Docking and the upcoming home base points system should use mass/block counts, not box sizes.

[Lecic]

Every system has flaws. If you don't want flaws, then please, don't use a computer ever again. Ever. Don't use a car, don't use any electronic device, because it may have Java-based programs on it. If you want to say that flawed functionality beats flawed functionality, then you're just unreasonable.

If we're going to be flawed (after all, every system has flaws), wouldn't it make more sense to be flawed towards the system that doesn't favor slapping antennas on things to make them dock easier?

 

[lio_oVo_oil]

Funny thing is... in real life, antennae are used to dock space shuttles to space stations.

I know you'll come back with something like "but this isn't real life" or "why would we want it to be like real life?", but the fact is, docking is extremely buggy as is, and needs a few repairs.

Oh, right, and antennae wouldn't make docking easier with a density-based system that also utilizes the box system. What I mean is that docking requires a ship of up to a certain density, while also being limited in size by a box (obviously configs would be extremely nice for default sizes/densities and when setting the limits to what you would like). Of course you could do this with a mass-based system as well. The results would be similar, but would have less control over the overall size of a ship. Did I explain my idea a little better? If not, please hit that dislike button to your heart's content.

Also, blocks themselves should have different densities (mass added to your ship when you add on a block). Obviously I mean that a reinforced hull block should have a mass of 2 while regulars have a mass of 1. This would make your mass-based system work wonders.

I'm now done trying to get others to understand my own thoughts.

 

[Admiral.Piett]

As i have a similar thread, I think mass should be used at all times for docking, rating and HP calculations rather than size. That makes a huge strike in balancing ships with interiors, vs ships with no interiors, but a big thing that needs to be here is Collision logic. Hangars should be big enough to harbor ships with their listed mass, taking into account its shape, so it won't collision with other block in the hangar.

At some point I read that the reason this system hasn't been implemented is the fact you would have to re-dock everything on its place on servers. It is a game in ALPHA. Better now than in beta or release.... right? I am sorry but that is a terrible reason not to push this in. Advantages to ship balancing, design and game-play are obvious, and far more balanced than "size". I'll say it again, the more flexible ship design is in this game, whilst making viable as many designs as possible, in competitive game-play, the more successful this game will be

 

[rece ktore leczo]

I'm now done trying to get others to understand my own thoughts.

We understand, it's just that Your idea would have negatively affect on performance and gameplay. It definitely wouldn't be a step toward making this game better.

 

[Admiral.Piett]

I do agree, however, that different blocks should have different densities, with normal hull being one and scaling over (and below) that. That allows for more flexible and careful ship planning, advanced ship balancing, that includes weapon, power and shield balancing. If we Implement a feature of different block densities to affect mass based bases and docking, we can take out death cubes once and for all. Making them the most "efficient" design, but not making them overpowered at all. Think of it, we could finally make more sense out of several ships designs by making their mass reflect the materials they are made of. This ALSO limits ships sizing, since heavier armored ships would increment their mass. Give it more thoughts on that angle. Also balances ships that have many angled proportions, according to their mass, effectively adding efficiency to the design.


We can effectively kill giganticism if we add a density per block calculation, specially if we add more density to shield systems and weapon systems. We are able to effectively balance the whole size of a ship, by making a density calculation per block type on the ship, adding way more mass to it.

 

[lio_oVo_oil]

Quite what I was thinking, though everyone wants to keep the game as close to its current state as possible. If that was indeed the objective ( which I had once thought it was), then my plan was to make the game slightly more configurable, and less complicated (though no one can see what I had envisioned so it doesn't matter anyway).

 

[Admiral.Piett]

Well, I just had my share of that. Much of the active people here relegate this ideas because they might lose their already proven and tested designs. They fail to realize this game is an ALPHA, that needs to be shaped constantly. Any work you accomplish in this state of the game might as well be useless when it goes into beta! So, the main focus here is to add and implement features that make a better game, not keep it the way it is so your super mother ship that took you 3 months to complete still works when the game is on its final release.

I must say, you completely failed to explain your point, if that was it. lio_oVo_oil

 

[rece ktore leczo]

lio_oVo_oil Admiral.Piett I agree with any suggestions, whatever impact they would have on the game and already built entities, but only if they are in good direction, imo of course. That's why i'm supporting mass based docking (and other ideas) as this would add to the gameplay value of the game without being complicated and vulnerable for abuse.

lio_oVo_oil Reading Your posts i'm mostly thinking about how long would be my post pointing out the flaws in Your reasoning. I apologize but writing it would take me too much time and probably i wouldn't achieve anything with it

I generally agree with You in one point - there may be a better way to calculate power. Dimensional system looks neat at the beginning of the game, but later it just comes to the point of placing long lines of reactors. We could have a linear system (like recently changed thruster calculations) but with a little tweak as suggested by Lecic (quote concerning thruster calculations) "Maybe slowly diminishing returns with a higher starting point to allow them to still move decently would be the best choice?".


BTW It seems that You don't know about 1 mil e/s threshold, after which placing next en generator gives plain 25 e/sec.

 

[Malacodor]

Hangars should be big enough to harbor ships with their listed mass, taking into account its shape, so it won't collision with other block in the hangar.

I think a mass based system only makes sense in combination with a proper collision check. The big advantage of the current system is that checking a ship's dimensions against the docking box size requires much less computation time than a full collision check. But the necessary calculations could be done in small steps to avoid having an impact on the FPS. The only downside would be (at worst) a short waiting time for the ship that wants to dock. However, having to wait a short time until the docking process is complete could probably feel even more realistic than the current instant teleport-docking.

 

[Admiral.Piett]

We are getting somewhere with this. If people agree to mass docking then a proper collision check is the next thing to implement right after it.

 

[Ithirahad]

Funny thing is... in real life, antennae are used to dock space shuttles to space stations.

Yes, but not because the docking ports can't hold bigger things on them without random antennas sticking out of an unrelated part of the station.

Oh, right, and antennae wouldn't make docking easier with a density-based system that also utilizes the box system. What I mean is that docking requires a ship of up to a certain density, while also being limited in size by a box (obviously configs would be extremely nice for default sizes/densities and when setting the limits to what you would like). Of course you could do this with a mass-based system as well. The results would be similar, but would have less control over the overall size of a ship. Did I explain my idea a little better? If not, please hit that dislike button to your heart's content.

There's a massive problem with this: there are two ways to get the volume variable for your density calculation; one would encourage idiot cubes, and the other would cause performance issues.

Also, blocks themselves should have different densities (mass added to your ship when you add on a block). Obviously I mean that a reinforced hull block should have a mass of 2 while regulars have a mass of 1. This would make your mass-based system work wonders.

Yes, differing block masses would be great, for both docking and regular balance reasons.

 

[lio_oVo_oil]

Malacodor - So you finally understand the nonsense that I've been spitting out for days? Bravo! Ithirahad - Amazing... why didn't I think of that? (oh yes, I did, but it is the only other way you'd get proper performance with a system that doesn't use crappy shortcuts... okay maybe not the only way, but the first thing that came to me was that.)

Later in life...

Woah! This is amazing! Since someone invented something called "priorities", I've become thousands of times more productive! (I don't think anyone will understand that what I'm trying to say here... it's not entirely negative, but it's not so positive either.)

 

[Strange]

lio_oVo_oil When your completely irrational and non-existent system is disagreed with and put down, resort to sarcasm. And, if your passive-aggressive priorities are straight, why are you still holding on to this? Either overcome your arrogance and try to work out your differences with other people like a regular guy, or do as you not-so-subtly implied and leave the community. This is open alpha, which means you're only needed to help with bug-testing, balancing, feature development, etc. There's no need to cater to an immature, over-sensitive fanbase like you. Not yet.

We are getting somewhere with this. If people agree to mass docking then a proper collision check is the next thing to implement right after it.

I agree. In fact, I think proper collision check needs to happen no matter what. Unfortunately, this is an open alpha, which means that the mechanics probably won't be optimized for a while. Still, one can always hope.

 

[FunnyBunny14]

I do agree, however, that different blocks should have different densities, with normal hull being one and scaling over (and below) that.

Read the changelog for version 0.158.