Default thruster mechanic (poll)

[Keptick]

The default thruster config has been changed in 0.154 to a linear scalling instead of box dimensions:

• Box dimension: increases with the box dimensions of the thrusters, same mechanic as power. This system was introduced in version 0.14
• Linear: The value increases with the amount of thrusters, no matter how they are placed. I believe that this system was in place with versions 0.13 (and under) and is back as the default setting for 0.154+

The reason for the creation of this poll is because most server's will hesitate in changing the vanilla config for a system as important as thrusters. This is to reflect what the community wants as default configuration.

 

[Keptick]

My personal (biased) opinion on the matter is that box dimension config is much better since it allows builders to be creative while building their system. Such as making a redundant web system to ensure that thrust stays optimal even when one branch is severed. Linear scalling just encourages the brainless spamming of 10x10x10 thruster cubes all over the place.

It also makes the creation of functional rp ships harder since linear scalled thrusters take up much more space.

 

[MossyStone48]

When you vote make sure to say what server you think should change or keep its settings. This will help server owners see where their players stand on the issue and work from there accordingly.

 

[K10wN]

At first I hated the box dimension thrusters, until I changed a few ships over to use them, especially the smaller ships. Once I had a handle on it, I change all of my most used ships over to the box dimension design. With the changes post v0.154 these 'fixed' ships barely move. All of the small ships (sub 500 blocks) will not be able to be configured to use the scaled type thrusters, and have room for the extra power needed to support the new, more power hungry, weapons systems without these ships growing in size. Making these ships bigger I would rather avoid (4 of them are used as our server's custom pirate fleet).

 

[rece ktore leczo]

Hello my Single Player server, please keep linear scaling thrust calculations.

Dimension system is too easily abused or simplified to "put the longest lines of system blocks as possible". Not so much creativity enhancing.

 

[Keptick]

Hello my Single Player server, please keep linear scaling thrust calculations.

Dimension system is too easily abused or simplified to "put the longest lines of system blocks as possible". Not so much creativity enhancing.

I fail to see how it's abused since it has the same power requirements. "put the longest lines of system blocks as possible" uh... that's just a bad idea . Unless you meant on all 3 axis? then yea, that's how the system works. It's still much better than "hurr durr lets spam thrusters in here."

And you can still change the setting for your single player by the way.

 

[Stakhanov]

Box dimension bonus should apply to most stats - without them , there's no reason to build anything but filled boxes of modules with no weak points. But it's especially important for thrusters , since you want those exposed and meaningfully damaged in combat.

 

[Tydeth]

When you vote make sure to say what server you think should change or keep its settings. This will help server owners see where their players stand on the issue and work from there accordingly.

WarSong, from what I can tell, the poll isn't about what individual servers should configure it to, but rather what schema and Calbiri should have as the default setting for everyone.


As for the poll, there are actually two Box Dimension configuration options: Add, the power generator setup; and Multiply, the 0.14 thruster mechanic with its efficiency bonus on steroids.

Personally, I dislike the linear scaling, but the 0.14 thrust mechanics were a tad much. My WIP cruiser has the following thrust values based on the scaling config option:

LINEAR: 5307.1 (For a 20k+ mass ship, this won't do well)
BOX_DIM_MULT: 191723.1 (Overpowered much?)
BOX_DIM_ADD: 5167.1 (O... Kay...)

Ok, after running those quick tests while writing this post, I can see why LINEAR was made default. I actually expected BOX_DIM_ADD to be the middle ground, since thrusters built to work well under BOX_DIM_MULT would be built using box dimensions.

No other variables were changed in the config, and the ship was unedited throughout the testing. Note to self: Install that effect that makes a ship immune to planet gravity onto my cruiser, and/or never fly anywhere near the dodecahedrons.

 

[Keptick]

WarSong, from what I can tell, the poll isn't about what individual servers should configure it to, but rather what schema and Calbiri should have as the default setting for everyone.

I second that notion.

 

[rece ktore leczo]

Dimension based system takes too little space on bigger ships and i prefer "you want a lot of thrust then you better have a lot of thrusters" approach than "be creative, but basically the best option is to put few lines running through your whole ship".

When i started playing this game i loved how the power generators are working and that i have to customize generators each time i'm building a new ship to make them most efficient. Not only it took a lot of time but also was a harder way than simply putting few lines with some small backup generators.

Box dimension bonus should apply to most stats - without them , there's no reason to build anything but filled boxes of modules with no weak points.

And dimension system promote building sticky thin ships reaching as far as possible. Both aren't perfect but i choose "lesser evil".

But it's especially important for thrusters , since you want those exposed and meaningfully damaged in combat.

Currently ships combat is about destroying the core, not finding the weak points of the enemy's ship. Yes, they may be accidentally damaged when getting to the core but i don't think that many players instead of targeting the core would choose to seek for the lines of the thrusters.
If the new combat system would have HP for each system on the ship, then with linear scaling thrusters would usually end up on the rear of the ship, so players willing to damage this system would need to target this part of the ship and destroy enough thrusters to cripple the ship.
And smarter builders could spend more time to instead spam the rear of the ship with thrusters, mix them in the insides of the ship, probably with shields and be less sensitive on crippling attempts.



After changing the linear scaling to dimensional some players complained that it made their ships much less efficient. And here we go again.

 

[Lecic]

I'd like linear scaling, except it makes fighters even more useless. Maybe slowly diminishing returns with a higher starting point to allow them to still move decently would be the best choice?

 

[Tydeth]

My config will be primarily on Linear for thrust. My ship will receive further refitting work to make its thrust function adequately in all three config setups.

 

[Sven_The_Slayer]

We really shouldn't be trying to split the community into "custom" groups before a proper balance has even been reached. I imagine the majority of players will want to build with vanilla settings or simply not have the knowledge to change it and the majority of servers will want to run vanilla settings. Sure there will be servers who have custom settings as there are already servers that have custom rule sets without a formal way to enforce them.

Personally like the previous method and I originally judged it harshly and even pushed for this exact change when it was first introduced. I like the idea of smart design engines, you had to put some thought into it. Sure you could make a single large box dim engine to move your huge ship but this would still require power and creates a huge weak point. Split that single reactor and your thrust doesn't simply get halved it goes down the crapper.

 

[der_scheme]

I'd like linear scaling, except it makes fighters even more useless.

I was thinking the opposite.

I like linear scaling. The main reason is that it will create a need for players to install effect systems, such as push, pull and overdrive. It will also make ships more vulnerable against offensively used push, pull and stop effects. I believe that this will make small and medium sized ships stronger, since it's easier for them to generate power to sustain those effects.
Also, with the boxdim mult setting, you can get simply ridiculous amounts of thrust with an incredibly small three-dimensional cross.
Furthermore, linear scaling seems more realistic to me.

 

[Lecic]

I was thinking the opposite.

I like linear scaling. The main reason is that it will create a need for players to install effect systems, such as push, pull and overdrive. It will also make ships more vulnerable against offensively used push, pull and stop effects. I believe that this will make small and medium sized ships stronger, since it's easier for them to generate power to sustain those effects.
Also, with the boxdim mult setting, you can get simply ridiculous amounts of thrust with an incredibly small three-dimensional cross.
Furthermore, linear scaling seems more realistic to me.

RE: Maybe slowly diminishing returns with a higher starting point to allow them to still move decently would be the best choice?

You took my quote out of context and made it look like I was arguing for the old boxdim settings, but I'm actually arguing for slowly diminishing returns. This would allow smaller groupings of engines to still be strong enough to push a fighter, whereas now they move like snails because of the change.

The effects are less energy efficient to use than thrusters, at least they were prior to .153, so they aren't really usable in place of them when I could just have some thrusters there instead and get better movement.

I do agree with you that boxdim mult had serious problems, even though it means I'll need to redo the engines on my ships.

 

[der_scheme]

You took my quote out of context and made it look like I was arguing for the old boxdim settings

That was not my intention. I just wanted to state that I don't agree with you when you say that it will penalize small ships.

Effect balancing is not yet done, it will follow in one of the next updates.

 

[Commodore]

I would give thrusters diminishing returns personally, but linear is reasonable. Box dimension scaling (like the additive boxdims from pre 0.14) is cool too. What I REALLY don't like is the multiplicative boxdims that many people are voting for.

300 thruster blocks could give you 1 million thrust, enough to get a 10 million block ship off a planet (if planet gravity applied to huge stuff) and make it reasonably agile.

That means 0.003% of the blocks of the ship are enough to make it fly. Completely ridiculous.

 

[Keptick]

I would give thrusters diminishing returns personally, but linear is reasonable. Box dimension scaling (like the additive boxdims from pre 0.14) is cool too. What I REALLY don't like is the multiplicative boxdims that many people are voting for.

300 thruster blocks could give you 1 million thrust, enough to get a 10 million block ship off a planet (if planet gravity applied to huge stuff) and make it reasonably agile.

That means 0.003% of the blocks of the ship are enough to make it fly. Completely ridiculous.

I can agree with that.


HOWEVER, I still like boxdim more than linear. I'd really prefer if boxdim could have lower values, though. The current output is a bit too intense.

 

[Sven_The_Slayer]

In the end I'll be able to live with whatever the final result is, my light carrier has decent thrust right now because I never refit it to the .14 standard. I'll still be refitting it because I bet I can get more efficiency out of a mass of thrusters over the checkerboard pattern it has now.

 

[Lord Daro]

I too will ultimately share only ships, build for the set standart, but after some thinking it seems to me that the thruster system could use some more basic mechanics changes.
I am trying to emulate some kind of warpdrive on my current project, using effects and it looks like this setup makes the ship move more like i would expect it to move in general. It has relativey high trhust forwards and backwards and lesser on the sides. I always thought it looked ridiculous how all ships could move in all directions at full speed, even if most of them had only giant engines displayed on the backside.
Now it would be tedious allways having to use effects to move on.
Therefore i suggest a combination:

The box dimenstions would increase truning rate and trhust to the sides and
the block count would determine the thrust forwards and backwards.
And i would use linear scalling on this.

I think fighters could still be pretty agile in comparison. They can easily reach a higher thruster/mass ratio, since they don't have to carry as much stuff as a capitals (FTL for example; hopefully it's on the way). The usefullnes of fighters in all situations were reduced, because capitals were basically build similar to fighters, consisting only of thrust, weapons, shields and energy.