Mass Changes, why haven't other adjustments happened?

[Sven_The_Slayer]

So the HP system introduced varied masses between blocks but not a lot of blocks seem to have been adjusted. As far as I know all system blocks still weigh the same, decoration blocks weigh very little, hull weighs less and armor weighs more. The problem is no other systems that use mass as their determine factors have been adjusted. Nearly every ship in existence just got heavier but the requirements for passive systems, thrust and jump drives have not been tweaked at all. I know there is a big thrust update coming so I'm much less concerned about that but it really grinds my gears that ships that once had efficient jump drives now need twice the number of modules in order to regain their efficient charge. Even replacing large portions of the ship with standard hull barely makes a dent in the amount of additional modules I need.

I'm not saying blocks shouldn't vary in weight, ships with heavy armor should weigh more but that is no reason not to make adjustments to other systems. Some systems also should not use mass as the determining factor but volume such as shields and Passive ion effect. Shields wouldn't care how heavy a block is only how many there are.

Jump drives, thrust and passive over drive should be effected by mass but perhaps have their requirements tweaked. I've always thought the requirement for an efficient jump drive was far to high even when every block weighed the same. I believe this was the way it was to make it not OP out of the gate but I think now is a good time to look at how many modules should be required. Thrust of course is getting it's own overhaul in the future.

 

[lilheartless]

So the HP system introduced varied masses between blocks but not a lot of blocks seem to have been adjusted. As far as I know all system blocks still weigh the same, decoration blocks weigh very little, hull weighs less and armor weighs more. The problem is no other systems that use mass as their determine factors have been adjusted. Nearly every ship in existence just got heavier but the requirements for passive systems, thrust and jump drives have not been tweaked at all. I know there is a big thrust update coming so I'm much less concerned about that but it really grinds my gears that ships that once had efficient jump drives now need twice the number of modules in order to regain their efficient charge. Even replacing large portions of the ship with standard hull barely makes a dent in the amount of additional modules I need.

snip.

My guess is that any balance changes to the way mass based modules work is going to have to wait till after the cargo update / carried items contain mass happens because that is going to completely throw balance out of whack but it won't really be known how much until that system is in place.

fixing it now would kinda be like spending 2 weeks straightening a placeholder board that you are going to take out in 2 weeks lol.

 

[Edymnion]

Well, the short answer is that its just good programming to only change one variable at a time, make sure its stable and performing as expected, then change one more. If you change everything in one sweeping pass and something screws up, it is MUCH harder to pin down exactly where the problem was, and hence how to fix it.

 

[Sven_The_Slayer]

Well, the short answer is that its just good programming to only change one variable at a time, make sure its stable and performing as expected, then change one more. If you change everything in one sweeping pass and something screws up, it is MUCH harder to pin down exactly where the problem was, and hence how to fix it.

The changes needed are all in config files that should have no bearing on anything programming related. All these values are open to be changed by individual server operators and it would be bad programming if changing them would have a significant impact on the stability of the game.

 

[Keptick]

Tbh jump drives and passive systems should be based on block count, not mass.

 

[SchnellBier]

Tbh jump drives and passive systems should be based on block count, not mass.

Agreed with passive systems, especially the ones that alter the movement of a ship. The mass has already an major influence on acceleration and top speed. It really doesn´t need another downside for movement effects. And I don´t see how any other effect should be influenced by it.

In my opinion jump drives are ok with the mass dependency. It makes sense to me.

 

[Groovrider]

Tbh jump drives and passive systems should be based on block count, not mass.

No. Builders should benefit from using lighter materials to enhance performance at the cost of protection.

 

[Gasboy]

Tbh jump drives and passive systems should be based on block count, not mass.

Then there'd never be a reason to use anything but advanced armor. Since the cost difference is negligable compared to the advantages advanced armor confers, especially if the weight penalties were removed.

EDIT: As for other passive systems besides jump drives, mass is still a better measuring stick than block count. It's like saying the 101 meter ship is a battleship, but the 100 meter ship isn't. Length really isn't a proper way to classify a ship. Block count shouldn't be a way to calculate jump drives or overdrive or push effects, because mass is more important for those effects. And I would argue mass is a better measure for other effects because it givss you a better measure of just how much of a ship you have.

A ton of feathers weighs the same as a ton of bricks. But 1 cubic meter is much more substantial, and heavy, than 1 cubic meter of feathers. You need more energy to do stuff to the cubic meter of bricks than to the feathers.

 

[Sven_The_Slayer]

Yeah I do agree there should be some things that are mass based, anything that is movement probably should be mass based, it's the law of motion. Trust, Jump Drive, Overdrive probably should remain mass based but that's no reason not to take a second look at how many modules you need based on mass. Having a reason to choose heavy over light is great but I feel heavy is just getting punished to much. As no other mass changes were made right now there is no middle ground, you either choose light, heavy or heavier.

 

[Edymnion]

But if you go to block count based again (as everything basically was before when all blocks had the same mass), then you are only punishing people who decorate their ships. Under the mass system, a decoration is very light. Under a block count, the flowers on a table penalize the ship every bit as much as the weapons or armor does. All you've done is go back to saying decorating your ships to make them look pretty is wrong.

 

[Sven_The_Slayer]

But if you go to block count based again (as everything basically was before when all blocks had the same mass), then you are only punishing people who decorate their ships. Under the mass system, a decoration is very light. Under a block count, the flowers on a table penalize the ship every bit as much as the weapons or armor does. All you've done is go back to saying decorating your ships to make them look pretty is wrong.

The "punishment" for decorative blocks when counting all blocks equal under a volume system is nothing compared to the punishment of using heavy armor and wanting an efficient jump drive. Jump drives used to be what? 5% standard and now can potentially be 10%-15% of a ships total block count. I doubt anybodies ship was ever 10-15% decorative blocks.

Also once again I'm not saying everything should be count based just that the values deserved a second look, however, some systems probably should be based on volume and not mass.

 

[Edymnion]

Well, I would think that being punished for using nothing but the heaviest armor in the game is EXACTLY what should be happening.

Right now its in a good place for me. Hull is light and flimsy, standard armor is standard, and advanced armor is good but pricey in terms of things like manueverability.

You don't want nothing but advanced armor unless you want to build a big slow tank. Otherwise you use it for selective hardening and reinforcement. I think thats a much better implementation than simply saying "Screw it, high end players don't even look at lesser armors". This way even someone with unlimited resources still has to actually stop and plan it out.

 

[Sven_The_Slayer]

Well, I would think that being punished for using nothing but the heaviest armor in the game is EXACTLY what should be happening.

Right now its in a good place for me. Hull is light and flimsy, standard armor is standard, and advanced armor is good but pricey in terms of things like manueverability.

You don't want nothing but advanced armor unless you want to build a big slow tank. Otherwise you use it for selective hardening and reinforcement. I think thats a much better implementation than simply saying "Screw it, high end players don't even look at lesser armors". This way even someone with unlimited resources still has to actually stop and plan it out.

I've always built slow big tanks, I'm fine continuing to build slow big tanks. I think the thing that bothers me the most is standard armor isn't "standard" you are light or heavy or heavier with no middle ground. The only ships that stayed the same mass in this update are ones that used exactly 50/50 hull/standard armor or 75/25 hull/advanced armor or some other infinitely incalculable combinations which is exactly why I think either A) other masses need to be adjusted, B) systems that use mass as their determine factor need to be recalculated, Or C) standard armor be adjusted to be that middle ground.

Also why should all system blocks weigh 1 mass now? Why exactly does hull weigh less than all system blocks?

 

[Keptick]

Then there'd never be a reason to use anything but advanced armor.

1) It's expensive as hell. Basic hull has a better protection/cost ratio.
2) It's heavy and has a worse protection/mass ratio than the two other armor types, meaning you need more thrusters for identical protection. I jever said that all armor blocks should have the same mass.

To clarify, by passive system I meant effect modules used on their own, not things like thrust. And it would make sense for jump drives to be mass based, I agree. However, PASSIVE EFFECT SYSTEMS could use block counts, it'd also make it easier to build them in ships since mass based calculations are a pain.

Either way the values need to be adjusted because right now the system ratios needed to get a good jump drive and effect systems are just stupid. Moreso because they penalize people like me that like having pretty ships covered in hull instead of system bricks.

 

[Gasboy]

1) It's expensive as hell. Basic hull has a better protection/cost ratio.
2) It's heavy and has a worse protection/mass ratio than the two other armor types, meaning you need more thrusters for identical protection. I jever said that all armor blocks should have the same mass.

To clarify, by passive system I meant effect modules used on their own, not things like thrust. And it would make sense for jump drives to be mass based, I agree. However, PASSIVE EFFECT SYSTEMS could use block counts, it'd also make it easier to build them in ships since mass based calculations are a pain.

Either way the values need to be adjusted because right now the system ratios needed to get a good jump drive and effect systems are just stupid. Moreso because they penalize people like me that like having pretty ships covered in hull instead of system bricks.

1) It's only expensive to purchase. Making them is cheap.

2) If jump drives were based off of block numbers, you would be penalizing hull and standard armor, because as far as the jump drive was concerned, hull, standard armor and advanced armor would all be the same: 1 block. But you do agree now that jump drives should be mass based. So fine.

And I spoke to PASSIVE EFFECT SYSTEMS: overdrive, push and pull are passive effect systems, are they not? Do you think a lighter ship should have to pay the same costs as a heavier one as far as overdrive/stop/push/pull goes, even though the lighter ship is ... lighter? That makes no sense at all. The lighter ship is easier to move, so having those systems as passive systems should be more of a benefit for lighter ships, yes?

 

[timethatswasted]

This is one of those "personal preference' issues that really is not worth arguing... I personally like the new mass settings they way they are now. Big ships feel a little bigger and bulky. I would even go as far as to further increase the mass of powerful things like shields and missiles, and at the same time increase the overall armor values.

THAT BEING SAID

For the sake of overall game balance, I do agree with Sven that jump drives need a bit of a bump, as well as over drive. I also agree with Keptic that the cost of most passive effects greatly outweighs the benefit of them. Right now they are useless for small ships because they don't give you enough of a bonus, and are useless on large ships because you need so damn many. Personally I find them to be very boring... I could add a bunch of passive ion effects and get a 60% bonus.... Or I could simply just add more shields, which I find is normally the better option. Maybe they need a diminishing return, or some kind of soft cap to make them more interesting/meaningful?

I do not agree however that the passive effects should be block based rather then mass based. As Gasboy stated above. That just falls back under the "bigger is better with out any exception" category that has made combat so lame in this game for years.

I don't know... whatever... I've given up on game balance lol I'll just work with that ever they give me

 

[Gasboy]

Oh I think things do need to be balanced, because almost every kind of ship gets gimped in some way. As some have said, standard armor is rarely considered: go light and fast, or big and bulky, or go home. Big ships need to be so big, and then bigger again to get the effects, while small ships get screwed because 5 modules of anything is pretty meaningless.

Putting stuff by block count means bigger ships will be favoured. Putting stuff by mass means middling ships are probably best, big enough to take hits, but not so big where you need thousands of blocks just to get modest effects or secondary computer gains.

What would probably work best is to figure out the maximum ship. What is the largest size of ship the devs will consider supporting. And then you create a sliding scale of sorts. So that small mass ships need only a few blocks of a thing to get modest effects (say, 50%?), and then it gets harder to get 100%, you need more and more blocks. Middle mass ships get something roughly what is currently in effect, and it is the same from 0% to 100%. Large mass ships get something similar to small mass ships, where it's relatively easy to get to 50% (but more expensive than what small and middle mass ships have to pay), and once you reach 50%, the costs begin to climb upwards and sharply.

How does that sound?

 

[Winterhome]

Gasboy has lost his mind. He has clearly never had to fill an order for 200,000 advanced armor blocks before.

You can't call it "cheap" when you need to eat a half dozen planets to make a single moderately sized ship's hull.

Incidentally, there is no "largest size the devs will consider supporting" because schema has in the past repeatedly made clear his wishes for every system in the game to theoretically scale infinitely :|

 

[Panpiper]

You can't call it "cheap" when you need to eat a half dozen planets to make a single moderately sized ship's hull.

What a coincidence. I ate precisely six planets, completely, plus a great many asteroids to complete this ship (Shiva - Destroyer of Worlds).

I'm not sure I'd call it a 'moderate' size of ship however. It is well over two million blocks.

I ate six planets, used what I could of those materials, sold the rest denuding two systems worth of shops of both cash and essential components such as shield, jump and armor, then a visit to spawn to shamelessly exploit it's reserve as well. It took at least two full days of effort just for the materials alone, not to mention the several days spent in construction.

Germane to the subject of this thread, it takes 320K thrusters to give this thing a thrust response I consider barely adequate (burning 12 million power). 185K jump modules give this a jump recharge rate of 18 seconds, which is about as slow as I can live with in a ship I will be piloting a lot.

I should also mention that the only reason I am flying this as opposed to a battle cube is because my server admin turned the TURNING_DIMENSION_SCALE = 1.1 in the server.cfg file down to 0.8. I consider sluggish turn rates SO debilitating, that if we did not have this option, I would either fly small battle cubes only or simply not play. I keep holding out hope that some option will someday exist to devote extra mass/energy in a ship to improving turn rates.

 

[Gasboy]

Gasboy has lost his mind. He has clearly never had to fill an order for 200,000 advanced armor blocks before.

You can't call it "cheap" when you need to eat a half dozen planets to make a single moderately sized ship's hull.

Incidentally, there is no "largest size the devs will consider supporting" because schema has in the past repeatedly made clear his wishes for every system in the game to theoretically scale infinitely :|

And how long does it take to get the resources to create an auto miner that can eat planets while you afk? Judging from my room mates survival server, a few hours, longer if you're lackadaisical about it.

Judging from the half million advanced armor I've got?

Cheap as chips.

And yeah, I've not built a titan. But I could probably have enough blocks to build one in short order if I chose.