Thrust, A different idea

[Asmael]

Well, if you want to be realistic, you shouldn't be able to go backward in space. I mean, cars can go backward because the wheels go backward and have friction. It does make sense to be able to turn (if the left part of your engines is on you go right, if the right part of the engines is on you go left). Directional thrusters does make sense, so... Aye, got my support :3

As for the "you need to put this block on the surface of your ship for it to be effective"... same answer: no. Lots of people use crystals/lava/shiny stuff for engines, want to keep it that way :3 Engines can be soooo sexy sometimes.

 

[Fiddlejam]

This game isn't built around realism, it's built around fun. I'd prefer that space friction stay as the default. If you want, you can turn it off. Right now. It's a thing you can do in the config file.

Well, one has to admit that the current system is a bit lackluster. We essentially have the choice between turning it on, giving flying a bad feeling, and turning it off, having unmanned ships flying infinitely. It would really be better to have a option without friction, but with automatic slowdown.

 

[Lenier]

The new ship design would be a very wide or tall ship built around the X or Y axis, allowing for a fast 180°-pitch or 180°-yaw.

I think that is a problem with the current calculations used for pitch and yaw. Also, this ship would still only be able to move on a plane, as it would take a while to rotate up/down if the ship is tall. Also, having a really tall ship means that you have tons of surface area to get shot at front on while attacking. Your ship would always have a long side facing your opponent, whereas having a normal configuration means that while approaching you have the advantage, but once you get too close, you lose this advantage. Also, if the blocks that build up max speed need to be behind the thrusters, depending on how it is balanced, the engines may need to be long in order to achieve server max-speed.

Does this make sense? Am I missing something?

Yes, but what if you want space-ships to be like cars...

It is very hard to find a mechanic that limits stupid builds but still allows for creativity. We are ultimately not discussing realism here, but simply what would make the game-play better. I think that realism is better in general because I think it would be cool to have more systems-based battles. Right now there is no easy way to disable a ship other than blowing up the core. It would be much cooler and much more fun if you could detect where systems were on your opponent and disable them. Visible and realistic engines would begin to add this dimension to battles. I mean, building ships is cool, but balanced and multidimensional fighting with ships may be even cooler. As long as realism is as optional as aesthetics, our ship battles will necessarily be one-dimensional because there will be little to no predictability other than the indicator over the core. I would love to see some of these as options in the config file but I am not sure some of these ideas could be coded to be optional. maybe.

 

[ltmauve]

For damping, how about damping only occurs at low speeds. It won't affect youif you want to cruise in realspace, means that bumped ships won't keep going, and you could sen out probes that just keep going (as long as the sectors are loaded)

 

[Valiant70]

This game isn't built around realism, it's built around fun.

I'm sick of seeing this and it's beginning to make me angry. If the game completely forsakes any semblance of sensible sci-fi for the sake of "better" gameplay, I will stop playing and regret buying/supporting the game. Moderate realism is fun. Stupid, arbitrary physics and/or restrictions that make no sense whatsoever are not fun.

Space does not cause friction unless you're carrying some really weird device that somehow "drags" on the space-time continuum transforming your forward speed into some other form of energy. Space friction is bad scifi, and my number one peeve with many, many science fiction games. It needs to be depreciated (turned off by default) and replaced with a well-thought-out automatic braking system. (By braking, I mean that the ship uses the thrusters to bring it to a halt, not some imitation of the friction brakes on an automobile.) I have seen no argument to this date that is capable of refuting this position. Please stop supporting space friction. You may turn it on in your configs if you like flying in mineral oil instead of empty space.

 

[NeonSturm]

Never seen liquid space in StarTrek when the Borg tried to conquer the dimension of species 8472 (hope I didn't confuse the numbers...)? :D

I think what peoples which support space friction want is a game that is basically "A sea of Stars with naval cruisers in 3D environment".
They want to build 3D without having to care about aerodynamics but having some aerodynamic-based mechanisms (particular: turn also redirects move direction and better breaking)

What is wrong about wanting to have the best of all worlds, dimensions, fantasy and sci-fi, ...? Nothing, but it is bad if peoples which want realism and peoples which want this fantasy-universe (think they have to) fight over a single game that is able to implement everything, but has just a single (code) developer.

 

[Valiant70]

"A sea of Stars with naval cruisers in 3D environment"

You have just defined the number one pet peeve of a great many players. There are a lot of games already like this. Many players like myself are getting desperate for something remotely realistic. I played Vega Strike for a long time until development apparently ground to a halt.

 

[Lenier]

In light of current conversation:

To get this back on track and address the issues involved, I think that both sides have something to them. The game is a game and is nothing but a game.

That being said, realistic mechanics when applied well will not destroy gameplay. I am here for a realistic sci-fi game not because I like realism but because it is FUN to play a realistic and creative sci-fi game instead of an unrealistic semi-sci-fi game.

Now: I think space breaking is ridiculous not only because it is unrealistic but because it actually makes the game more one-dimensional. Right now we have one engine moving the ship in every direction. We also can hide this engine inside our ship. If the engines had to be specialized it would add more strategy, more creative ideas, and more fun. If the engines had to show it would add more difficulty, more realistic creativity, but also more depth to space-battles, and thereby more fun.

agree?

 

[AsherMaximum]

In light of current conversation:

To get this back on track and address the issues involved, I think that both sides have something to them. The game is a game and is nothing but a game.

That being said, realistic mechanics when applied well will not destroy gameplay. I am here for a realistic sci-fi game not because I like realism but because it is FUN to play a realistic and creative sci-fi game instead of an unrealistic semi-sci-fi game.

Now: I think space breaking is ridiculous not only because it is unrealistic but because it actually makes the game more one-dimensional. Right now we have one engine moving the ship in every direction. We also can hide this engine inside our ship. If the engines had to be specialized it would add more strategy, more creative ideas, and more fun. If the engines had to show it would add more difficulty, more realistic creativity, but also more depth to space-battles, and thereby more fun.

agree?

Space friction, yes, it doesn't make sense. I would prefer a braking system that stopped the ship when players exited the core or (hopefully) upcoming cockpit chairs. If possible, it would be nice to have the option to also not apply the brakes while a player was in gravity on the ship, but not in the core/cockpit.

I can never get behind forcing the engines to show though. Yes, maybe that is unrealistic, but maybe instead of thinking of the thrusters as what creates the movement, think of them as the power plant that powers something else that creates movement.
Either way, it just would not be cool to need to have thrusters showing for them to work. If that was in place, ships like this would never work.

Spoiler: Charon Titan

Ok, how's this engine configuration looking?

I still need to do a LOT to make that fit in there, but that's really the basic engine config (all hail copy paste).

 

[FunnyBunny14]

The thrust system only makes sence if the turning speed finally gets based on mass.
Oh, and docking modules also should be based on mass.

 

[Lenier]

I see the issue. Maybe there should be blocks that amplify thrust. that would give the crystals and/or lava blocks more of a point than aesthetics. I just hate the idea that people can put a block of engines in the middle of their ship along with all of the other systems, and then put a cube around it. If the engines show in some way, then it makes space combat so much more interesting. I can not stress this enough. System based combat is infinitely more interesting/realistic/creative/cool/fun then core-killing based combat. Right now engines are simply not targetable because they are invisible. I want that to change, and design/mobility/creativity to follow it. The price for a better game is creating a reasonable boundary for creativity. There are still tons of options for the artists.

 

[Valiant70]

I see the issue. Maybe there should be blocks that amplify thrust. that would give the crystals and/or lava blocks more of a point than aesthetics. I just hate the idea that people can put a block of engines in the middle of their ship along with all of the other systems, and then put a cube around it. If the engines show in some way, then it makes space combat so much more interesting. I can not stress this enough. System based combat is infinitely more interesting/realistic/creative/cool/fun then core-killing based combat. Right now engines are simply not targetable because they are invisible. I want that to change, and design/mobility/creativity to follow it. The price for a better game is creating a reasonable boundary for creativity. There are still tons of options for the artists.

If you force thrusters to show, it will be mandatory (mandated by player base) to have a way to make them look like or similar to the decoration blocks (crystals, etc) currently used for cosmetic thrusters. Right now exposed thrusters look horrifically ugly on most ships.

 

[Lecic]

Well, one has to admit that the current system is a bit lackluster. We essentially have the choice between turning it on, giving flying a bad feeling, and turning it off, having unmanned ships flying infinitely. It would really be better to have a option without friction, but with automatic slowdown.

On Automatic Slowdown- things that don't have engines still fly away forever. I would still like to see an option for making your ship slow down without a pilot (probably something you'll be able to do when/if we get coding, or even with improvements to the logic system) for those who chose to play without friction.

I've never had a problem with the default space friction. It doesn't feel like "oil" as so many would suggest. The default value has even been lowered to account for thrusters being slightly weaker than they used to.

I see the issue. Maybe there should be blocks that amplify thrust. that would give the crystals and/or lava blocks more of a point than aesthetics. I just hate the idea that people can put a block of engines in the middle of their ship along with all of the other systems, and then put a cube around it. If the engines show in some way, then it makes space combat so much more interesting. I can not stress this enough. System based combat is infinitely more interesting/realistic/creative/cool/fun then core-killing based combat. Right now engines are simply not targetable because they are invisible. I want that to change, and design/mobility/creativity to follow it. The price for a better game is creating a reasonable boundary for creativity. There are still tons of options for the artists.

And I just hate the idea of being forced to put exposed engines all around my ship as if the game was Space Engineers.

We are getting system based combat in the future with the HP system. And it's not like people are just going to scatter individual thrusters all over the ship, you'll still be targeting a specific spot. Most people use the aesthetic engines on their ships to hold their actual engines, anyway.

I see no way for this to improve how creative people can build their ships. It imposes pointless restrictions over how we can build.

I prefer the percentage system that is currently planned.

 

[Valiant70]

It doesn't feel like "oil" as so many would suggest.

Yes, it does feel like flying through low-viscosity oil. That is one of the best ways to describe it. The fact is that many players, myself included, find a certain degree of realism fun and immersing, and space ships do not slow over time when flying through vacuum.

 

[Lenier]

About slowing: I agree that ships should have an auto-slowdown function built into their computers when there is no pilot or person on the ship. This is only reasonable. With a pilot, i prefer free movement with player controlled breaking.

About thrusters: considering the opposition I feel like maybe I should pose my suggestion in a different way.
We should add a new type of engine which is "conventional rocket" engines. Then this could be balanced with the current engine system, adding a dimension to battles. Thrusters are more powerful for less blocks and are less expensive, but they are one directional and must be exposed. We now have a good system for small evasive fighters or large noncombatant freighters, and a system for midrange and large ships that have the power and money for gravity-based thrust units: the current engines.

Is this better?

 

[Lecic]

About slowing: I agree that ships should have an auto-slowdown function built into their computers when there is no pilot or person on the ship. This is only reasonable. With a pilot, i prefer free movement with player controlled breaking.

About thrusters: considering the opposition I feel like maybe I should pose my suggestion in a different way.
We should add a new type of engine which is "conventional rocket" engines. Then this could be balanced with the current engine system, adding a dimension to battles. Thrusters are more powerful for less blocks and are less expensive, but they are one directional and must be exposed. We now have a good system for small evasive fighters or large noncombatant freighters, and a system for midrange and large ships that have the power and money for gravity-based thrust units: the current engines.

Is this better?

It seems like a pointless addition. A similar game, Space Engineers, needs thrusters on the outside. However, building is much different in that game. 100m is a decently large ship, and thrusters work differently.

I feel that thrusters depending on their direction doesn't fit in with Starmade, and that adding another type of thruster that is one directional wouldn't add much or anything to the game.

 

[Valiant70]

Well, if you want to be realistic, you shouldn't be able to go backward in space. I mean, cars can go backward because the wheels go backward and have friction. It does make sense to be able to turn (if the left part of your engines is on you go right, if the right part of the engines is on you go left). Directional thrusters does make sense, so... Aye, got my support :3

You can go backward the same way you go forward or any other direction. Remember, a space ship is not like a sailing ship. It has nothing preventing it from moving an any direction so long as the thrusters can move it in that direction. (Hyperflux coils are omnidirectional so this is currently not an issue. All ships can move equally well in any direction.)