Default thruster mechanic (poll)

[Viridis00]

Voting box-dims, all the way.

I really enjoy the game mechanic, and they help cut back on blocks. Not only that, but I've never had a problem with the mechanic influencing a build negatively on the creative side, even when making replicas. With the way shields have been revamped, we're going to need all the space we can get in order to pack more weapons and more energy.

 

[Hanspeter Schnitzel]

Power works in -box- dimension? =o I thought it just works in line dimensions, so making a grid out of power and whatever else you want is a good set up:
Power: X
Somethign else: O

XOX
OXO
XOX

I don't thinkt that you need to make power cubes of which only the edges are power gens and the inside of the cube is empty, do you?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...402px-Necker_cube_and_impossible_cube.svg.png (Like this, in case my description doesn't get across what I mean.)

 

[Daffor]

Power works in -box- dimension? =o I thought it just works in line dimensions, so making a grid out of power and whatever else you want is a good set up:

Box dimension is just another way of saying it works by the largest bounding box, meaning a box that would fit your entire thing inside. So the most efficient way is to just make single lines along each of the three axis. That's connected blocks so that diagram of yours wouldn't work very well.

On the topic of the thread; I think linear scaling is more balanced for thrusters since with the box dimension system thrusters were basically non-influential to design once your ship was 50m or more in size. Also, as far as I have understood, linear scaling will work better with the upcoming thruster rework.

 

[Hanspeter Schnitzel]

Upcoming thruster rework?

 

[Daffor]

I think it was in one of the Q&A or something. There's going to be some changes coming to how thrusters work and you'll be able to do stuff like effect your turn rate and stuff.

I'd dig up some sources if I remembered any. :D Ofcourse there's a chance my memory is screwing me over and I'm spouting nonsense.

 

[Hanspeter Schnitzel]

Ohh, that sounds quite interesting.

 

[HerrColonel]

I hate building big crosses inside my ships. It's just not a good way to fill them.

 

[NuclearFun]

My last comment here seems to be lost, but that is OK because i was arguing that box dimensions is more fun than linear scaling and while that is still true: While refitting my old ships i began to like the reduced thrust we have now because it forces me to make a decision between defense and agility (and my Cruisers are now the cumbersome beasts they look like)

 

[Hanspeter Schnitzel]

Wouldn't box dimensions mean that just having a long line of thrusters would make them quite strong? Quite vulnerable, too, but still.
I still prefer box dimensions though so we don't need as much space to build functioning thrusters.

 

[Daffor]

Yes box dimension thrusters mean they are ridiculously strong, especially on large ships.

For example I'm currently refitting an old ship that had a total of around 3,9 million blocks. That ship used to have a thrust to mass ratio of 4,25 and used about 10k thruster blocks to get there and that was with some redundancy built in. Min-maxed the same thrust could've been achieved with less blocks. During the refit so far I have added about 160 thousand thruster blocks and that will get me around 1,2 thrust to mass, this is far more appropriate.

Thrusters are now actually a consideration in ship design instead of tossing a few token blocks somewhere and being careful not to accidentally get so much thrust that it would kill your power balance.

 

[Ciggofwar]

Box dimensions has always sucked that's abc stuff, you current computer started off not in your tower, but in a building !!! That's right knowing the history, I would have to add just over 51,000 thruster blocks to get my ship to move decently and it drains the power real fast that's without firing anything or even a blinking light system, the overdrive would require equal amount of blocks so really I now need two ships and go back too some dumb ass size ship to make a ship and than require more blocks on top of more blocks because it friggin huge. The ships turning still blows!!!!!!!!!!!, Component units is what is required, I can use the solar system to turn my ship faster than what's given.

Some People require logic blocks, not knowing always comes first!!!

 

[0ldSkull]

 

[Majorfatboy]

whoops, hit the wrong button... Editing........

I want to vote on this one, but I can't. Not yet. With everything else (weapons, shields, support, Etc) In such a heavy state of flux or downright malfunction, and seeing how the way one item works will effect everything else on a well designed ship, I can't really say what thrust system We should stick to.

For whatever it's worth, -PERSONAL OPINION HERE- I prefer the linear scaling thrust system, I always did. I feel that if You want big thrust, You need to give something up for it. But under the box-dim system, it was too easy to get thrust, and have oodles of room for everything else.
During the last time We were using the linear system, I took great pride in knowing that yeah, any other player's ship of similar mass could kick My ass if they could catch Me...... But they couldn't catch Me
Then box-dim happened, and speed became a moot point. Any ship could hit decent acceleration and top speeds without issue. -END PERSONAL OPINION-.

My quandary starts here:
Under the current weapon system, which working as intended or not, requires nearly twice the mass in weapons and support blocks, not counting possible tertiary effects blocks and/or overdrive, for far less damage in many cases. I'm not sure if going back to the bulkier thrust system is such a good idea.

Sure, on larger ships it's not so bad, worst case scenario I can just rip out some of the deck work to make room for the extra gear (Seriously, My biggest ship has a mess/conference room and a washroom, don't really need those), but smaller ships are looking scary. A fighter needs rapid-fire weapons, so there's added bulk for AMC support, and at a severe damage cut, then there's secondary weapon systems, the thrusters, a few shield blocks, hull, and those weapon systems are even more power hungry then before, which means a lot more room allocated to power generation..... Box-dim starts looking like the only way to go, as the mass saving You get from it are downright essential.

And all of this is based on the current unfinished system, so to perfectly honest, I'm not sure what system We should be on at the moment.

 

[EricBlank]

That's an excellent way to look at it, major. The entire game balance is up for grabs at this point. Box dimensions certainly work best for smaller vessels, though.

 

[HerrColonel]

whoops, hit the wrong button... Editing........

I want to vote on this one, but I can't. Not yet. With everything else (weapons, shields, support, Etc) In such a heavy state of flux or downright malfunction, and seeing how the way one item works will effect everything else on a well designed ship, I can't really say what thrust system We should stick to.

For whatever it's worth, -PERSONAL OPINION HERE- I prefer the linear scaling thrust system, I always did. I feel that if You want big thrust, You need to give something up for it. But under the box-dim system, it was too easy to get thrust, and have oodles of room for everything else.
During the last time We were using the linear system, I took great pride in knowing that yeah, any other player's ship of similar mass could kick My ass if they could catch Me...... But they couldn't catch Me
Then box-dim happened, and speed became a moot point. Any ship could hit decent acceleration and top speeds without issue. -END PERSONAL OPINION-.

My quandary starts here:
Under the current weapon system, which working as intended or not, requires nearly twice the mass in weapons and support blocks, not counting possible tertiary effects blocks and/or overdrive, for far less damage in many cases. I'm not sure if going back to the bulkier thrust system is such a good idea.

Sure, on larger ships it's not so bad, worst case scenario I can just rip out some of the deck work to make room for the extra gear (Seriously, My biggest ship has a mess/conference room and a washroom, don't really need those), but smaller ships are looking scary. A fighter needs rapid-fire weapons, so there's added bulk for AMC support, and at a severe damage cut, then there's secondary weapon systems, the thrusters, a few shield blocks, hull, and those weapon systems are even more power hungry then before, which means a lot more room allocated to power generation..... Box-dim starts looking like the only way to go, as the mass saving You get from it are downright essential.

And all of this is based on the current unfinished system, so to perfectly honest, I'm not sure what system We should be on at the moment.

If this weapon system (I mean the current dps per wpnblock balance) remained this way the building mecanics will make the players keep their builds minimalist except if they are so fat you don't even mind sparing some mass and space.
It's very sad. I would prefer if the ship's behavior just work with some "key" blocks (like a single power generator block as I sometime suggested) and your job is mainly to build with hull around some main systems but you'll just build your ship to look as you want (and as you want your interior to be) you don't just think at drawing space to fill with blocks. With the current mecanich we regret every block of hull/anything useless room when it comes to fight (Leading to fill everything with shields, power, wpns and no free space).

I think it (dps per wpnblock) should be increased somehow to fix the weapon's mass problem you told in your post. Small weapons should not need overdrive to be dangerous in their own way.

But I don't like the way we build in StarMade anymore =S I'm still hoping it will change for something that make sens (why everybody loves thoses crosses?) but building in starmade is not as funny as building in minecraft even in the very old versions.
And I keep feeling jelly when I see the SpEn updates (It looks better in terms of ship control, player immersion for example you can build a small/cheap shuttle and you don't feel being in a "8 blocks long" stick you have nice view nice controls) even if I don't want to play anymore games.

But I won't play StarMade forever if the gameplay remains as "crappy". I'm still hooked because I have some kind of faith in the possibilities this game have but I've seen a lot of updates coming and I still get catch by the gameplay emptyness

 

[BIxxper]

I think the devs put a lot more time into this decision than the people complaining about it. Running power lines already takes up a ton of room in smaller ships, not due to the amount of blocks, but do to the way they have to be run. Add in the same mechanic for engines and I won't be able to get into the core on many of my small ships. The old way isn't fun, or "creative," it's just tedious and design limiting. I don't want to fly a giant plus sign. Doesn't help to get more out of fewer blocks if those blocks cripple your build. What you're looking for already exists in power blocks anyways. Why can't you just be happy with that?

 

[Hanspeter Schnitzel]

A key block system would be cool, but not just a single power block, bigger ships should need bigger generators.
I do agree on the freespace issue though, I also wish that having a nice looking ship with a neat interior wouldn't be such a disadvantage.

EDIT: Reply to Blxxper
Well, the thing is, it would take less space. A few blocks in a line would produce way more than many in a cube.

 

[GROOV3ST3R]

In my opinion, anything else other than Linear thruster scaling is just wrong.

There is a reason rockets are large tubes filled with fuel and ''engine'' stuff. They have to be to generate enough thrust to get a spacecraft out into orbit. Nearly all Sci-Fi ships have some form of a main thruster which is a gigantic tube of sorts and it almost always is a combustion engine of some description. Whether it's an impulse, ion, pure rocket thrust or anything else - doesn't matter. What matters is it's big and it needs to be.

There are no magic crosses flying about in space. Box-dimension system was way overpowered, allowing for ridiculous space-saving exploits, especially on large ships which practically didn't need thrusters at all. You didn't need more than a few hundred blocks to achieve top speed in almost any ship. And it literally KILLS all creativity. I don't know why people would say that it allowed you to do more if you had to incorporate a large cross into your design which almost never fitted in right and you had to waste thrusters doubling back on yourself trying to go around all corridors and ship edges.


Thrusters should and must scale linearly in order to create a more believable experience and to make people understand just how difficult and expensive it actually is to move something around in space. You NEED engines... the previous system meant there were none, now you actually need to use some space and dig deeper.

 

[Hanspeter Schnitzel]

A cross was the most effective? Is it the same with power? I thought a simple long line was the most effective.

 

[der_scheme]

A cross was the most effective? Is it the same with power? I thought a simple long line was the most effective.

With power, it doesn't matter if you build long lines or large crosses, the same amount of blocks will give you the same amount of power regeneration. It was similar with thrusters before 0.14, then the thrust system became multiplicative instead of additive, rendering crosses incredibly more powerful.