New Power DEV Thread

[Top 4ce]

We didn't forget, we just don't agree with you and are tired of arguing with you about it.Good. The game will become much better once they do.

Please don't make generalizations on a whole player type. They have just as much right to want to play the game and have their opinion heard as anyone else.

 

[Lecic]

Try making that (valid) argument again, but without all the aggression. Because yelling at the devs isn't constructive.

If the devs don't want people's honest opinions, they shouldn't ask for them. I've already heavily watered down my curses for SMD. I'm not censoring myself any further.

 

[Az14el]

It IS a potential dealbreaker to many of us for a game we've all put a fuckload of time & effort & love into, Edy

So doesn't matter how tired you are of arguing it, we're going to argue it until they make a solid decision one way or another.

 

[Lecic]

We didn't forget, we just don't agree with you and are tired of arguing with you about it.Good. The game will become much better once they do.

So you've rated my post disagree. Would you like to elaborate on why you think my argument (the devs are balancing around something superficial like length instead of something concrete like mass, block count, or even resource cost) is wrong? Or are you simply being a contrarian because you personally dislike me?

 

[Edymnion]

It IS a potential dealbreaker to many of us for a game we've all put a fuckload of time & effort & love into, Edy

And not to sound overly blunt here, but in the long run, it doesn't matter if they piss off every single person here and they leave. There will always be a subset of players who will get mad and leave any time anything is changed. But if the change brings in more people than it loses, then it was for the best.

So doesn't matter how tired you are of arguing it, we're going to argue it until they make a solid decision one way or the other.

You have shown complete disregard for the advice given to you by dozens of experienced meta players who foresaw this exact scenario arising.

Just because they didn't agree with you doesn't mean that they didn't listen to you or that they ignored you.

 

[Az14el]

holy shit dude

 

[Edymnion]

So you've rated my post disagree. Would you like to elaborate on why you think my argument (the devs are balancing around something superficial like length instead of something concrete like mass, block count, or even resource cost) is wrong? Or are you simply being a contrarian because you personally dislike me?

Okay, one, I don't care about anyone here enough to go around harassing them just because they said something. You might, I don't.

I hit disagree because I disagree with your stance about having the game being built around the meta players. I disagree with your attitude towards the devs. I disagree with your whole "You didn't do exactly what I told you to do, therefore you are idiots who don't listen to anyone" stance.

 

[Lecic]

Just because they didn't agree with you doesn't mean that they didn't listen to you or that they ignored you

The fact that they implemented heatboxes 2: stabilizer boogaloo is clear evidence that that completely ignored the advice we gave them and simply thought our argument was "CALLING POWER HEAT = BAD"

 

[Panpiper]

We didn't forget, we just don't agree with you and are tired of arguing with you about it.Good. The game will become much better once they do.

That level of insult warrants an ignore. Only my second in nearly three years. Congrats and good bye.

 

[Az14el]

You don't have to metabuild if you dont want to Edy, how a player chooses to play has no bearing on what's actually possible and whats possible is pretty fuckin broken and stupid, and all evidence says they're not learning from it.

 

[Top 4ce]

Woo boy this thread is getting derailed...

 

[Az14el]

matter of time

 

[Cluwne]

Edymnion jw608
What you two suggest sounds a lot like an actual reactor with complex mechanics like heat management and etc. I'd love a complex alternative to the toddler-friendly new power system that you can minmax optimize to squeeze a lot more power through clever engineering.

And "shaking the ship apart" is plain bad solution that literally adds nothing but tedium and maintenance costs for no good reason.
The fact that reactors can chain-explode like AUX and have none of that added health from "stability" is balancing enough.

 

[Edymnion]

You don't have to metabuild if you dont want to Edy, how a player chooses to play has no bearing on what's actually possible and whats possible is pretty fuckin broken and stupid, and all evidence says they're not learning from it.

So instead of calling them stupid and ignorant and throwing temper tantrums that we didn't get exactly what we want, lets accept that this is the direction we're going in and try to improve it. "We told you so, the entire thing sucks, you need to throw it all out" helps no one.

Work with the devs, not against them.

 

[Lecic]

I hit disagree because I disagree with your stance about having the game being built around the meta players. I disagree with your attitude towards the devs. I disagree with your whole "You didn't do exactly what I told you to do, therefore you are kittens who don't listen to anyone" stance.

If the game was properly balanced the concept of "meta players" you have in your head would cease to exist in the first place. I am not saying you should balance the game to benefit meta players. I am saying you should balance the "meta building style" out of the game so that everyone, including the PvPers who don't like building those kinds of craft, benefits.

You're incredibly foolish if you think these heatboxes are going to drive away those evil meta players you hate so much. We are not complaining because it will make us leave the game. We are complaining because it makes the game worse. It doesn't fix the disjointed building style the current meta has, in fact it encourages it more. Non-meta builders will continue to get the short end of the stick in terms of combat performance because this system does nothing to fix the problems, and in fact makes them worse.

You do not understand the ramifications of these balance changes. We are not defending the old system. We are trying to get rid of it, and you are unwittingly trying to keep us in the same style of meta as before.

 

[Az14el]

They literally asked for "raw/unfiltered" commentary as they find it useful, and that's exactly what they're getting, until this page for some mysterious reason. Go ahead and make your opinions heard as you and panpiper had both been doing just fine, don't just disregard or devalue anothers because you didnt like how it sounded.

 

[Edymnion]

Edymnion jw608
What you two suggest sounds a lot like an actual reactor with complex mechanics like heat management and etc. I'd love a complex alternative to the toddler-friendly new power system that you can minmax optimize to squeeze a lot more power through clever engineering.

I still don't see this.

The new system adds more options, and forces us to choose between what we want a ship to do. The old system was not this great beautiful masterpiece of engineering, it was just arbitrary.

The difficulty in building should be in balancing what everything can do, not in the physical layout of the blocks. I see much more complexity and decision making in the new system than I do in the "just figure out how to cram it all in" previous system.
[doublepost=1507653474,1507653050][/doublepost]

You do not understand the ramifications of these balance changes. We are not defending the old system. We are trying to get rid of it, and you are unwittingly trying to keep us in the same style of meta as before.

Then put it in those terms without the name calling, please.

What you've said so far has basically been, from my point of view, "This is terrible because it makes us use X arbitrary shaped ship instead of Y arbitrary shaped ship". At the most, I see it as just promoting different shaped ships than before, while giving us more options in how to customize each ship.

The old system was arbitrary and counter-intuitive while offering no real decision making when it came to a ship. The new one isn't perfect, but its better than what we had. If you can come up with a better system, then by all means type it up and we can discuss it. I just really hate the whole "this solution doesn't fix 100% of everything, so it shouldn't be done" thing I see here and in the world as a whole. Incremental improvements are better than leaving things the way they are to me. This new system gives us lots of new options, while only removing gordian knot reactor lines. It simplifies the build process while complicating the design process, I see that as a good thing.

 

[Lecic]

I still don't see this.

The new system adds more options, and forces us to choose between what we want a ship to do. The old system was not this great beautiful masterpiece of engineering, it was just arbitrary.

The difficulty in building should be in balancing what everything can do, not in the physical layout of the blocks. I see much more complexity and decision making in the new system than I do in the "just figure out how to cram it all in" previous system.
[doublepost=1507653474,1507653050][/doublepost]
Then put it in those terms without the name calling, please.

What you've said so far has basically been, from my point of view, "This is terrible because it makes us use X arbitrary shaped ship instead of Y arbitrary shaped ship". At the most, I see it as just promoting different shaped ships than before, while giving us more options in how to customize each ship.

The old system was arbitrary and counter-intuitive while offering no real decision making when it came to a ship. The new one isn't perfect, but its better than what we had. If you can come up with a better system, then by all means type it up and we can discuss it. I just really hate the whole "this solution doesn't fix 100% of everything, so it shouldn't be done" thing I see here and in the world as a whole. Incremental improvements are better than leaving things the way they are to me. This new system gives us lots of new options, while only removing gordian knot reactor lines. It simplifies the build process while complicating the design process, I see that as a good thing.

You don't get it, do you? I only have problems with idiotic dimension based balancing of the new system. I like the rest. Stabilizers either need to be removed or reworked into something that doesn't require distance, because distance means nothing to a meta builder. Any ship that fits inside a sector is fair game for them to design. This is why you can't balance around dimensions, especially when the game doesn't have break off or require a physical connection to those stabilizers. You need to balance off mass.

 

[Az14el]

Stabilizers and their purpose in the new system are whats mostly being called into question, not the entirety of the dev build (and only few suggestions have been made to actual remove stabilizers, for the most part we want a healthy mechanic, not another heatbox)

Explicitly rewarding high dimensions and by extension a high surface;volume area is a commonality of both old reactors and devs reactor<>stabilizer mechanic, this severely impacts aesthetic builds & smaller ships as well as any form of heavy armor (more required to cover a ship the higher its surface area compared to volume, while less of it will be actually utilized in combat), which is already severely underpowered.

 

[Thingie]

Hi guys, staff here would like everyone to go back to original topic.
If you would like to continue the discussion it has been derailing to please do so in privet or via making your own post relating to topic thank you.

Any further detailed discussion after this post will be removed.

Also remember not to insult each other and stay civil.

Thank you~