my point is being a galaxy-conquering badass should be the end goal, not something you can do right away. having a titan you can roam around in laughing in the faces of any adversary is something you should have to WORK for. yall make it sound like having to place some thrusters for front/back and some for side to side is difficult.
that being said i also like the current system. tuning thrusters isnt something you HAVE to do, its something you GET to do. i like that i can make my ship handle like i want it to.
I read your post and was thinking "oh no" then your last paragraph hit the nail on the head. The new thruster update is a great addition.
I see titans not being that common way to much work to build over months and months, I hope to see fleet battles with destroyer sized craft and bombers.
The way power currently works is not something I am a fan of. However, it is not nearly as limiting to a build as needing to orient thruster blocks would be.
As for weapons- what? Weapons need no special shapes. They're just bricks of systems. Most of the balancing of weapons is extremely simple once you've figured out the percentages that fit together well, and you can easily test that at smaller scales and apply it to your larger vessels. It's not like thrusters where every ship would need a specific balancing of thrust in all directions due to widely varying mass of ship and the decreasing effectiveness of thrusters as thruster module count increases.
What does it ADD to the game? Weapon complexity adds a lot of potential weapon choices that prevent a "one best choice," since there's a bit of a rock/paper/scissors between all the kinds of weapons and defenses. Thruster complexity adds... making it harder to build a ship?
I don't like power either. We need something entirely different from its very core.
On thrusters, weapons, etc: As a matter of fact, if I were to pick one building feature to make more complicated, weapons would make more sense. Thrusters in the current game seem to be a sort of propellantless drive that can be electronically tuned to perform better or worse on each axis. To me, it makes enough sense, and I'll have you know I'm a SERIOUS stickler for making things make sense.
Weapons on the other hand... Don't even get me started. That's not a cannon! It's a lego tyrannosaurus rex spitting bullets out its ears! Yes... SPITTING... OUT ITS EARS. Don't even TALK to me about thrusters being unrealistic until you've written a 10-page thesis on weapon groupings... single-spaced with 8 pt font! If you do I'll shoot you with my cat laser.
Hyperbole aside though, the weapon groupings make a ton less sense. A gun should be a long thingy in one big cylinder or block. A laser could be shorter and fatter, but more or less the same idea. A missile tube should be shaped like the missile that comes out of it. Pulse should be a sphere. If you don't already build your weapons this way just for the heck of it, why are you complaining about electronically tunable propellantless thrusters, which actually MAKE SENSE?
I don't like power either. We need something entirely different from its very core.
On thrusters, weapons, etc: As a matter of fact, if I were to pick one building feature to make more complicated, weapons would make more sense. Thrusters in the current game seem to be a sort of propellantless drive that can be electronically tuned to perform better or worse on each axis. To me, it makes enough sense, and I'll have you know I'm a SERIOUS stickler for making things make sense.
Weapons on the other hand... Don't even get me started. That's not a cannon! It's a lego tyrannosaurus rex spitting bullets out its ears! Yes... SPITTING... OUT ITS EARS. Don't even TALK to me about thrusters being unrealistic until you've written a 10-page thesis on weapon groupings... single-spaced with 8 pt font! If you do I'll shoot you with my cat laser.
Hyperbole aside though, the weapon groupings make a ton less sense. A gun should be a long thingy in one big cylinder or block. A laser could be shorter and fatter, but more or less the same idea. A missile tube should be shaped like the missile that comes out of it. Pulse should be a sphere. If you don't already build your weapons this way just for the heck of it, why are you complaining about electronically tunable propellantless thrusters, which actually MAKE SENSE?
Aside from pulse (If anything pulse should remain a big blob, or maybe flat round surface in lieu of a dish antenna, as a real antenna dish shape would be overkill) I agree about this. The current weapon-system-stuffing system is one of those things about this game that both makes no sense, and isn't very fun.
Aside from pulse (If anything pulse should remain a big blob, or maybe flat round surface in lieu of a dish antenna, as a real antenna dish shape would be overkill) I agree about this. The current weapon-system-stuffing system is one of those things about this game that both makes no sense, and isn't very fun.
We could probably come up with some sort of grouping effect that would be more interesting than what we have now. There are a lot of things that would need to change about the weapon system, though. Right now if you want a cannon to punch a bigger hole, you have to finagle the outputs of a few groupings together in such a way that they fire several projectiles close together. I'd much rather build a big cylinder and have my cannon punch a hole in the enemy ship in the shape of said cylinder. Frankly it's rather annoying. I recently built an unarmed freighter (still putting finishing touches on it) and I enjoyed it more than the warships I've built before. That's how little I enjoy building weapons and it's really sad.
Random though i had....
Why dont thruster units use the docked entities power? At the moment "inheriting thruster" power from a docked entity automatically adds the power drain to the mothership, why not make it like turrets? if the docked entity has power of its own, then it uses that, if not *then* it drains the motherships power? the power drain now is so high on a default server that 26k thrust uses up 1,010,000 power a second now.
Random though i had....
Why dont thruster units use the docked entities power? At the moment "inheriting thruster" power from a docked entity automatically adds the power drain to the mothership, why not make it like turrets? if the docked entity has power of its own, then it uses that, if not *then* it drains the motherships power? the power drain now is so high on a default server that 26k thrust uses up 1,010,000 power a second now.
Yes I concur. However the pink standard block is missing from the standard factory production list. I'm sure this oversight will be nailed down shortly.
Random though i had....
Why dont thruster units use the docked entities power? At the moment "inheriting thruster" power from a docked entity automatically adds the power drain to the mothership, why not make it like turrets? if the docked entity has power of its own, then it uses that, if not *then* it drains the motherships power? the power drain now is so high on a default server that 26k thrust uses up 1,010,000 power a second now.
I'm actually not quite sure about this. I think it would make it easy to just build your ship bigger and bigger.
(BTW this system was probably much easier to implement.)
I'm actually not quite sure about this. I think it would make it easy to just build your ship bigger and bigger.
(BTW this system was probably much easier to implement.)
Actually my complaints could be solved by just removing the thruster nerf that was given(i was told it was 25%). Theres a curve in place now and just like the power curve, that should have been enough, make the curve start slightly lower, but allow thrusters to produce the same amount of thrust per module.
If you did it my way it would be to easy to have huge uber fast ships, i had that pointed out elsewhere too ^^
Captain_Boroski is permabanned. However, if I remember correctly, his comment about beams being broken related to the fact that they don't work cross-sector, only inside their current sector.
I have had trouble hitting my targets with beams... sometimes the beam just phases through the target and nothing happens, even in the same sector. I just use cannons now.
Facts:
- Starmade is not final so people should expect it if their designs don't work anymore at all the next update. Even though it would result in a loss of members participating in the community ► less feedback.
- Starmade used to list every sys-block and calculate it. Now it groups them so that it takes less time to calculate ► Performance gain.
- Calculating thrusters in very small groups according to it's orientation isn't as bad is it used to be, but it's still a lot worse.
- Everything should work in groups now, including power. It calculates the group(s) once, according to the axis. It should, theoreticly, even take less computing power.
- The system in place works except for the "realism".
- Advantages to making a physical difference:
* It makes it easy to implement independent casting of plumes. (ship turns left → right thrusters glow)
* It would feel more realistic when building.
- Disadvantages:
* It makes it more CPU heavy.
* It would take a LOT more time to build.
* It takes a lot more time for it to be changed.
* It's a preference wich means that it is very likely that your friend wants it to be changed again. (this also counts if you don't have any)
* Some people think it's nice to learn about games, other's about things that gives them power because they're power hungry (like me) and some just don't (too many to handle).
* I have an idea I think should be at the bottom of the list.
EDIT: I just realized my idea was horrible because it had to list every thruster every time rendering groups pretty much useless when it comes to thrusters (because it has to search for one specific block every time).
My idea:
One thruster in one direction should be enough to enable it to thrust from that direction as much as allocated in the menu we have now.
Advantages:
- It's as convenient as it is now.
- It adds additional realism to the flying aspect as well to the building aspect. Just not to the point that it would be a pain to (re)configure.
- It's less complex front -and back-end than the realistic method and just a little bit more than what it is now.
- It shouldn't make a noticable difference when it comes to performance. Groups should still exist like they did, only one more factor (or 6) is added. That is checking if it has thrusters going left, right, up, down, forwards, backwards once you enter the structure (or some other event).
- It's possible to cast plumes independently now but that would devide groups a lot more in order to make this possible.
- Not much refitting is needed.
Disadvantages:
- It is not as realistic.
- It might maybe not result in a noticable impact on performance. But it does have some impact.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
