Block Slices

[Ephelemi]

I will not write a big tower post about this as I think it is fairly simple and intuitive, as opposed to the way of fabricating armour at the moment. So what we have is the full block, the wedge, the tetra and hepta, and slabs. So it would seem obvious to me that if you have a full block, you can divide it into two wedges, two slabs (or any number depending on their thickness) or a tetra and a hepta.
This could be implemented in the game by making the slicing the very last step in the fabrication process or even outsourcing it from the factories, which in my opinion would be advantageous because making all the different types of armour can be a bit tedious.
Im not quite sure about structure mechanics, but if you have a certain amount of hp in your full block, the easiest way to distribute them would be by making it depending on the volume of the slices, so for two wedges, each of them would remain with 50% of the hp.

My main incentive for proposing this is because I think it would be a good thing to simplify the process of fabricating armour and also not having to spend the same amount of ressources for a tetra as for a full block.
Another way to implement it would be to leave the slicing as a basic skill and an inherent function of the shipyard. That way all you will have to worry about ist producing a large enough amount of correctly coloured hull blocks.

 

[NeonSturm]

Another way to implement it would be to leave the slicing as a basic skill and an inherent function of the shipyard. That way all you will have to worry about ist producing a large enough amount of correctly coloured hull blocks.

This.

 

[Valck]

it would seem obvious to me that if you have a full block, you can divide it into two wedges, two slabs (or any number depending on their thickness) or a tetra and a hepta.
This could be implemented in the game by making the slicing the very last step in the fabrication process

This. I've always felt it odd to have 7/8ths of a block go to waste for a tetra that weighs the same, and provides the same hit points, as a full block.

The resulting blocks should still be available the same way they are now. I don't think it is asking too much to keep a stock of the various block shapes, and having to produce more of a certain shape if you ran out. If anything, there could be new recipes added to the factories to recombine slices.

If the "sliced" items were completely removed as being individual blocks, how would you pick up say, a single tetra? A shipyard might keep an automatic tally, but I don't think it would work well in astronaut mode.

 

[NeonSturm]

If the "sliced" items were completely removed as being individual blocks, how would you pick up say, a single tetra? A shipyard might keep an automatic tally, but I don't think it would work well in astronaut mode.

Use an auto-translation tool for block IDs in shipyards

Going to work out a heavier suggestion on armour.

 

[Criss]

This has come up in the past before. So here is the current situation. It is for the moment much simpler to have all hull blocks and armors to share the same armor values. Could it make structural integrity a more meaningful thing if they are different health values? Sure. This may be worth doing for that alone in the future. The problem comes when we get to the corner. How does that split properly? Either you create blocks from nothing, or loose some. If HP values stay the same then we will need to keep the current system, otherwise you would be doubling blocks without using double the resources and that is game breaking.

We want to get to a point where your progression will lead to passively gathering resources via established mines/bases anyway. We can tweak those rates once that is a thing and you may never have to worry about resources again once you set yourself up. It will be more important on how you spend them.

 

[Malacodor]

I'm always for more realism, if it doesn't hurt playability and fun. However, this suggestion would open a can of worms. If two wedges could be made out of one full block they had to have half the HP. Slopes made of wedges have already ~30% less HP per surface area than surfaces parallel to coordinate axes. After halving the wedges' HP slopes would be ~65% weaker, and the situation for slopes made of heptas and tetras is far more complicated.

Since the different shapes mainly serve an aesthetic purpose we should keep their properties identical, but we should be able to change block shapes in build mode, just like slabs already work.

This. I've always felt it odd to have 7/8ths of a block go to waste for a tetra that weighs the same, and provides the same hit points, as a full block.

A tetra has 1/6th of a full block's volume. It's a triangular pyramid with base area 1/2 and height 1, resulting in a volume of 1/3 * 1/2 * 1 = 1/6.

The problem comes when we get to the corner. How does that split properly?

A corner has 1/3 of a full block's volume. It's a square pyramid with base area 1 and height 1, resulting in a volume of 1/3 * 1 * 1 = 1/3.
This.

 

[jstenholt]

Yeah, this would be cool, I guess. But the effort it would require from the devs sounds far too great for what we'd be getting in the long run. Maybe we'll see this before we hit release.

 

[Valck]

Since the different shapes mainly serve an aesthetic purpose we should keep their properties identical

If the point of contention is aesthetics, I don't see the problem of different blocks actually having different properties.
If you want to minmax, you don't care for aesthetics, just use cubes. If you want to build aesthetically, you might favour standard hull over advanced armour just for the looks, or vice versa, without giving too much attention to combat properties. And if you want realism, then yes, less coverage should result in less hit points, and large surface areas and weak spots should be something to consider.

we should be able to change block shapes in build mode, just like slabs already work.

I'm opposed to the idea of selecting block shapes like slab sizes, and doing away with the multistacks we have now.

Maybe this sounds silly, but I find it a much more fluid work flow to select the shape I want by pressing its multistack's associated key on the hotbar, without having to move the pointer from where I am focussed at.

Slab-like selection would mean having to move the mouse pointer from where I'm building to the exact position of the menu, click several times until I find the shape I want, and not accidentally click one times too many, which would require me to again precisely position the pointer at the opposite arrow, then move back to where I actually wanted to place the block.

While for one single operation it may not make that much of a difference, it requires additional, precise mouse movement and shifting attention from one part of the screen to another.

What would the real benefits be? It would still require the same amount of block IDs to visually represent the blocks. It would take out one step in manufacturing, which may be seen as beneficial by some, and 'dumbing it down' by others. It would require a nontrivial amount of coding and UI design, whereas changing each block's hit points, mass, and volume would simply be a matter of config editing that can either be automated to a large degree, or could even be done by community effort.

A tetra has 1/6th of a full block's volume. It's a triangular pyramid with base area 1/2 and height 1, resulting in a volume of 1/3 * 1/2 * 1 = 1/6.

You're right of course, but exact numbers weren't the point at this point.

 

[Malacodor]

If the point of contention is aesthetics, I don't see the problem of different blocks actually having different properties.
If you want to minmax, you don't care for aesthetics, just use cubes.

I care for both. Why shouldn't we be able to build aesthetically pleasing and efficient ships?

I'm opposed to the idea of selecting block shapes like slab sizes, and doing away with the multistacks we have now.

One thing doesn't really have to do with the other. We could have just cubes in the inventory and in build mode they could turn into virtual multistacks, even including slabs.

 

[Lecic]

I'm extremely opposed to this idea. It makes things MASSIVELY simpler for everything to have the same cost, weight, HP, armor %, etc. All we need now is a way to convert them back, or, EVEN BETTER, merge the old shapes with the new slab style of placing different shapes.