Random thoughts

[THE_TrashMan]

1. Engines/thrust.
Yes, I know manouvering thrusters have already been suggested. And yes, I know that some hate the idea as that would force them to re-design their ship. But there may be a way around it.

Simply put - move engine types.
A gravitic engine has no direction and works like the current engine, but it's weaker (you can even play with it's effectiveness depending on proximity to a planet)
A thrust engine provides thrust depending on where it's pointing. No more stopping without having retros.

I know some will say it will only complicate design, but a) it's not rocket science and b) you're making starship, it's not supposed to be simple



2. Reactors. The way they work favors long, rib-like structures. That makes sense for radiators if you want to get rid of heat, and I realize it was probably done to prevent a single big clump behind heavy armor, but it's gone too far in the other direction. Something that favors multiple smaller clumps (reactors) would IMHO make more sense and be better.

 

[Nickizzy]

1. Engines/thrust.
Yes, I know manouvering thrusters have already been suggested. And yes, I know that some hate the idea as that would force them to re-design their ship. But there may be a way around it.

Simply put - move engine types.
A gravitic engine has no direction and works like the current engine, but it's weaker (you can even play with it's effectiveness depending on proximity to a planet)
A thrust engine provides thrust depending on where it's pointing. No more stopping without having retros.

I know some will say it will only complicate design, but a) it's not rocket science and b) you're making starship, it's not supposed to be simple



2. Reactors. The way they work favors long, rib-like structures. That makes sense for radiators if you want to get rid of heat, and I realize it was probably done to prevent a single big clump behind heavy armor, but it's gone too far in the other direction. Something that favors multiple smaller clumps (reactors) would IMHO make more sense and be better.

[1.] yes, an alternate, more optimized engine type is how we would do this. Bonus points if grouping it in a prism facing in the direction gives if more power.

[2.] Eh. I can sorta get what you mean, but the amount of revision and redoing out would take to make not much change. The grouping system is something that we really can't change at this point. It's just to fundamental to change without breaks every ship larger than a few blocks.

 

[JinM]

First: Don't suggest 2 things at once but do one suggestion and give it a clear title. No one will find this one again if he uses the seach: no tags no clear headline. Also it just makes discussing the matter amazingly difficult when you have 2 topics to handle instead of just one.
[doublepost=1476279923,1476279558][/doublepost]But I like the first idea in some way. I would suggest instead of a gravitational thruster to have a gyroscope block that impacts the turning speed.

Having a fixed thruster setting by the placement of each thruster block will never be thing, because it's just no fun to adjust every single thruster when you placed allready 5000 of them. Makes sense in other games where you only build small ships and have objects that take more several blocks of space at once if placed on a ship (so you place a big thruster and it uses a 3x3 space instead of one), but in Starmade it just doesn't work.

Maybe one day the devs introduce objects that expand over multiple blocks, like a reactor that needs a 5x5 space and a thruster that needs a 10x10 space. That would be the keycard for directional thruster placement.
[doublepost=1476280381][/doublepost]Ok now that I think about it: Why not (here it comes) have a fixed thruster setting by the placement of thruster groups relative to its center of mass!
That solves like 10 problems at once:
- It actually matters where you put the thrusters.
- If you don't place thrusters at the side you actually have no side ways thrust.
- People that only place thrusters all over the ship can not achieve the highest speed. (I do that very often: Filling empty spaces with thrusters if I made the initial engine space too small.)
- Suddenly the enemy knows that a ship will definitely move slower if its backside gets hit.

Also, if possible: The farther away the thruster is from the center of mass, the higher the thrust bonus.

 

[Malacodor]

Ok now that I think about it: Why not (here it comes) have a fixed thruster setting by the placement of thruster groups relative to its center of mass!
That solves like 10 problems at once:
- It actually matters where you put the thrusters.
- If you don't place thrusters at the side you actually have no side ways thrust.
- People that only place thrusters all over the ship can not achieve the highest speed. (I do that very often: Filling empty spaces with thrusters if I made the initial engine space too small.)
- Suddenly the enemy knows that a ship will definitely move slower if its backside gets hit.

Also, if possible: The farther away the thruster is from the center of mass, the higher the thrust bonus.

This only makes sense if it is enforced, that the nozzle side of thrusters must be exposed, which would irreparably ruin a lot of designs.

 

[JinM]

This only makes sense if it is enforced, that the nozzle side of thrusters must be exposed, which would irreparably ruin a lot of designs.

Thats not my saying, why expose them? Its the middle thing between putting some armor layers between the engines and the space, and exposing them fully. Also, why not give very agile fighters this debuff of having this weak points?

And finally: I want some change to happen, and if this change would happen I would welcome it.

Also I totally disagree with the "it would ruin a lot of designs" argument. I dont even have to explain why, its to plain easy to understand why this is not a valid argument.

 

[Malacodor]

Thats not my saying, why expose them? Its the middle thing between putting some armor layers between the engines and the space, and exposing them fully.

If thrusters don't have to be exposed, it doesn't matter where they are, unless you want to realistically factor in each thruster block's force vector, which would turn shipbuilding into real rocket science. If position doesn't matter, we could simply rotate some of our thrusters and had the same effect as we have already with the thrust settings, just far more inconvenient and annoying.

Also I totally disagree with the "it would ruin a lot of designs" argument. I dont even have to explain why, its to plain easy to understand why this is not a valid argument.

Because yours aren't affected?

 

[JinM]

If thrusters don't have to be exposed, it doesn't matter where they are, unless you want to realistically factor in each thruster block's force vector, which would turn shipbuilding into real rocket science. If position doesn't matter, we could simply rotate some of our thrusters and had the same effect as we have already with the thrust settings, just far more inconvenient and annoying.


Because yours aren't affected?

Ey man relax, I like you. But I disagree with you. I have the problem so be very direct sometime when I disagree, but I try to stay to the facts and don't generalise like "coz my ship is not affected". As the topic is not so important to everyone, I think I dont bother to explain now why. Just had this long discussion stuff last time and I don't want to piss anyone off again.

 

[Malacodor]

Ey man relax, I like you. But I disagree with you. I have the problem so be very direct sometime when I disagree, but I try to stay to the facts and don't generalise like "coz my ship is not affected". As the topic is not so important to everyone, I think I dont bother to explain now why. Just had this long discussion stuff last time and I don't want to piss anyone off again.

Pardon that comment, please.