHS to notice and reconsider if a change is actually needed so much that it justifies reducing our in game design freedom.
    If such a change is genuinely needed for reasons they aren't communicating then they should think about communicating it, because lack of communication here only leaves us in a position of uncertainty that demotivates us to invest time in anything in game if it might change at random in the name of minor tweaking.

    I'll say it again, we expect changes for MAJOR updates, but minor updates randomly making such gameplay alterations is unexpected and quite frustrating.

    And by all means do stop playing, not that KHS or anybody else will notice. In the meantime the rest of us will continue to play and give appropriate feedback to changes, positive and negative where its warranted.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 7
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.