Disabling Systems after HP % is Pointless, PART TWO!

[lilFishy]

Since it is 2 in the morning here and i spent the day preparing for the exam, please point me to the joke?
Well how do you mean i am allready there?
Oh, this thread is a joke, i see now.....not realy, i wear glasses

 

[Zaphord]

Since it is 2 in the morning here and i spent the day preparing for the exam, please point me to the joke?
Well how do you mean i am allready there?
Oh, this thread is a joke, i see now.....not realy, i wear glasses

Don't feel bad swampstone, we all have days like that .

 

[Mered4]

The world is not black and white. There are no purely good and bad people. Some will behave like scum for one period of time, than calm down etc... The point is, there are those who are in, out, and those who are at midpoint.

This is your PERSONAL oppinion on a game part that is not included in your thread title.
Did you point out to a bug in the system? NO.
To a hole that can be exploited? No.

You are simply bashing this update because you do not like what has to offer.
That is not an argument you can make and stand behid it, that is a oppinion.

And regarding the examples, go to EE or SS and call Odium members trolls.... you are in for a good time (Who the hell is "we" in that sentence?)

And as a regard to your OP from which you have walk away so far, you would need a telescope to see your footprints, the HP system is ok.
It might need balancing and such small things, but it brought veriety to the game.
All of a sudden, sysem placing, double or even tripple space hull, titan size problem .... all of these things are addressed in this wonderfull update which you would love to see burning on the town square just because you do not like it and have no other viable argument.

But I DO LIKE IT. Where in the hell did you guys get this notion that I don't like the HP system? It's LIGHTYEARS ahead of what we had before. Does it need tweaking? Sure! But so does the entire game. It's alpha!

I simply noticed this feature that has the following characteristics:

1) It does not solve an existing gameplay issue. Thus, it is meant to either improve a system in the game already (the HP System) or to add a new feature.
2) It adds on to an already existing feature - namely, that of block loss from weapons fire. In my tests, block loss was significant enough on ships larger than 50k mass to significantly limit the vessel's performance. When I say significant, I mean that it was behaving erratically and many of its systems were so heavily damaged that specific functions on the ship were practically nonexistent.

Using the brain I was given at birth, I deduced that, in regular combat, there is no need to disable the systems when they are already being literally destroyed by weapons fire. I also tested this theory and found that while it holds true for both very large and very small ships, there is a middle ground (about twice the width of a Beam-Missile explosion radius) where the feature is useful. It is useful because the ship is basically already dead in the water due to missiles, but is just above the threshold for overheating.

Yeah, read that part, and you still didn't make any valid point that I can see. More to the point; what "legitimate concerns"? You feel a feature should be removed because you don't agree with it? Personally, I've been waiting for just such an update to be implemented so I don't have to guess at what damage my ship has sustained after my shields are down. Maybe you're just too OP to have your shields dropped in the first place, but not all of us feel the need to be invincible to enjoy the game.

Seeing as you responded to my post in a matter of minutes, it seems you fully intend keep this nonsense going. I suspect an you have more fun trolling the forums that you do playing the game. I've read a lot of your posts in other parts of the forum and one thing remains consistent; you like to disturb the peace. You rely on various logical fallacies (Ad hominem attacks, strawman agruments, and moving the goalposts crops up allot) and don't really contribute anything towards the development of the game or the community other than pouring more fuel on the fires that are your forum posts.

Oh, so it's your opinion that I don't have a legitimate concern? Welp, I might as well just walk out of the building, since it's your opinion that what I think doesn't matter.

Please. Don't patronize me with hypocrisy. It really doesn't do you any favors. Thanks!

 

[Aynslei]

I know I am just beating a dead horse here but since you brought it up.
1.) It does not solve an existing game-play issue.

I will ask you one question OP, you state that this entire disabling system is useless.
(I promise I will leave this thread and NEVER return if you can answer this)

How in the hell will an AI ship know if it is dead or should still be flying around?
(We all know core drilling is a shitty mechanic so don't even try going there.)

 

[Zaphord]

Oh, so it's your opinion that I don't have a legitimate concern? Welp, I might as well just walk out of the building, since it's your opinion that what I think doesn't matter.

Please. Don't patronize me with hypocrisy. It really doesn't do you any favors. Thanks!

There's that strawman again, combo'd with Ad hominem for that extra little sting at the end. You should really get that looked at.

Now; when you actually make a valid point, and not just scream "I'm right and you're all idiots for not agreeing with me!" then maybe, just maybe, people will take your suggestions into consideration. BTW, look up the definition of hypocrisy, I'm pretty sure I'd have to be as much of a whiner as you to be considered a hypocrite. Just sayin...

 

[Mered4]

There's that strawman again, combo'd with Ad hominem for that extra little sting at the end. You should really get that looked at.

Now; when you actually make a valid point, and not just scream "I'm offended! I don't like this new update! You're all idiots for not agreeing with me!" then maybe, just maybe, people will take your suggestions into consideration. BTW, look up the definition of hypocrisy, I'm pretty sure I'd have to be as much of a whiner as you to be considered a hypocrite. Just sayin...

Hold the phone! I never said I was offended, nor have I insulted anyone in any of my posts. Bench took offense to my criticism of his work, but that was off topic and not directly related to the issue at hand. Pacific_Jim is doing an amazing job of staying on topic and I appreciate that gesture from him.

I'm not the one making the insults here - you guys are. I'd like for ya'll to explain to me where I'm wrong in a logical manner. That's how a debate works, bro.

I know I am just beating a dead horse here but since you brought it up.
1.) It does not solve an existing game-play issue.

I will ask you one question OP, you state that this entire disabling system is useless.
(I promise I will leave this thread and NEVER return if you can answer this)

How in the hell will an AI ship know if it is dead or should still be flying around?
(We all know core drilling is a shitty mechanic so don't even try going there.)

I can't answer this question because it is based off a false assumption on your part. I also don't argue with people who troll. Thank you.

 

[Aynslei]

How can we explain how you are wrong, when you refuse to tell us what is wrong with the system?

Edit: I hope you understand by now that I will be happy to keep making joke of this as long as you are OP.
No one here is going to give or explain anything to you until you do so yourself.

 

[Zaphord]

Hold the phone! I never said I was offended, nor have I insulted anyone in any of my posts. Bench took offense to my criticism of his work, but that was off topic and not directly related to the issue at hand. Pacific_Jim is doing an amazing job of staying on topic and I appreciate that gesture from him.

I'm not the one making the insults here - you guys are. I'd like for ya'll to explain to me where I'm wrong in a logical manner. That's how a debate works, bro.


I can't answer this question because it is based off a false assumption on your part. I also don't argue with people who troll. Thank you.

Well, you seem pretty vocal on the issue for not being offended by it, and you haven't been what I'd call polite when dealing with people you disagree with, not everyone who has a different opinion out there is a troll. You may not have directly insulted anyone, but being arrogant and insulting people's intelligence isn't any different.

As to where you're wrong in the logical sense; brace yourself...

The structure of your ship would logically contain the wiring and systems needed to run it; such as wires linking the cannon computer to the cannon modules at the other end of the ship for example. When you destroy the structure between the computer and the module, you take out the wires with it. You didn't lose any modules or the computer, but the wiring is gone. How is that system expected to function? They might still work, but not at full efficiency. Sure, you'll take out the modules and computer once you punch through the armor, but what about all the other cables/wires/pipes you destroyed in between? Those might have been linked to other systems, and without power or data those systems fail. FFS, the power generation alone would justify this feature making sense! Those power cables have got to go somewhere.

Keep in mind that the structural integrity of a system is paramount to how well it operates, which is what EVERYONE has been telling you the entire time.

I do think the numbers need to be tweaked, however, I don't assume to know more about the feature than the devs just because I ran some tests. So far, the reaction has been generally good from the rest of the community, so don't expect this feature to go away anytime soon.

 

[Mered4]

Well, you seem pretty vocal on the issue for not being offended by it, and you haven't been what I'd call polite when dealing with people you disagree with, not everyone who has a different opinion out there is a troll. You may not have directly insulted anyone, but being arrogant and insulting people's intelligence isn't any different.

As to where you're wrong in the logical sense; brace yourself...

The structure of your ship would logically contain the wiring and systems needed to run it; such as wires linking the cannon computer to the cannon modules at the other end of the ship for example. When you destroy the structure between the computer and the module, you take out the wires with it. You didn't lose any modules or the computer, but the wiring is gone. How is that system expected to function? They might still work, but not at full efficiency. Sure, you'll take out the modules and computer once you punch through the armor, but what about all the other cables/wires/pipes you destroyed in between? Those might have been linked to other systems, and without power or data those systems fail. FFS, the power generation alone would justify this feature making sense! Those power cables have got to go somewhere.

Keep in mind that the structural integrity of a system is paramount to how well it operates, which is what EVERYONE has been telling you the entire time.

I do think the numbers need to be tweaked, however, I don't assume to know more about the feature than the devs just because I ran some tests. So far, the reaction has been generally good from the rest of the community, so don't expect this feature to go away anytime soon.

You are using the realism argument that Sven_The_Slayer originally brought up. As I stated back in the previous thread, there is an established meta for how the block system works. It's not anywhere close to how real-world engines work. If we are now deciding to change the meta, so be it. But be warned: changing that meta means we have to go through every system and feature based in that meta and adjust them to fit the new meta. For example, instead of using wireless logic, we would use hard-connected logic (like how plexdoors work).

Since I haven't heard any news on changing the meta, I am going to assume that we'll be sticking to the established one.

 

[Aynslei]

I don't get how the OP can go from saying the entire system needs to be removed to then saying he likes it, but yet I am the troll for wanting ONE answer.

I am going to quote you here, tell me if I am correct or not. "when half of my ship is gone, it doesn't work" No you want the ship to still "work" until all blocks that function are "gone". We are all happy to say that when a ship is half dead it is ALL dead, you are not.

This system is "pointless" because the blocks that should be functioning stop when half the ship is dead. (This is your issue with the current system correct?)

Beyond this point I HAVE NO EARTHLY IDEA what your issue is, or what needs to be proven wrong.

 

[Lecic]

For example, instead of using wireless logic, we would use hard-connected logic

Because wireless electronics don't exist.

 

[Zaphord]

Since I haven't heard any news on changing the meta, I am going to assume that we'll be sticking to the established one.

That's your issue right there. Assuming that the game will not change it's established meta because doing so would mean reworking damn near every other aspect of the game. Why would that be a bad thing? Finding a new angle on how an aspect of the game works could give it the kick in the arse it needs to become even better than it was in the previous build.

I get what you're saying; there needs to be some consistency in how systems interact with each other and how damaging a ship affects those systems. Personally, I like the realism approach, I might be able to grovel my way out of getting blasted out of the sky if all my systems are failing and my core is rebooting, but if there's nothing left of my ship at the end of the fight then I might as well suicide and start over again.

Your previous posts give me the impression that you've never been on the receiving end of a humiliating smack-down in this game, could just be hubris, could be the truth. As for those of us who have lost capital ships because we bit off more than we can chew (I've been told I have balls of steel for the ships I've gone up against just to get shot to pieces) this feature could mean some salvation in the face of destruction as opposed to accepting our fate and being blasted to atoms.

I say that if you just want to break blocks, there's always Minecraft. I feel more immersed in the game when my ship systems are failing and I have to save that sucker before she blows all while negotiating with the one who put the holes in my critical systems to not fire that last shot to put me out of my misery for good. Worse yet! Imagine doing all of that while fighting off a boarding party? Don't know about you, but I don't plan on letting them take my ship that easy. Good reason to have a self-destruct on your ship.

Anyhow, I've got a ship to work on and there isn't anywhere near enough beer in the fridge to continue this argument. I bid you adieux, good sir. I hope this round of mental jousting has brought some enlightenment to all involved.

 

[Aynslei]

I think the OP is going to run out of excuses any post now, I think we already covered that this thread wont lead anywhere.

Thank you Zaphrod for being a beacon of salvation in this dim thread.

 

[Zaphord]

I think the OP is going to run out of excuses any post now, I think we already covered that this thread wont lead anywhere.

Thank you Zaphrod for being a beacon of salvation in this dim thread.

I aim to please.

 

[BDLS]

can we bring back the optimistic rating PLEASE

 

[Mered4]

That's your issue right there. Assuming that the game will not change it's established meta because doing so would mean reworking damn near every other aspect of the game. Why would that be a bad thing? Finding a new angle on how an aspect of the game works could give it the kick in the arse it needs to become even better than it was in the previous build.

I get what you're saying; there needs to be some consistency in how systems interact with each other and how damaging a ship affects those systems. Personally, I like the realism approach, I might be able to grovel my way out of getting blasted out of the sky if all my systems are failing and my core is rebooting, but if there's nothing left of my ship at the end of the fight then I might as well suicide and start over again.

Your previous posts give me the impression that you've never been on the receiving end of a humiliating smack-down in this game, could just be hubris, could be the truth. As for those of us who have lost capital ships because we bit off more than we can chew (I've been told I have balls of steel for the ships I've gone up against just to get shot to pieces) this feature could mean some salvation in the face of destruction as opposed to accepting our fate and being blasted to atoms.

I say that if you just want to break blocks, there's always Minecraft. I feel more immersed in the game when my ship systems are failing and I have to save that sucker before she blows all while negotiating with the one who put the holes in my critical systems to not fire that last shot to put me out of my misery for good. Worse yet! Imagine doing all of that while fighting off a boarding party? Don't know about you, but I don't plan on letting them take my ship that easy. Good reason to have a self-destruct on your ship.

Anyhow, I've got a ship to work on and there isn't anywhere near enough beer in the fridge to continue this argument. I bid you adieux, good sir. I hope this round of mental jousting has brought some enlightenment to all involved.

Ever heard of the Imperium War? I was the guy who was getting smacked all over the place because I dared to stand up to the admins. So yes, I have experience in being on the losing side. I also have experience being on the hilariously losing side. It's not fun.

"That's your issue right there. Assuming that the game will not change it's established meta because doing so would mean reworking damn near every other aspect of the game. Why would that be a bad thing? "
It's not. All I'm saying is that I haven't seen any indication that the meta is getting wiped and replaced with a new one. Until that happens, I'll assume we are sticking to this one. We can speculate, but this thread isn't about speculation - it's about a feature that is present in the game right now.

Because wireless electronics don't exist.

So shoot me. I had to pick an example that made immediate sense and grabbed your attention.

I don't get how the OP can go from saying the entire system needs to be removed to then saying he likes it, but yet I am the troll for wanting ONE answer.

I am going to quote you here, tell me if I am correct or not. "when half of my ship is gone, it doesn't work" No you want the ship to still "work" until all blocks that function are "gone". We are all happy to say that when a ship is half dead it is ALL dead, you are not.

This system is "pointless" because the blocks that should be functioning stop when half the ship is dead. (This is your issue with the current system correct?)

Beyond this point I HAVE NO EARTHLY IDEA what your issue is, or what needs to be proven wrong.

I never said the entire system needs to be removed. Never. I said the mechanic where your ship's systems begin to fail at a certain % of structural HP needs to be removed. You're generalizing my entire argument.

When I say the ship doesn't work (as I clarified in later posts), I mean that your ship doesn't perform as you designed it. It doesn't perform its original function and thus needs repaired. Your core is rendered overheating after 50% of your HP is removed. That 50% is about 50% (or around 30% for ships at 200k mass) of your ship's mass. It's like someone took a katana and sliced your ship in half like a watermelon. Last time I checked, half a watermelon doesn't roll quite the same way a whole watermelon does.

When I say prove my point wrong, I'm asking you for the purpose behind this feature BESIDES the idea to encourage gimmicky boarding mechanics. I'm taking that out of the picture because boarding isn't a part of regular PvP in the current build.

 

[Lecic]

Ever heard of the Imperium War? I was the guy who was getting smacked all over the place because I dared to stand up to the admins. So yes, I have experience in being on the losing side. I also have experience being on the hilariously losing side. It's not fun.

The what now? The only "Imperium War" I've ever heard of was the Odium/Imperium war on Shattered Skies, and I doubt that involved you, considering you aren't Odium, and especially since Odium members downplayed their losses unless they could use what happened for propaganda.

 

[Mered4]

The what now? The only "Imperium War" I've ever heard of was the Odium/Imperium war on Shattered Skies, and I doubt that involved you, considering you aren't Odium, and especially since Odium members downplayed their losses unless they could use what happened for propaganda.

The Imperium War on MushroomFleet that led to Raiben, Dalmont, and crew leaving. You probably haven't heard of it - they've been lying about what actually happened since it started.

 

[Aynslei]

The Imperium War on MushroomFleet that led to Raiben, Dalmont, and crew leaving. You probably haven't heard of it - they've been lying about what actually happened since it started.

Like anyone will trust you about others lying. Hahaha.

 

[Lecic]

War

That's a funny word to use for something that, if true, would be admin abuse.

Arguing with admins isn't a war.