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.

In-game currency will be a thing?

Discussion in 'General' started by Ronin1973, Jul 10, 2019.

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

    I'm just going to leave this here. Keen know's exactly what they are doing with this "free" update, they forgot to mention it was to charge people with DLC...

    I hate DLC being tied to features after those features have been released as a "free" update. Not to mention the update is basically based on a mod.

    I've bought all the DLC to date, but this ticks me off, just as I thought Keen was putting some genuine effort into the game.
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Sarekh Senior Engineer

    Wow, if this is bad if it's true. There's one thing that could be making this good: having the DLC in there for free in order to somehow put more or less focus on economy for players, something like an official mod.
    But I don't really think that's what's going to happen :-/
    --- Automerge ---

    A word from the devs. Means: Either they backed off seing this or they never intended it the way one might think they wanted to. Either way that's good news!

    "Also, for contracts/store slots currently available in the Space Engineers Public Test/the upcoming Economy update, we are planning to have a system where every player has the same amount of contracts/store slots available to them; players will not be able to buy extra space for contracts/store slots. Please note: we're still gathering feedback from players during these public tests, which means the features present in each public test are not final and may change."
  3. BitsNoKibbles Apprentice Engineer

    Most (all?) of our modern rotary cannon use a continuous loop linkless feed system -- no springs to speak of.

    Belt-fed guns circa 1944 had heaters and, in many cases, disintegrating link belts.
    --- Automerge ---
    I've got a little over 2k hours, I'd say about half of that is vanilla, and maybe the last 100 hours or so with shields.

    I haven 't used any armor mods.

    The ship design I've spent the most time on is a small-ship ISSCV from Space Above and Beyond. I used the small ship mega mod pack, small rotors mod, small merge block mod, sage thrusters, and I modded my own hybrid atmo+hydro thrusters and cockpit seats. Most of the time has been spent on the FCS (tilt thruster control), tweaking the weight & balance, and trying to connect and disconnect the cargo pod (it tends to touch the ship and explode... a lot). I had to set it aside some time ago because the small rotors broke..

    The largest ship I've started was a 1/2 scale cylon basestar (new style). I got about 1/3 done before I ran out of PCU and Havoc lost the plot. I've shrunk the design half a dozen times, finally got something small enough to work. That ship uses a modlist as long as my arm (including shields).

    So... speaking of expectations... my view of SE's purpose in life is to let me build my favorite spaceships from my favorite shows. My benchmark is Space Above and Beyond, because that's about as close to a fast-forward of 20c technology that's ever existed, and the aesthetic is about the same. .

    FWIW there are no energy shields in SAAB, but the ships don't fall apart when they bump into something, either.

    I don't think the trading post safe areas are quite the same as shields.

    I rarely build ships that are as massive as yours... I wonder if that has any bearing on the vastly different experiences I've had compared to yours?

    "Convert to Station"
  4. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    I will take that as a compliment good sir. If only we had transporters we really could pester some of the Keen crew once in awhile lols.

    I agree SE is a class in its own right. I bring up the Star Trek Online example because it's pretty much verbatim what is happening here. With STO before we had an end game Constitution class you had 2 main camps. You had folks that wanted it because folks it was the original Enterprise, TOS was their favorite series, they wanted it because of how iconic the ship class was, they just like the ship, or whatever reason they wanted it. On the opposite side of that coin you had folks that were saying they didn't want the ship. They don't like TOS, they think the Constitution is overhyped, their favorite ship was from another series, or whatever. Their chief reason was "the Constitution would no longer be in service by that time." In SE we have folks that want shields for whatever reason, and those who also oppose them. The folks who oppose shields in SE use the chief argument "we wouldn't have shields by then," which is the only real legitimate argument there. Enough folks eventually spoke up and told CBS they want the ship, and CBS gave the green light. It was explained story wise that the Constitutions we have were modern ships that just look older, or older ships that were loaded down with modern tech. I still see quite a few Constitutions of the various types running around. There was nothing out of context about the end-game Constitution in STO, people simply refused to see how easily it can be made to work with minimal to no disruption to anything. The same is true with shields now in SE.

    In regards to reputation I had to make sure I read that right. So if a large portion of a game company's playerbase and customers are telling them "we want feature x and are willing to pay you for it," and the game company gives it to them they're sellouts and prostituting the game? By your logic anytime a game company has ever added anything to a game at player request they're prostituting their game. If Marek was out here adding every single idea to the game from every Tom, Dick, and Harry that offered him more than a dollar to add a feature to the game, then yes he would be prostituting the game, but that's not what he's doing, nor what is being asked of him and the crew at Keen. What is being asked by a majority of the customers is one singular feature they've wanted for years, shields. It's no different than the folks at CBS when everyone wanted an end game Constitution in Star Trek Online. When CBS gave the go ahead for the Constitution, it improved their rep as more folks saw it as them listening to customers, the rep of the game improved as having yet even more options for folks including many iconic ships, the players got the ship they had been asking about for years, and at the end of the day the company got to make a bunch of money in the process, thus everyone won. Those that wanted a Constitution had their ship, those that didn't want it didn't have to use it. The same would be true for Keen and SE if/when shields were added. And no I don't consider adding planets as prostituting the game. I consider it them fulfilling a desire of the playerbase.

    No they still had a choice of whether they were going to add it or not. As to why they would figure out yet not implement them the simple answer is the technical limitations. The planets don't rotate, we don't have orbital mechanics and similar features that one might expect a planet to have. When they found out they could do it, but with all of those technical limitations they could have decided not to add the planets based on that alone. They could have felt the planets felt too artificial. They gambled that folks wouldn't care about those technical limitations that much and cared more about simply having the planets to explore and do things with. We know today that they were largely correct in that assumption in regards to planets, but they very easily could have been wrong.

    The ability to add features is not in doubt at this point I wouldn't think. The rest of this particular line is moot.

    The game can function without every single feature you've named, however those features make it much more convenient. Without gravity generators folks could just mag boot onto the various objects. Artificial mass isn't even really needed at all as it just allows certain objects to be effected in a greater way by gravity and gravity generators. Jump drives also aren't needed as folks could simply fly wherever they wished normally, however interplanetary journeys would take ages. I would say they're needed to keep the game from feeling like a slog.

    In regards to Air and planets, once again the game could indeed function without them. In fact you yourself said previously you believe planets were added far too soon and wish that folks would've spent more time working with space only vessels and stations before going planetside. Planets were not needed to make the game believable as the name Space Engineers could just be chalked up to us working exclusively in space. Planets are not needed to make the game believable. They do however make the game much more fun by presenting their own unique challenges and build opportunities that otherwise would not be present. Air is also not needed to make the game believable as it can just be chalked up to us having advanced breathing systems in our suits that recycle the air as we breath out. As long as we keep our suit powered it will continue to let us breath. At the same time adding the oxygen system allows us to create pressurized spaces and life support systems with unique challenges of its own. This also allows us to keep the hydrogen tanks topped off and such in addition to giving us oxygen to breath. Overall it's more fun to leave them on. There's very few items that can't be argued against, and the ones you named are not it.

    In regards to shields, having them imo is more fun than not. Having them presents their own unique challenges as well. It grants an additional means of protecting your own structures and ships. Can you keep enough power to keep the shields running and will they be enough to help you stay alive and protect your structure from getting decimated? When attacking enemy installations and ships, did you bring enough firepower and manpower to get through the opponent's shields? Point being each feature or potential feature comes with its own challenges. Whether or not folks want to utilize each feature is up to them.

    I remember the two branches very well. Was an interesting time. In regards to Cython's mod since we're using it as the standard example at the moment, those shields are not invincible. If someone isn't properly protecting key areas of their ship or vulnerable systems then nothing they do will save them if they go against a superior builder or superior foe. The shields are not invincible and the superior foe will be able to get through them easily enough. The moment that happens it's over. Each new block type is going to open up new ways of building ships, with the half blocks being primary examples, this is nothing new. Every new block type opens up the possibility of more "pretty builds" as you would say. If it's really about covering for poor judgement, armor placing, and overall bad building and bad flying, then the shields won't matter as you'll be able to take that person down anyways with or without their shields. If that person with that "lesser" build and those poor decisions beats you (generalized you and not specifically you) then that tells me you weren't as prepared as you thought you were and/or aren't as good as you thought you were. If it's really as simple as you're saying in regards to bad flying, bad armor placement etc, then having shields will simply expose that problem even further as once the shields fail, their ships/station will be destroyed for the reasons you named. On the opposite end of the coin it will also make ships/stations that are already good just that much better. Gear means nothing if one does not have the skill to use it.

    At the end of the day that's ultimately a pvp based argument which is based purely in one's subjective opinions as to what pvp is or should be. In a game that has both pve and pvp like SE, pvp should never be allowed to dictate to those that have no interest in it and vice versa. By balancing around pvp only you make any feature impossible to balance. Instead like I said balance around individual block performance then ship it off to the players to adjust as they see fit for their purposes.

    I'm not saying SE should have shields simply because STO has them. I used STO as an example of how the arguments against the end game Constitution were no different than the arguments against shields here. In other words a comparative example as to just how baseless the arguments against shields are here and how easily they can be incorporated. Just like the folks who didn't like the end game Constitution in STO didn't have to get the ship, folks that don't like the idea of shields in SE won't have to use them. For the folks that didn't want the end game Constitution, there were already solutions in place, don't get the ship. Just like here in SE, folks that don't like the shields wouldn't have to use them. I'm personally not a fan of artificial mass blocks or rotors so I don't use them. I'm also not a fan of the wolves or meteor storms so I don't use them. Just because something exists in game does not automatically mandate its use. In Star Trek they didn't know what all was out there in space but still developed the shield systems to protect themselves just incase they did run across a dangerous situation or hostile alien faction.

    In regards to SE no the threats we're fighting may not be Borg or Klingon, but there are still threats, which is the entire point. A space pirate ship may not be the Borg or Klingons but they're still a threat and if I know that I may encounter such a threat, I'm going to want access to as many offensives and defensive technologies as I can get to guarantee if/when I do encounter such threat, I'm safe or as safe as possible. If I know that pirate has access to tech comparable to mine then that's going to make me want access to shields even more for just that added extra bit of protection. Likewise in regards to the work aspect, if you know an opposing faction has access to stronger and more powerful tools, you're also going to want access to tools of a similar nature. This kind of argument you're making is like saying "they're using the same kind of crappy light armor as you so why do you need heavy armor?" At the end of the day it changes nothing and makes the desire for shields no less valid.

    You're right about one thing, some arguments haven't changed. The arguments against shields are just as baseless and subjective now as they were then. Your entire argument boils down to "I don't like them so no one else should be able to use them," and also "we won't have them by then so they shouldn't be included." Both arguments have already been dealt with at length. If you don't want them turn them off, and what if we actually did have them. I point out by why your own logical standards set forth previously the poll is valid, now suddenly when realizing that you now call it an "unscientific straw poll." No it wasn't some super formal poll, but it's no less valid. Of the 100-150 people there on the stream those that didn't want shields were in the minority. Even giving a wide margin of error of +/- 10% due to it not being a formal poll, you were still in the minority. As to the comparisons I gave, once again they demonstrate the exact same thing going on here that was happening over there. Your arguments are word for word almost what the arguments against the end game Constitution was in STO. "The Constitution wouldn't be in service by that time." Replace the word Constitution with the shields and you have the exact same argument. Just as subjective there as it was here.

    As another pointed out just because you don't know of a technology doesn't mean it can't or doesn't exist. In just the past 20 years we have gone from using floppy disks to small jumpdrives and even SD cards. In just 20 years we have gone from 3.5 inch floppy discs that can only hold about 1.44 megabytes of data, to small SD cards that are barely as big as the average person's thumbnail that can hold in excess of 100 gigabytes of data. To put that into perspective it would take 711 floppy discs to equal just one gigabyte of data. Today you would need 91,022 floppy discs to equal the same storage capacity as the standard 128gb SD card. In just the last 10 years I watched as flash drives themselves went from storing only a couple gigs to several hundred. I still have my old laptop from 10 years ago that has a 250gb harddrive in it. Today I own a jump drive that has a 256gb capacity. Point being technology is advancing at an incredible rate. Simply because a technology doesn't exist now doesn't mean it can't in the future. Point being we don't know what we don't know or what we will have. Maybe we will have shields by 2077 in reality or a primitive form of them, maybe we won't. Only time will tell.

    It's no different than folks that choose to leave the oxygen system turned off, and yes there are a few folks out there who do that. We've already gone over why the shields could very well be standard as the only reason they're not now has been the unwillingness to add them. That same thing about the shields being the new shiny can be said about any feature in any game. Folks come in to see if they like new feature, some won't like it and will bounce out. Some won't care either way, and then some will love it. Either way numbers typically always go up for a brief time when games release something new before leveling back off. If they were to get implemented and I'm wrong, then I will admit that. Otherwise i stand by my points.

    Dude now you're grasping at straws on this one. As much as I may have wish they would have just thrown shields in at that point along with heavy armor, I know as well as anyone else that the first logical step for complaints about flimsy armor was to include a heavier variant of the armor. Even I would've tested the heavier armor variant before dropping the go for broke option which is shields. This is just logical problem solving.

    First off you don't win or lose in SE, you simply play and survive. Similar to Minecraft, Ark Survival Evolved, or Don't Starve, you don't "win" or lose, you simply play and survive. If something of yours gets destroyed you pick up the pieces and move on just like when you were a kid playing with blocks. There is no end to the game, it simply keeps going. An example of pay to win would be the 2017 Star Wars Battlefront 2 or Hearthstone where each game has a distinct start point and end point. There are clearly defined winners and losers at the end of each match. When Battlefront 2 first released you had to fork over cash in order to get anything done. Sure you could have went the free to play route, but it would have taken 40 literal years to unlock everything. The boxes in that game gave actual distinct advantages that you couldn't get any other way that let you win matches. With Hearthstone, Blizzard's card game based on WoW you can go the free to play route, but it will take you ages to make meaningful progress. Over there if you want to have even a snowball's chance in Hell of being competitive you have to shell out cash to buy the cards and be able to craft new ones.

    With SE all you're doing is paying for another block option in that scenario. There are no winners or losers. As for folks being against it, just like with the DLCs now, no one is going to hold a gun to their head and tell them to buy it or they're going to pull the trigger. The folks that want it the same as always will be able to buy it and those that don't won't have to. As the old saying goes vote with your wallet.

    We can go back and forth on this forever but the fact remains that one person's subjective preference should not be dictating to everyone else what we get to have in the base game, especially when it has ZERO effect on your ability to play. Like wise I could just as easily say "people that want oxygen should just download a mod or play with someone else that uses it." I personally don't like the idea of a hunger system but I'm not out here trying to stop it from happening. As long as I can turn it off and I'm not forced to participate I'm cool with one being added. My subjective dislike for most hunger systems is not valid enough reason that others should be denied having one in the base game just like yours is not valid enough reason to deny folks shields in the baseline game.

    Just saying, there's always going to be folks that look to abuse any feature and be "that guy" just because they can. This is nothing new. Doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    The argument that it's fine to put something in the base game as long as there's a way to turn it off (or on) seems like a fair one. After all, we have... several... choices to make when we start a fresh session. There are, in fact, highly requested features that became choices that today are rarely chosen. People wanted an environmental challenge. We got meteors. That's an option that rarely gets used these days. Cyber hounds and space spiders were requested features that rarely get used these days. They were hits when implemented, but as time wore on they became annoying. Air (and airtightness), on the other hand, was not highly requested, in fact caused a lot of people to quit, yet it is now standard practice to have it on.

    You say that Keen is denying us shields in the base game, because we asked for it and they said no. It's not like that. Keen deliberately placed the game in a time period where energy shields would be highly unlikely. There are a number of highly requested features that just don't fit the time period, such as energy weapons, teleporters, and wormhole portals. Those are all cool features that don't belong in a game that takes place in the current century. The features are not denied, because they can be incorporated into the game as mods. They're not in the base game because they don't belong, because the base game takes place in 2077. Hunger exists now, has existed throughout human history, and will conceivably exist at least until the end of this century. You don't have to make excuses for hunger or explain how it could happen. The thing about hunger is that it's way too easy to over-complicate the implementation, and it's poor implementation in other games is the basis for the resistance by fans for adding it to SE. Your argument for a simple pve implementation of shields has merit, I'll grant you. However, if you don't like Keen's heavy armor, you probably won't be impressed by their shields. Players that really, really want shields will end up using a mod, or a modded variety of Keen's shield. Keen's shields will eventually sit in the corner with meteors and spiders, and a lot of people that used to come here and claim Keen was just out for our money will be back.

    As I said earlier, I have built and tested a number of builds of all shapes and sizes over the course of nearly 9000 hours. The game's current weapons and physics have not forced me to consider shields. I have mods that I would like to see in the base game that I believe would be a nice non-controversial fit that would be much better additions than shields. Things like radar, conveyor hinges, airtight doors that reach out two-and-a-half and three and-a-half-blocks, 3x thru 6x armor ramps, 2x wheels, a ball-and-socket joint block, AI factions that don't just want you dead, "capital ship" engines and gyros. Shields? Meh.

    I see that Keen finds it necessary to hand out one million space credits in order to jumpstart trading. They said they did that to speed things up. It's difficult to find out how it's working out as not many people are streaming the playtest branch.
  6. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    That's been my argument from the start in regards to implementing shields. If/when shields were to be made baseline, those that want them can have them on, those that don't won't have to. I don't believe in forcing my preferences for game mode on people. In regards to the spiders and wolves, anytime I have talked to anyone who doesn't use them the chief complaint I got was you couldn't do anything with them. If you shoot down a pirate drone you could harvest what's left of it, but with a dog or a spider you don't get much of anything out of them. So it was more that they were there just to be a hazard and provided no real value other than to be a hazard. That's also the similar argument I hear against the meteor storms. With the meteor storms they always seem to drop on top of you no matter where you are with near deadly accuracy. If for example a meteor hits near you and you get to the crater, there's nothing there. If it left behind a small meteor rock that you could break up that could give trace amounts of the more rare ores such as platinum or one of the others, then folks would be more apt to leave them on and take the risk. Does one think the trace amounts of ore is worth the risk? In a nutshell the dogs, spiders, and meteor storms provided a potential negative consequence as they should, but at the same time provided little to no upsides. I tend to echo those sentiments as in their current form they provide little more than an annoyance. I do however leave the spiders turned on and trick, I mean encourage the new guys i recruit to explore the alien planet to fight the Great Tarantula. Not that I've ever done that :woot:. They're not bad ideas, they just need more to them than what they have now.

    In regards to air and airtightness I've actually seen several folks run without it. Personally I think they're missing out but meh. Ultimately it boils down to personal preference. With the shields they're not cheap to maintain which is part of their downside. Generally if you can get close enough to the target you can still grind it with a grinder even if the shields are up. The upside is that you get the extra protection.

    First off, saying shields don't belong or can't fit is purely your own subjective opinion and not established fact. To you they might not fit, but to me they do. We don't know what we will have in 2077 and what we won't until we get there. even then at the end of the day it's fiction and can be whatever folks want it to be. The game doesn't have to be 100% realistic to be fun. We've already been through this that some features/changes were made due to convenience or fun factor even if they "don't fit" with what we might have or what might exist. I highly doubt we'll have found space spiders by 2077, yet we have them in game. If enough customers tell a business "we want feature x because we think it would be fun and are willing to pay you for it," then it can be in their best interest to do it. We're not talking about adding every single idea from every Tom, Dick, or Harry that pops up, but a majority of customers saying "we want x." Again by your logic why add any feature to the game when we can just mod it in? In regards to hunger I can say that a hunger system doesn't belong in a game about engineering would detract from that. If you want a hunger system then go play Minecraft or Ark Survival Evolved. You keep harping on the whole "it's in 2077 and we won't have it by then" argument, which has been dealt with several times. In response to your argument I can just say "but what if we did," or the more obvious one, "we don't know what we will have until we get there," which is true, we don't know what we'll have.

    In regards to it not being added, what I said was that so far Keen has been unwilling to add shields. I didn't say they've outright said no in some kind of grand conspiracy. In regards to adding mods like I asked above, why add anything new when it can just be modded in? Like I pointed out with shields all you have to do is say someone figured out how to do it, and it would take minimal explanation. There's always going to be folks who accuse Keen of simply wanting our money no matter what they do. To some extents they are correct, Keen as a business wants to make money. However it's not for the nefarious reasons those folks hint at. Ultimately I pay those guys no mind as you're going to have those folks that accuse the company of being greedy, no matter what company it is or no matter what the game is. In regards to Keen's heavy armor, I've never said that their armor was poo. The only thing I said was that sometimes it can appear weaker due to what it's being hit with. Overall their heavy armor functions about as well as I would expect it to considering what it's facing. It actually performs as well as I expect it to. The shields probably would as well, and if not they can be adjusted. No different than adjusting weld speed or another setting. People mod virtually everything in the game now so that's not a valid argument against shields. Like any other feature, some will think it's poo and mod it, and some will think it's fine where it is.

    Like i've said this whole time, can the game function without shields, sure it can, just like it can function without a host of other features. However I still think having shields would be a fun addition. By the logic you're using, why should we have radar, or any of those other features you've named when they can just be modded in? Afterall folks that really really want them will just download a mod or so on. In my 1400 hours playing i've never been forced to use shields, however I like to have them. You don't like shields, I don't like hunger systems. However our own respective dislike of either feature means nothing in regards to why they should or shouldn't be added.

    Happens with virtually any game out there honestly and isn't restricted to just SE. When Star Trek Online redid their skill system several years back I put in 200+ hours with my crew helping the devs out. It can be a pain in the butt at times. We'll see I suppose.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Late Late x 1
  7. KissSh0t Master Engineer

    It would be kinda fun if when the player collects a good amount of gold then pirates would appear and try to steal it from the player, hehe... for singleplayer this would be one kind of interaction with an AI character that might be fun, then the player would have a reason to set up defenses for a base.

    Or maybe the player could become friendly with pirates and trade with them? selling gold for something in return *shrugs*

    A currency system allows for all sorts of interactions..... I'm kinda hoping this update will be good for singleplayer.
  8. Malware Master Engineer

    I don't think this is something that will actually hit vanilla. I'm almost certain it's done simply because of the low timeframe of the tests.

    Yeah. That kind of argument is laughably naive. Of course Keen wants our money. It's why they're making games. It's why any developer makes anything. Software development is stupidly expensive. We need to pay our bills.

    As for this whole shield discussion, I'm on the fence. I don't particularily like them, but I don't really dislike them either. If they were added I'd use them. Using the existence of gravgens and jump drives as arguments for, I simply ignore, because it's irrelevant. Lore-wise, they're very different technologies, the existence of one does not imply the existence of the other. Gameplay wise, they're stated concessions. They're required for the gameplay. Well.... tbh, the jump drive is required. The gravgen isn't quite as required any more since the appearance of planets (and to a lesser degree magboots) - but that's just my opinion, of course.

    I keep seeing discussions among people actually using (and making) shield mods that they are practically impossible to balance right with weapons. But even that is neither here nor there.

    Having observed the community and shield discussions over time... it seems like the community is split right down the middle when it comes to shields. There seems to be just about as many not wanting shields as there is people wanting them. Which makes it easy for Keen to apply their veto for their own opinion on the matter, and not make them. I'm quite certain that if the vote for shields really did vastly outnumber the votes against, that we would get them.

    Me, I won't be voting for shields - but I won't be fighting against them either.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  9. Spaceman Spiff Senior Engineer

    Maybe the player could buy a useful wench from the pirates? You know...to help around the kitchen.
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2019
  10. Ronin1973 Master Engineer

    So we get shields. But what does that really give us? Shields are used as a balancing tool in my opinion. Rather than rebalance blocks and weapons, the shield serves as a catch-all instead of rebalancing blocks.

    I don't think you can simply just add "shields." You'd have to recalibrate the game based on shields vs weapons. Armor would become a second line of defense and the game would have to be overhauled with this in mind.

    I'm not against shields. I just think you're solving one problem by creating two more.
  11. mojomann71 Senior Engineer

    Keen doesn't solve a problem without creating two more. :D
  12. KissSh0t Master Engineer

    • Like Like x 2
  13. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    We can debate as to how the numbers actually break down in being for shields or against. However from everything we've seen lately there has been more support for them than not. It took time before Keen finally gave us the ladder again as well. Simply because Keen didn't mention the ladders until they were practically here doesn't mean much. It simply means they don't always tell us what they have cooking until it's nearly ready. If it really is as split as you suggest, then regardless of what they do they're going to piss someone off. If they don't add the shields it will piss off the folks that want them. If they do add the shields it'll piss off those that didn't want them. In a case like that I would err on the side of giving folks the option and letting the community decide for themselves. I don't believe in holding back an optional feature alot of folks have been asking for just because the other side doesn't like it. If shields turn out to be a bad addition if/when they are added then I will admit I was wrong.

    Going to address these 2 bits at once since they follow similar lines of thought.

    The balancing argument is one I've seen before, which I get, folks are going to want to make sure they're not absurdly OP or absurdly underpowered either. This is the argument that I believe most folks overthink when it comes to shields. From the way you 2 are describing it suggests to me the balance is being done around a pvp situation or some other overly complicated mechanic, which you simply cannot do in a game like SE or similar games if you want real balance. This is why anytime I have ever produced a mod or map for any game I never balance around pvp. Way too many factors that can come into play, especially in a game like SE where the builds are limited purely by imagination and one's ability to crunch the data. In Star Trek Armada II, Timesplitters Future Perfect, Star Trek Bridge Commander, Jedi Academy, or any other game I have created stuff for, I never balanced around pvp or the like, but individual item performance. In Armada II as one example if I were designing a ship or a special weapon I put in the base stats for how I wanted it to perform baseline. In other words how much damage did I want the ship's weapons to be able to deal and how many hits did I want the ship to be able to take. In regards to a special weapon, how often did I want it to be fireable, how much damage did I want it to do per shot, and on down the line. If a ship or weapon felt too powerful or too weak, I would adjust as need be. In other words balance around individual block performance vs other individual blocks and not pvp.

    In SE the shields can be balanced easily just like a reactor was. With reactors the big question that had to be asked is how much power an individual reactor would supply on its own. If folks needed more power than a single reactor could provide, they could add additional reactors or adjust their build. This has been the standard with thrusters, oxygen generators, and a host of other blocks including armor blocks. Just to keep the numbers simple let's suppose a shield could take 500 units of damage before it failed and had to regenerate. Let's suppose the individual gatling shot did 7 points of damage, and the individual rocket did 15 points of damage. It would take roughly 71 shots of a singular gatling turret or 33 shots from a singular missle/rocket launcher to drop the shields. Additional turrets would speed this up as additional turrets means more damage going out, just as additional shields would slow it down. Once a shield has taken damage it begins to regenerate at 5% health every 10 seconds. These numbers aren't meant to be taken as gospel but simply examples of how simple it would be. The shield could prevent all damage until it fails, it could prevent all damage unless those blocks are grinded down similar to Cython's shields now. They could even be set to only stop 90% of incoming damage with a 10% bleedthrough similar to how Star Trek Online's shields do now. There's a ton of ways it could be done. Point being all that needs to be established is the individual performance of the shields themselves.

    Once that baseline has been established for the shields, Keen's work is done and it becomes a player problem. Folks can then add as many shields and/or weapons as they can run or feel they need. Unless some kind of super bug or exploit was discovered, no further balancing would be needed as the performance levels for vanilla weapons, armors etc, have already been established. If a block(s) is found to underperform or overperform, the problem block(s) could be adjusted without having to redo the entire game.

    It wouldn't be nearly as hard to balance as folks make it out to be.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  14. Malware Master Engineer

    They already existed. The only controversy involved was the fact that they were removed, and the only reason they were removed in the first place was because they couldn't get them to work right back then and didn't find them important enough to spend more time on. Cost/Gain. Now, after all the physics rework, that factor changed enough for them to readd them. The shields, however, they actively don't want - and to me, the fact that they don't always bend because their customers demands it, is an indicator towards them not being those cynical moneygrabbers we spoke of earlier. I find it a good thing generally, although they're also denying me what I have been fighting for all these years :p

    I certainly know that if I ever get my game going (unlikely) I won't have people telling me how my game is going to work, and what it is going to contain. I'd take suggestions, sure, because lots of suggestions would likely fit my world and what I'm trying to do, but lots would also simply not match what I want the game to be.

    Continuing the assumption of a roughly half split, actually adding them at this point will piss off people stronger than not adding them will, since not adding them is status quo and at this point it is a public fact that shields are not planned. Change invokes more emotion than no change. If the ladders never existed, they wouldn't have gathered so much support they became a meme.

    Keen doesn't like them. And since it is so split, they can easily use their veto to move the vote to "no". All of this is why the Want side needs to gather far more votes than the Don't Want side does. Because you're not just fighting against the Don't Want. You're fighting against the creators of the game and their own opinion on what should and should not be in their game. That's not an easy fight.

    Sad but true.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. chrisb Senior Engineer

    I know there is huge interest in SE being some sort of ED, but I see it as more 'engineering, exploration & survival'. Obviously KSH originally saw it as engineering with side fun of bashing things together. There is nothing wrong with their first thoughts, if indeed that was their first thought. ;)

    KSH took the game to another level with the introduction of planets, many players didn't want that and I can see why, they thought it took the game away from simply engineering, which was true.
    However I was, and still am, a massive fan of the planets in SE and supported their introduction. I just want larger versions to be vanilla (won't happen probably). Also would love to see PG planets as vanilla, rather than placing them.
    But it did take the game in another direction, but it was still a peaceful direction. They have even upped the survival side, which is good.

    Every space game it seems, needs to be about combat, but I hope that isn't where we end up with SE. The small'ish combat we have in survival at present is enough for me, I avoid it. Not really interested in combat in SE at all. But it would be hypocritical of me, after supporting planets, not to let other players support more combat, weapons etc.
    I just hope it doesn't go that way.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Ronin1973 Master Engineer

    Don't worry about PVP or multiplayer... that's basically what you said in a nutshell. That line of thinking has caused enough grief and issues in this game already.
  17. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    They could have just as easily left them out which is the point. If they added every single idea from every Tom, Dick, and Harry that were to ever pipe up I would agree they're cynical moneygrabbers, but that's not what has been suggested at all. I don't see adding a singular highly requested feature to the game as landing them in that cycnical moneygrabbing category but to each their own.

    Willingness to listen to customers can make or sink a game. if a company proposes to add a feature they think really fits the game, and a vast majority of folks are telling them "we don't want this" yet they do it anyways (looking at you EA and Battlefront 2) then it can do and probably will do extreme damage to the game. On the opposite end of that coin if a majority of folks are requesting a feature and the company just keeps ignoring them (looking at you again EA) then the customers/playerbase will eventually get fed up and move on to a different game since the company refuses to listen to feedback. Neither side always knows what is best.

    We'll see how this goes I suppose.

    No that's not even remotely close to what I said. What I did say is if/when shields were to be added, they need to be balanced around individual block performance and not pvp or some other situation if they want to have any hope of the shields ever being balanced at all. If using pvp, or anything other than individual block performance, as a measuring stick to balance shields (or any feature for that matter) you have a thousand and one questions to answer and it becomes nigh impossible. What kind of ship is being used, how much armor does it have, what kind of armor does it have, what kind of weapons does it have, how many weapons does it have, what if they're getting hit by more than one ship, what if the user has multiple reactors in play, and on down the line. Balancing around pvp is impossible in a game like SE because there are too many inconsistent factors at play which can wildly effect the balancing process and give skewed results. Instead the only viable solution is balancing around individual block performance and then making it a player problem. In the case of the reactor the question had to be answered as to how much power an individual reactor would supply. Beyond that point if folks need additional power they can add additional reactors. The same is true with heavy armor, or even light armor for that matter. The question had to be asked how much damage an individual armor block could take before ultimately failing. If folks require additional armor they can add more. Otherwise if Keen were to sit and try to balance around the thousand and one factors that can effect a pvp encounter, nothing would ever have a hope of being balanced.

    Once you have the individual performance of the block balanced this gives an even more stable performance for pvp and multiplayer as well. Folks can then add additional shields or weapons as they feel they need vs having to constantly worry if the block is going to be nerfed/buffed every 5 minuts (looking at you WoW pvp.) Balance around the individual block performance then ship it off to the players. From there it will come down to whoever has the superior build and piloting. If a particular block becomes a problem it can be adjusted at that time without the need for massive rebalances.
  18. mojomann71 Senior Engineer

    Kinda like the "visual update" they did. Was warned not a good thing...they (Keen) pushed forward anyway.... lol
  19. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    I wasn't even thinking about the visual changes but that's a prime example of what I was talking about. Visual changes did make some blocks look better but added a boatload of lag. Before hand I could run my giant starbase with no issue. now it lags like no other when i have to do more than basic adjustments to the base's position. Being able to adjust with feedback is vital.
  20. Malware Master Engineer

    Well that has never been Keen's problem. As long as the wishes has been within their view of what the game should be... pretty much the whole game is already based on what the community have wanted. We wouldn't even have ship tools, or solar power, or... heck, multiplayer, otherwise. And so, so much more. Keen's problem has, in my opinion, always been specifically that they listen too much to the community, leading them to trying to support all manner of play styles, leaving no resources to make any of them particularily good. In my opinion, they should have chosen one playstyle (although this would highly likely not match mine), and focus their resources on making that playstyle good, and left the rest to mods. It would have made for a much better game overall. Right now it is a terrible mishmash of uncommitted featurettes and functions that never really coalesced into something real. Lately they've been pulling back a little, but it's too little too late imo.

    That is neither what I said nor what I meant. I said indicator. Nothing else.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  21. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Well, it seems that it all boils down to what kind of game Space Engineers is vs what kind of game you want Space Engineers to be.

    I like to think I'm playing the game Marek Rosa and Keen Software House is making. The game that I perceive they have made is a sandbox building game that focuses on creation and exploration and takes place in the year 2077. This future world is based on the real world as we know it today and imagining what it would feasibly be like 60 years from now. That's kind of a tall order because the future is harder to imagine than we realize. In The Jetson's, video phones were a thing. So were phone booths. We have had the ability to make video calls since at least 1990 and it's still not a thing. My son has never seen a phone booth. What we get in the future does not follow a logical or reasonable path. We could have flying cars this afternoon, but we don't have them at all. We all carry powerful computers in our pockets, and we use them to play Candy Crush and to repost Tweets. We don't use them to make video calls, though, even though we can. Space Engineers is not a game about what might be possible in 60 years. It's a game about what's likely 60 years from now. Big difference.

    @Malware hit the nail on the head, though. The decision to add shields to the standard game rests with Marek. There's no technical hurdle to overcome. They could add them in a hotfix. Argue with me all you want, but it's Marek that needs to be convinced, and all indications are that he does not want them in. KSH constantly pours over data about who's buying and playing their game. They have access to actual numbers. They actually know how many people want shields vs how many don't vs how many don't care. Given that information, the next major update is about a trading system, not shields. When asked, "What can we add to the game that might attract more players?", the answer was economy, not shields.

    However, we all know that once this current update gets sorted out, the next major update is likely to be a weapons upgrade/rebalance, and it's possible shields might weasel their way into the mix. Probably lasers as well. After all, it's a sci-fi game. It's supposed to have those things. The other games do.

    What I don't understand, though, is the push to have Keen put these outlier features in the base game when high quality mods are available. Their argument is that if I don't like it I can just turn it off. My argument is that if they want them they can just add them. I'm not in favor of this "economy" update, but it won't bother me to see it in the standard game because even if it's on by default I probably wouldn't notice, or care. This update does not affect my approach to the game in any significant way. I think it's a bad idea, but I know I'm David facing Goliath and I don't even have a rock :D. Shields can't be ignored, especially in a multiplayer setting. If shields are in the standard game, people playing on servers will expect them to be enabled. Players will build ships and stations with shields in mind. I imagine there wouldn't be a single ship in the Workshop that didn't have shields, and they will be lighter and prettier than current Workshop offerings. It would be one thing to turn them off for my single player experience. It would be suicide to turn them off on my server. Players that brought their shield-inspired ships into a shield-less world would probably not like the experience. As it stands now, bringing their current builds into a world that has a shield mod enabled would be much less traumatic. Let there be no mistake though. Unlike other games, especially games where shields were part of the calculation from the start, if shields were standard in Space Engineers it would be stupid to build anything that wasn't shielded, unless you only play SP. In other games that have shields, you can have (not build) ships that don't have them, but those ships have other features that capitalize on the weaknesses the shields must have in order to be "balanced". In SE you can build ships that have no armor. Not even light armor. You won't find many on the Workshop, though. Most Workshop offerings are nothing but armor blocks :woot:. My ships don't sport much armor. I make up for that with tactics. If shields were standard, though, I would have them, because I assume Space Pirates would have them in my SP sessions, and on my server I know shields would make my human opponents... bolder. I could not, however, just turn them off.

    It still seems to me that the in-game currency is the least discussed feature of the economy update.

    I will say that I was confused about the trade zone shield. I thought it was part of the store block. I didn't realize the zone generator was a separate block. This means you can have the store feature and the contract feature without the zone. I'm probably mistaken about that, but if I'm not that means people believe it would be stupid not to have them. In the few games I was able to watch, it looked like building the zone block takes precedence over building the store block even though the store block is relatively easier. It seems to be the major reason it takes so long to get a trading post going. I never did find a stream where two human factions were trading. Mostly I saw players taking NPC contracts and buying components from NPCs that they didn't have the resources to make. I'm still curious as to how human factions will treat Space Credits.
  22. mojomann71 Senior Engineer

    The big question is, even if you had a large number of people on a server (which sadly for SE 60 = a large number), what good (value) are space credits really?

    To me it seems it would be like a game of monopoly when there are only 2 players... who ever is the "rich" one it doesn't really matter... lol
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. Calaban Junior Engineer

    well the scarcity of any ores at all in the test server may allude to the answer to that
  24. Ronin1973 Master Engineer

    I like that Keen is trying to put in some sort of gaming structure into the Sandbox. Will they be successful? Who knows. But I'm hoping that their effort builds hooks into the game where someone else can be.
  25. Roxette Senior Engineer

    Exactly. The game has been 'almost finished' so many times already, but then somebody kept deciding to move the goalposts. Maybe the next iteration will appeal to a new subset of players.
    • Like Like x 1
  26. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    I really think this "economy" thing is designed to appeal to SP games where all the trading and contracts are done with NPC factions. If you can't get your friends to play and you don't want anything to do with a server, you can play with the NPC's. Many players complain that there's "nothing to do" in a sandbox game where you're supposed to come up with that on your own. This update literally gives you something to do, and then "rewards" you for doing it. It also suggests to me that the Xbox version might be single player.

    Although one might only be able to get 60 players at a time at any one moment, you can still have hundreds of players in the same session over a period of time. The trading infrastructure seems to work, but it looks like it will take a long time, perhaps weeks, for any real human faction trading to actually occur, and it's difficult to ascertain what role space credits will play. I'm planning to use the store blocks and the contract blocks, but I also plan to ignore the space credits. Maybe I won't be able to. I guess I'll find out when the update releases.
  27. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    I'll grant you that, I've only had one or two moments where I've questioned their listening. My point was that it goes both ways feedback wise and they need to be able to do both. They don't need to add every single suggestion ever, but they do need to be willing to consider adding the practical ideas that the majority of folks want to see. I don't think I need to elaborate because you seem to have understood what I was going for.

    I do have to ask the question since you brought it up. If you feel the features aren't that well put together and such, why still play? I've never understood why folks continue to play if they feel a game has that many issues. That's not meant to be a swipe but a legitimate question.

    Fair enough. If I have misunderstood then that's my bad and I apologize for that.

    With that in mind I don't think some stuff is as bad as folks make it out to be but meh.

    If shields were added it would mean that Marek and Keen thought that they should be in the game. In regards to tech we actually do have video calls and such now. Ever hear of Skype? It's not a hologram type call like you see on Star Wars but still a video call. I will grant you that we've not came up with that great of uses for technology. I don't get the Candy Crush fascination either since it's just a modern Bejeweled clone. Video calls may not be as common as depicted in earlier cartoons but they do still occur. We can keep debating about what we will have and what we won't but it's ultimately a moot point. Lastly on this particular point there's also a large difference between having a flying car this afternoon vs possibly having one in 60 years. Based on our own past 60 years we don't know for certain what we will have and what we won't. What may not be very likely today may be very likely tomorrow. Point being we don't know and it boils down to personal preference at this point.

    I've never said he and Keen didn't need to be convinced. What I have been saying is if enough folks say they want it, and perhaps even some of his own employees say they want it, then perhaps he will in fact give the green light.

    In regards to economy vs shields, folks can want and advocate for more than one thing at a time. Wanting one feature or the other is not mutually exclusive. I would also love to see rotary doors and some type of armored window added to the game. The rotary door would allow for far cleaner looking airlocks than the doors we have now allow for, both aesthetically and engineering wise. Armored windows similar to the look of the bed block would allow for more structurally sound windows both looks and aesthetics wise. They would still allow you to see out without being as weak as standard windows can be. Also wouldn't mind seeing some kind of tool rack type block either. Now just because I would like to see those other blocks doesn't mean I have given up my desire for shields, it simply means there's more than one type of block/item I would like to see at some point.

    Keen does have access to far more numbers on various states of affair within the game's community, far more than you or I have access to. When asked what feature could be added next, folks chose economy because it would have a far greater impact on the game than shields ever could flying solo. Both features grant options to people, both are features that were asked for, and both will have a large impact on the game. However when comparing the 2 economy gives more content and is far more reaching than the shields would ever be purely on their own. Economy brings with it something that quite a few folks have said was missing for quite some time, a reason to adventure out into the world, as well as a host of new options on how to progress in your world. Do you want to go purely mine/refine/build, do you want to purely progress via trading, or do you want to mix things up and do a little of both. It also makes the world feel less deserted as now there are other structures we can go to. Ultimately it improves the world and gameplay as a whole and gives us new things to visit and new ways to interact with other players even. Shields are great, and will give additional building options and an additional offensive/defensive system to include in builds, but don't expand the game in the way economy does. Shields don't make the world feel more lively, they give you more options for your builds, but don't open up completely new styles of building and play like economy does.

    In other words, economy gives you new stuff to do while expanding on some things we already have, giving us new things to explore, new means of interacting with folks and factions, and completely new ways to play a faction. Shields are great and give new build options, but on their own simply do not give you what economy does. Economy breaths new life into the world and expands on what already exists, which is great. Shields allow for new means of offensive/defensive building, but ultimately do not expand the game and world to the degree economy does. When comparing economy vs shields, economy expands the world as a whole, Shields slightly expand offensive/defensive builds but ultimately their main purpose is to protect what's already there. Both expand on what we have, but economy expands far greater than shields do.

    Taking all that into account I don't blame people for picking the economy over the shields. This doesn't mean everyone suddenly stopped wanting shields, it simply means they picked the option that would give them more immediate content and more bang for their buck.

    I can tell you exactly why alot of folks push for certain features to be put into the vanilla game even though there are mods available. There's 2 very big reasons that are fairly simple. Where as you or I generally may not give 2 craps about slapping a mod on if it's something we like, there are those who are rabidly anti-mod or simply refuse to use mods. That in and of itself could be broken down into a ton of other reasons why folks refuse to use mods, with one of the most common being that it feels like they're cheating. Regardless of their reason for not using mods or refusing to use them, folks will ask certain features they like to be part of the base game based on the fact they don't like to use mods. The other chief reason alot of folks push for stuff to be added to the base game is due to mod/feature support. Over time mods that aren't maintained can break and if they do there is no guarantee the mod author will even come back to fix the mod, especially if it's an older one. Mods that have been integrated into the base game typically have far better feature support than those that are not. If something with it breaks after it's been added to the base game, it typically will get better support. If it breaks in the mod stage there is no guarantee of support. If no support is given and the mod remains broken, then you've just lost that feature. At that point if the mod author won't come back and fix it, then your only hope is someone will make a mod just as good or better than the previous one, and you have no guarantee of that. Until that time comes, assuming it does at all, you are without a feature. That's why alot of folks push for features to be made part of the base game in a nutshell.

    In regards to shields being ignored, that's where you're 100% completely wrong. You can absolutely ignore their existence if you choose to. Simply because a block or feature exists does NOT mean you are required to use it. I personally don't use rotors very often if ever. Not because they're bad blocks, but for the simple fact that I don't care for them that much and have yet to find something I would want to use them for. This coming economy update is a prime example of this. Some folks will use it and some won't. Simply because the feature exists doesn't mean folks will be required to use it. It will have a toggle option that can be turned on or off at will. Shields would be the same way, toggle them on if you want them, toggle them off if you don't. Simply because I would choose to have the economy turned on does not mean the guy down the street would be required to have economy enabled for his world/server. The same would be true with shields.

    I've seen you say you want to run a server or perhaps already have one by now based on this bit of quotation. Regardless you are free to customize your server as you wish and install as few mods or as many as you want. You are also free to enable or disable whatever feature you want. It honestly sounds like you need to play with like minded people who like you don't want shields. But again that's your problem and not the community's problem. If/when shields were to come out no one is going to hold a gun to your head and tell you to turn them on or they're pulling the trigger. And if you did have that happen then I would say you've got much bigger problems to worry about than shields in a video game. In Ark Survival Evolved I play with a fair collection of mods. Some people play with more, some people with less. At the end of the day it all depends on personal preference and if you're playing with like minded folks.

    In regards to shields on builds, legitimately I have to ask, why do you care what other people put up on the workshop and do? As for shields on ships to suggest every single ship will have shields is simply not true. Some will and some won't. Shields won't be practical for every single build, especially certain A wing style builds. If one is building a ship operating on principles of the A-Wing. You'll want something that can get in, pop off some damage and roll. This means making it as light as you can and as fast as you can without sacrificing firepower. A shield would be nice for defense, but if it has enough speed already, then it won't need the shields. If it does get tagged, then that's what key bits of armor are for in a build like that. And if it gets hit in those key areas of the ship, then the pilot won't last long enough to wish he had shields. To say you simply must run shields because someone else does is like saying "I've gotta jump off this cliff because this guy did it too." For shield weaknesses, i already explained how easy that is to deal with. A simple example is a bleedthrough on shields. It stops 90% of damage but 10% still leaks through. That's just one example.

    Overall we'll see how this economy update goes. In regards to shields though I still say you're way overthinking it.
  28. mojomann71 Senior Engineer

    Oh it is a thing...Facetime app, I go on break or lunch at least 70% of people are using it on their phones. The other 30% are texting or playing some type of game...kinda sad really when you think about it..
  29. Malware Master Engineer

    Well, obviously I can only speak for myself here, and I'm not sure I'm a typical example. In short though, "not well put together" does not mean "unplayable" to me. Just "could be a lot better".

    To elaborate:

    I don't let the issues bother me that much. Because I still enjoy the game - although I don't play it anywhere near as much as I used to. I play single player exclusively though, which is an important factor, because that means I don't have a fraction of the technical issues the people playing multiplayer has. I enjoy what little is there, I enjoy what does work. Like the building mechanic. As a programmer I also enjoy the scripting aspect of the game. I will not deny that without the Programmable Block I would probably have left this game behind a long time ago.

    I suspect my patience with issues has something to do with the fact that I'm a professional programmer myself. I dunno. I have a certain understanding of the complexity of the game, how difficult it has been for Keen to make, and their lack of resources vs what they're trying to do. This is specifically the basis of my opinion on how they should have organized their work.

    Even though I didn't think it would really be my thing, this economy stuff is a step in the right direction imo. It's another thing to do, at least.

    Wow, that was a ramble, I hope that was at least somewhat understandable :D
    • Like Like x 2
  30. Ronin1973 Master Engineer

    The programmable block is definitely a quality of life block. It makes possible many of the features that are missing from the base game. MMaster LCDs, auto leveling scripts (necessary for in-atmosphere multi-grid ships), etc.
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.