Please stop penalizing 'roleplaying' builds

    Joined
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages
    923
    Reaction score
    292
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Purchased!
    • Thinking Positive
    I would like to build and fly ships which others find attractive to look at, that are believably interesting. I would like to be able to play on a 'roleplaying' server where the look of a ship is paramount. However the actual game mechanics actively deter me from doing so, and unnecessarily so.

    The bottom line is that big, heavy ships are absolutely no fun to fly. Their acceleration is abysmal and they turn so slowly it is downright painful. Beautiful 'roleplaying' ships require significantly larger amounts of both size and mass to build than ships built without such regard, and so the roleplaying ships are slower and turn much more sluggishly than for instance, a 'battle cube'. (A cube contains the most volume for the least amount of hull armor, another reason for which the existing game mechanics reward such building.)

    I propose two very easy to implement changes to address this. Make turn rate much less dependent on size and much more dependent on mass. This will partially remove the disincentive to including the space required for beautiful builds. The other crucial change is to make decorative blocks, those blocks that have no other function on a ship other than making it pretty, have zero or otherwise extremely low mass. I should not be forced to accept less enjoyment from flying a ship in order to make it nice to look at.

    Crucially; basic hull, not the armored versions, should have it's mass reduced to near zero and it's HP value similarly reduced. It's function aught to be to create shapes and colors, not to turn your ship into a slugboat.

    In short, blocks that contribute to the combat power of a ship should continue to do as they do, add mass, making the ship harder to fly and less responsive. This is necessary to balance their power. It is NOT necessary to do the same for construction that does NOT add to combat power.

    As things stand now, you want the maximum amount of ship in the least amount of volume, as volume directly translates into reduced maneuverability. You also want the maximum amount of ship volume covered by the least amount of hull mass, so as to protect the most with the least armor. In a game that allows for random PvP (griefing), to fly around in anything not designed for maximum combat power is just begging for ruined days.

    Yes, your 50K mass roleplaying ship is tough, but it is nowhere near as tough as a 50K mass battle cube. This must change.
     
    Last edited:

    Thalanor

    CEO Snataris Colonial Fleetyards
    Joined
    Sep 10, 2013
    Messages
    818
    Reaction score
    708
    • Master Builder Bronze
    • Thinking Positive
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    There has been a very similar suggestion a few days back (basic hull -> 0 mass and 0 hp, does not despawn the projectile on hit). I heavily support this. Wing(let)s, nacelles, complex surfaces (with ALOT of surface area in a small space), greebling, fraking *interior* - all of that would really benefit.
     

    mrsinister

    Xenophage
    Joined
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages
    479
    Reaction score
    143
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Legacy Citizen 9
    Shame the thrust block still doesn't help turn rate when facing toward the center from the left and right (directional Thrust Block). I would be happy with a server config option to have: thrust block - if over mass of ship % = increased turn rate %
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages
    923
    Reaction score
    292
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Purchased!
    • Thinking Positive
    Shame the thrust block still doesn't help turn rate when facing toward the center from the left and right. I would be happy with a server config option to have: thrust block - if over mass of ship % = increased turn rate %
    I 100% support build options to help us with turn rate. Nothing frustrates me more than having to spend 30 seconds dragging my mouse just to be able to line up with an asteroid. However while this suggestion goes a long way towards aiding with that, it is not specifically a discussion about 'actively' improving turn rate but rather helping to mitigate the circumstances that lead to a bad one in the case of roleplay/elegant designs.

    I heartily encourage you to start a thread about active systems to improve turn rates.
     
    Joined
    Jul 15, 2014
    Messages
    506
    Reaction score
    111
    I think keeping box dimensions for turn rate will still work, I just feel that the upper limit before you hit 1.0 should be increased, so 100-200 or so metre ships handle better than they do, but 500m or so ships are still as sluggish.
     
    Joined
    Feb 17, 2014
    Messages
    60
    Reaction score
    8
    It would be nice if some sort if "directional" thrusters were implemented to combat the turning issue. That way, how your ship performs is totally dependent on how you build it. Please no hate for this but, I think thats the reason I also play Space Engineers. SE has a good mechanic for turning and directional thrusters. I think this would serve as a good model as to how ships should behave.
     
    Joined
    Mar 30, 2013
    Messages
    729
    Reaction score
    281
    • Purchased!
    • TwitchCon 2015
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    The problem is that a decorative block will still eat a hit, and having it at lower mass would make it unbalanced for PvP since people would just cover their ships in them. When the HP pool system comes, hull blocks will be good. Then your corridors & rooms will be more useful.

    I, for one, do not want capital ships to be able to rotate better & be more agile. Good riddance to the days of super zippy capital ships with spacebike-like acceleration. If they could rotate faster they would make small ships even more worthless in combat. Schema has all sorts of options for editing gameplay variables in the config. Maybe there are some RP servers out there that have edited the TURNING_DIMENSION_SCALE dimension in server.cfg to make big ships rotate easier.
     
    Joined
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages
    135
    Reaction score
    31
    It would be nice if some sort if "directional" thrusters were implemented to combat the turning issue. That way, how your ship performs is totally dependent on how you build it. Please no hate for this but, I think thats the reason I also play Space Engineers. SE has a good mechanic for turning and directional thrusters. I think this would serve as a good model as to how ships should behave.
    No reason to hate here, it is sound reasoning, fact is it is much easier to turn a ship in space than to move it. Granted bigger ships still need more thrust to turn than smaller ones, but if your talking about spin and not strafe, you should be able to turn at least as fast as you can strafe. faster even because it is the same thrust system fired in opposing directions, if you do not take the artificial space drag (the effect which slows ships in a vacuum:confused:) into account. But a lot of what goes on seems silly to me, though I realize it is all intended for balance, I don't think balance and sandboxes really go together very smoothly.
     
    Joined
    Feb 17, 2014
    Messages
    60
    Reaction score
    8
    No reason to hate here, it is sound reasoning, fact is it is much easier to turn a ship in space than to move it. Granted bigger ships still need more thrust to turn than smaller ones, but if your talking about spin and not strafe, you should be able to turn at least as fast as you can strafe. faster even because it is the same thrust system fired in opposing directions, if you do not take the artificial space drag (the effect which slows ships in a vacuum:confused:) into account. But a lot of what goes on seems silly to me, though I realize it is all intended for balance, I don't think balance and sandboxes really go together very smoothly.
    Well in SE for spin, they use gyroscopes. which may be a mechanic to look into. For strafe thats where directional thrusters should come in. Your right balance and sandboxes are really hard to achieve.
     

    mrsinister

    Xenophage
    Joined
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages
    479
    Reaction score
    143
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Legacy Citizen 9
    I 100% support build options to help us with turn rate. Nothing frustrates me more than having to spend 30 seconds dragging my mouse just to be able to line up with an asteroid. However while this suggestion goes a long way towards aiding with that, it is not specifically a discussion about 'actively' improving turn rate but rather helping to mitigate the circumstances that lead to a bad one in the case of roleplay/elegant designs.

    I heartily encourage you to start a thread about active systems to improve turn rates.
    there were numerous threads about this already.
     
    Joined
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages
    135
    Reaction score
    31
    Well in SE for spin, they use gyroscopes. which may be a mechanic to look into. For strafe thats where directional thrusters should come in. Your right balance and sandboxes are really hard to achieve.
    so that is what those are for, I have not played but I saw a video and wondered why they had so many. But what I was referring to is how actual space craft, including the space shuttles are built. the thrusters which allow a "strafe" motion are the same ones that allow a "spin" motion. they are not different systems, just used in different ways, which is why it would be unbalanced if they allowed the systems to work the way they should, a "spin" is nothing more than an angular acceleration in regard to the mass. Meaning top turn speed is not limited, at all, by mass, just by how much fuel you want to spend. Otherwise the only real reason a big ship cannot turn as fast as a smaller one is that the centrifugal effect would probably kill the people at ether end of the ship.
     
    Joined
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages
    923
    Reaction score
    292
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Purchased!
    • Thinking Positive
    The problem is that a decorative block will still eat a hit, and having it at lower mass would make it unbalanced for PvP since people would just cover their ships in them.
    That does not have to be the case... Key words: "does not despawn the projectile on hit".
    There has been a very similar suggestion a few days back (basic hull -> 0 mass and 0 hp, does not despawn the projectile on hit).
    I, for one, do not want capital ships to be able to rotate better & be more agile.
    Well, then please stop hating me for flying around in my battle cube. If you are going to insist upon a system that rewards me for doing so and penalizes me for building a prettier ship, you have no business criticizing anyone for the end result.

    Note I am not saying "you", BDLS personally, are hating me. But I have built a cube precisely because that is 'by far' the smartest thing you can build in this system, and people regularly drag on me for having done so. In a game in which I can be ambushed by griefers, I am not going to deliberately hamstring myself by building a ship that is substantially below optimum. If you don't want me building cubes, follow my suggestion. If you oppose my suggestion, live with the cubes.
     
    Joined
    Mar 30, 2013
    Messages
    729
    Reaction score
    281
    • Purchased!
    • TwitchCon 2015
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    Yeah, I'm actually one of the most vocal haters of battle cube "designers" out there. Absolutely something should be done about it, and it's been discussed to death (even as far as calculating frame stability requiring internal supports). I just said that I don't feel huge ships (min-maxed basic geometric shapes or not) should be more agile and rotate better.

    There are some servers where admins will delete reported battle cubes on sight, without refunding the materials. Repeat offenders get banned. Stop-gap measure, but it's a nice thing to do until schema does something about borgcubes being the most efficient design.
     
    Joined
    Apr 21, 2013
    Messages
    1,714
    Reaction score
    650
    • Top Forum Contributor
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    • Councillor Gold
    I still wanna know what this RP ship of yours is. You made another thread about it and I'm just curious as to what ship it is for my own sake.
     

    CyberTao

    鬼佬
    Joined
    Nov 10, 2013
    Messages
    2,564
    Reaction score
    641
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    • Railman Gold
    • Thinking Positive
    The only advantage cubes have is turn rate these days...
    If turning is an issue, build turrets. RP ships have lower stats, but then again RP ships don't need the stats, since they normally operate with other RP ships, so their stats are balanced. Honestly most people wanted big, slow turning ships last I heard. If you want to pit a RP ship against a PvP ship, then that's your first problem.

    But the turn rate caps out too quickly, hence why people edit the config for that. There is a coming thruster revamp, dunno when, but they are working on it more or less.

    Kinda hard to be ambushed as well, since your nagivation range is the next sector over. Gonna have to say "pay more attention" there. Everyone else deals with it as well, one of the issues with a Alpha game.
     
    Joined
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages
    923
    Reaction score
    292
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Purchased!
    • Thinking Positive
    I still wanna know what this RP ship of yours is. You made another thread about it and I'm just curious as to what ship it is for my own sake.
    I do not have an RP ship. I wish I could build one. But those who insist that a battle cube is only marginally better than some beast three times longer with vastly more hull stretched more thinly, are simply wrong. RP ships are VASTLY more sluggish than a cube, are vastly easier to hit and their hull armor is much more fragile, it having to cover a much larger area for the volume it protects.

    I am in the process of rebuilding my ship, having deconstructed my cube. The new ship is cleverly disguising it's cube nature by being an octahedron rather than a cube. I can't show you the ship yet, as it's reconstruction has only just begun. I started with the bridge and (gasp!) roleplay space (actually more simply a space buffer for three layers of advanced armor protecting the core deep in the heart of the ship (which will also have an armor shell).

     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages
    160
    Reaction score
    11
    The only advantage cubes have is turn rate these days...
    If turning is an issue, build turrets. RP ships have lower stats, but then again RP ships don't need the stats, since they normally operate with other RP ships, so their stats are balanced. Honestly most people wanted big, slow turning ships last I heard. If you want to pit a RP ship against a PvP ship, then that's your first problem.

    But the turn rate caps out too quickly, hence why people edit the config for that. There is a coming thruster revamp, dunno when, but they are working on it more or less.

    Kinda hard to be ambushed as well, since your nagivation range is the next sector over. Gonna have to say "pay more attention" there. Everyone else deals with it as well, one of the issues with a Alpha game.
    My thoughts on this subject as well. You're not going to have a battle cube versus a well made ship if the server is focused on RP (assuming people are punished for it) and you won't have a grand RP build on a PVP server (unless you want to be destroyed).I'm making my RP ships really wide to deter quick movements (in addition to the design of the ship). I certainly wouldn't use it in a battle cube battle.

    That being said, I'd love to see any and all config suggestions be implemented into the config file to be used. The wonderful thing about any and all config file options is the server owner has the choice what to use and what not to use. Want faster turning? crank it up. Want deco blocks to not affect your ship? You got it. Configs are nice.
     
    Joined
    Sep 15, 2013
    Messages
    267
    Reaction score
    63
    Yet another thread where people complain about the infamous "doom cube" as an excuse for the retarded "turn rate by mass" idea.
    The bottom line is that big, heavy ships are absolutely no fun to fly. Their acceleration is abysmal and they turn so slowly it is downright painful.
    This is ALL big ships, not just "RP ships". (Note: ships don't have to be big to incorporate RP elements)

    (A cube contains the most volume for the least amount of hull armor, another reason for which the existing game mechanics reward such building.)
    This is wrong.
    1 - Spheres > cubes in this regard.
    2 - Hull is completely useless. (no, the HP system is not in the game yet, and won't be for another year at the earliest)

    Crucially; basic hull, not the armored versions, should have it's mass reduced to near zero and it's HP value similarly reduced. It's function aught to be to create shapes and colors, not to turn your ship into a slugboat.

    In short, blocks that contribute to the combat power of a ship should continue to do as they do, add mass, making the ship harder to fly and less responsive. This is necessary to balance their power. It is NOT necessary to do the same for construction that does NOT add to combat power.
    If any sort of block had little to no mass, people would just cover their ship in mounds and mounds of it to absorb damage (like they did when trigger areas had no mass)

    Also, every "decorative block" (which is in the eye of the beholder) is another block blocking a clean shot to the ship core. Maybe you use regular hull for decoration and someone else uses advanced hull. Why should they be punished for having different building/decoration styles than you? (Again, remember that hull is utterly useless at the moment)

    This is hilarious
    "Please make turning speed based upon volume not on dimensions ;_;"
    "Wow I hate how everything in this game is based on volume, it makes RP ships really weak ;_;"

    tl;dr, blocks should not have different masses based on their functions, and turning rate should stay the way it is
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: Dark_Inquisitor
    Joined
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages
    923
    Reaction score
    292
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Purchased!
    • Thinking Positive
    Yet another thread where people complain about the infamous "doom cube" as an excuse for the retarded "turn rate by mass" idea.
    Thank you for your insults. You have helped to put my own thinking into the proper perspective.

    You want me to not build a cube, you want me to build a longer more sluggish ship. The fact that I HATE flying a slug boat is irrelevant to you, you could not care less. On the off chance that you might see my ship, you insist that I build something you will enjoy seeing, even though that something is not something I would enjoy piloting. But here is where the value of your insults come in. You clearly don't give a @#$% about me, so why in hell would I give a $%^& about you, and what you want?

    Until the mechanics change such that 'doom' cubes are no longer the most agile thing to fly, I will be building cubes. Anyone who does not like that should be endorsing changes to the mechanics that render such cubes no longer the optimum thing for agility. To be both against cubes 'and' against fixing this mechanic, is to use your word, "retarded".
     
    Last edited:

    CyberTao

    鬼佬
    Joined
    Nov 10, 2013
    Messages
    2,564
    Reaction score
    641
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    • Railman Gold
    • Thinking Positive
    I am endorsing something, It's known as the official Dev suggestion for the thruster revamp more or less.
    Giving anything 0 mass is likely to be exploited, or cater to a certain type of player only. Eventually they plan to give blocks differing masses, that was more or less a given considering leaves weight twice as much as hull (as do the fancy crystals, that people just love to use), and from there you could edit it.

    And before you say something about editing configs not being valid, consider sharing it with the community. If not enough people agree or adopt your setup, then it probably isn't popular enough for use on a server, let alone the default config.