Remove Shipyard Integrity

[OfficialCoding]

Shipyard integrity is ridiculous because you CAN'T have positive integrity with the modules. Please remove this.

 

[Maramonster]

That would be nice. I haven't bothered with a shipyard in a while, but knowing how fragile they are on a good day I bet the integrity isn't helping any.

 

[OfficialCoding]

That would be nice. I haven't bothered with a shipyard in a while, but knowing how fragile they are on a good day I bet the integrity isn't helping any.

Yeah so you can only really have one on your homebase.

 

[YamiHikari]

Actually, why do shipyards have integrity? They're not exactly system blocks, nor is there any need to prevent them from being spaghetti. I think removing the integrity requirement for shipyards isn't a bad idea. Of course, there's no guarantee shipyards won't get a major overhaul in the future. Regardless, this is a change that likely should happen in the meantime.

 

[Maramonster]

They're a system from a technical standpoint I think. computer + system blocks.

 

[YamiHikari]

They're a system from a technical standpoint I think. computer + system blocks.

Good point. I guess that explains why it has integrity. The devs may have not put much thought into that when deciding what is affected by integrity.

 

[Dire Venom]

Sounds like little thought was put into integrity unless if it was intentional.
Why this is a thing is beyond me.

 

[Coyote27]

At least integrity doesn't matter too much for a homebase-protected station since it can't take damage, and that's where most shipyards will be, so it's not as bad of an oversight as it could have been. Still needs a fix, because if there's anything we don';t need in the game it's more stuff to hurt non-HB stations.

 

[OfficialCoding]

Sounds like little thought was put into integrity unless if it was intentional.
Why this is a thing is beyond me.

Yeah. You'll have to armour your shipyards, which will make them look not as good, unless you used black crystal armour slabs.
[doublepost=1519940656,1519940590][/doublepost]

At least integrity doesn't matter too much for a homebase-protected station since it can't take damage, and that's where most shipyards will be, so it's not as bad of an oversight as it could have been. Still needs a fix, because if there's anything we don';t need in the game it's more stuff to hurt non-HB stations.

Yup. I'm gonna start a new statiob soon, and i have to armour the shipyard or else it will take damage.

 

[Antikristianos]

well even "cargo space" has integrity... can't see why my empty cargo space needs to blow up on weapon fire lol but its there anyway

 

[OfficialCoding]

well even "cargo space" has integrity... can't see why my empty cargo space needs to blow up on weapon fire lol but its there anyway

This update breaks badly. I wish they would remove integrity

 

[Antikristianos]

This update breaks badly. I wish they would remove integrity

i really do not think that the integrity should be "completly" removed. (for some systems like shipyards yes definetly remove it but for others it should stay)
but it sure needs quite some optimization, balancing and then some more to become something that will walk the line between counter spaghetti and still allowing nice designs without the need to place giant rectangular blocks of systems to get a good integrity value.

 

[OfficialCoding]

i really do not think that the integrity should be "completly" removed. (for some systems like shipyards yes definetly remove it but for others it should stay)
but it sure needs quite some optimization, balancing and then some more to become something that will walk the line between counter spaghetti and still allowing nice designs without the need to place giant rectangular blocks of systems to get a good integrity value.

Okay. I like spaghetti

 

[Dire Venom]

Yup. Spaghetti is a better alternative XD
If you kill the reactor the ships dead anyway. I've never encoutered a Spaghetti ship in a couple of years of MP servers as well.

 

[OfficialCoding]

Yup. Spaghetti is a better alternative XD
If you kill the reactor the ships dead anyway. I've never encoutered a Spaghetti ship in a couple of years of MP servers as well.

Spaghetti sometimes works better than huge cubes.

 

[Nosajimiki]

Actually, why do shipyards have integrity? They're not exactly system blocks, nor is there any need to prevent them from being spaghetti. I think removing the integrity requirement for shipyards isn't a bad idea. Of course, there's no guarantee shipyards won't get a major overhaul in the future. Regardless, this is a change that likely should happen in the meantime.

I have confirmed that they have integrity

At least integrity doesn't matter too much for a homebase-protected station since it can't take damage, and that's where most shipyards will be, so it's not as bad of an oversight as it could have been. Still needs a fix, because if there's anything we don';t need in the game it's more stuff to hurt non-HB stations.

Shipyards are actually the most popular base function to offset into output bases. Because they break often and cause a lot of lag, many ppl dont want them on HBs; so, they make disposable shipyards in the void. The problem is not if they can be destroyed by enemies, but how much damage that take from accidental fire. (You leave a fire-at will turret on on a frigate, and your 1000x1000x1000 m shipyard will eat it.)

Yup. Spaghetti is a better alternative XD
If you kill the reactor the ships dead anyway. I've never encountered a Spaghetti ship in a couple of years of MP servers as well.

I feel there is a relationship between spaghetti encounters and how hated/feared you are. I've seen you fight often enough to be repsepected, but you did not stand out enough for people to say, "well I can't beat him like this, time to spaghetti his ass." Like I've said before, the big problem with spaghetti is that it was not like a man-o-war where you had to figure out how to stack dozens of esoteric exploits to kill some noob ship 10x your size. It was that you need 1 very obvious exploit that was so easy to recreate that an noob or pissed off vet could cheaply slap one together in a few hours and genocide a server.

 

[Ithirahad]

I'm tempted to write a Phab ticket for this, as it's basically a bug...
[doublepost=1520543473,1520543334][/doublepost]

This update breaks badly. I wish they would remove integrity

Or, instead of being violently reactionary, they could just, y'know, not have integrity on things that don't need it, and tweak the system a bit so it doesn't cause so much trouble in situations where it shouldn't. I can see why cargo space would have it, actually, as spaghettified, low-density cargo arrangements would be a good way to minimize lost cargo in an attack, so it's reasonable to encourage having cargo in large masses or blocks. However, things like shipyards certainly should not have the system applied to them, and there's no reason they can't remove it from shipyards without deleting the mechanic entirely.

 

[OfficialCoding]

I'm tempted to write a Phab ticket for this, as it's basically a bug...
[doublepost=1520543473,1520543334][/doublepost]
Or, instead of being violently reactionary, they could just, y'know, not have integrity on things that don't need it, and tweak the system a bit so it doesn't cause so much trouble in situations where it shouldn't. I can see why cargo space would have it, actually, as spaghettified, low-density cargo arrangements would be a good way to minimize lost cargo in an attack, so it's reasonable to encourage having cargo in large masses or blocks. However, things like shipyards certainly should not have the system applied to them, and there's no reason they can't remove it from shipyards without deleting the mechanic entirely.

Yeah use this chunk of pseudocode:

If (current_block == "shipyard module")
integrity = 1000;
Else
integrity = whatever_integrity_is;

It sets integrity to 1000 so it will always be positive. This is a 5 minute fix and I hope they implement it.

 

[Nosajimiki]

A more stable fix would be to add a config file that expressly defines what systems do and do not get affected by integrity. That way they aren't ugifying their code each time a system is deemed to need an exception. A config file is also more future proof because they could also include multiple integrity model option so that some systems might be affected differently. This way, systems that aren't major targeting priorities in weapons 2.0 anyway could be granted more freedom of form or suffer penalties other than chain reactions.

 

[OfficialCoding]

A more stable fix would be to add a config file that expressly defines what systems do and do not get affected by integrity. That way they aren't ugifying their code each time a system is deemed to need an exception. A config file is also more future proof because they could also include multiple integrity model option so that some systems might be affected differently. This way, systems that aren't major targeting priorities in weapons 2.0 anyway could be granted more freedom of form or suffer penalties other than chain reactions.

Yeah your right. I was just giving the quick fix.