LoSboccacc Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 thrusters working by surface area are a nice touch, I really like how the devs are trying to make every system feel special by giving each sensible rules, however, because how clipping and stacking works, the surface rule ends up being irrelevant, i.e. this prefab I'm using to have a copypaste place and forget thruster group: it's thin slices of thruster, roughly 1/3 in every direction, covered in a thin layer of armor, making the surface rule moot. I think it's superfluous to have this surface vs volume rule, it can be easily worked around and it mostly result in an unnecessarily amount of parts to be placed. thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WARGAMES Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 let's be serious, we don't want to spam thin thrusters. it'd be far easier to take a cube thruster and just be done with it for the same thickness and less blinding glare of the sun when you ship turns. it's a neat idea but it's extra work being spammed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dashychan Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 If you turn off bloom in the graphics options the blinding light goes away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subquake Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 I totally agree. For small ships spamming small thrusters and not thin plates is ok, but once you get ships big enough not to fit through the gates, you need to engineer them with thin sheets like in that screenshot and you need a lot of them, resulting your build having 1000+ more parts just because of the thruster requirements where instead you could have just a few hundred more. Why, because probably this is a game and nobody wants to stare at the ship by breaking 20km before the target area and turning/rotating like a turtle. And to have capital class ships fast, agile and effective in breaking and maneuvering, we are more or less forced to spam these thin sheets. Here's my older reply to this same problem under Gameplay discussion section: http://www.avorion.net/forum/index.php/topic,1040.msg5077.html#msg5077 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoSboccacc Posted February 4, 2017 Author Share Posted February 4, 2017 sadly one can't just use surface area * depth, because that'd be, again, volume :) it could work if the thruster were to made directional instead of omnidirectional, still, that'd break every ship out there :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subquake Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 sadly one can't just use surface area * depth, because that'd be, again, volume :) it could work if the thruster were to made directional instead of omnidirectional, still, that'd break every ship out there :P It's in early access, things like that should be expected and designs can be tweaked afterwards. In a game called TerraTech they mark their blocks deprecated and color them purple, that will be phased out after a while and people will have to adjust their designs and not use them, something similar could be applied to current thrusters if drastic changes comes to them. Simplest solution is to give them more power based on volume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scytales Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 Whats worse is when you clip thin layers of thrusters over each other. You don't even need a prefab cube. You can have a prefab sheet with 90 sheets all occupying the same space. I used that concept here: http://www.avorion.net/forum/index.php/topic,1342.0.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canute Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 My ship got thin layer of thrusters left and ride side, they look like cooling rib's. That give the ship good break trust and acceptable turning/slide ability. Yeah, like someone other mention, i would like to see rotateable engines instead of thrusters. But that would need a complete different calculation for the shipdesignstats. But who knows what the devs plan to improve this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundercraft Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 ...you need to engineer them with thin sheets like in that screenshot and you need a lot of them, resulting your build having 1000+ more parts... Try over 3000 parts, most of them at 0.05 or smaller. But yeah. IMO, the worst part about the way thrusters work and how it works so well to have thousands of small ones is what happens when such ships are destroyed. When someone attempts to salvage such wrecks, it creates a cloud of many, very tiny "Wreckage" debris. ::) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canute Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 You don't need thousands of small thrusters, thats stupid. Just made thin big thrusters, thin at Z-axis for break thrust. And maybe some for Y-axis for sliding left/right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seekay_ Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 Why, because probably this is a game and nobody wants to stare at the ship by breaking 20km before the target area and turning/rotating like a turtle. And to have capital class ships fast, agile and effective in breaking and maneuvering, we are more or less forced to spam these thin sheets. Probably an unpopular opinion, but capital ships aren't meant to be fast and agile. They're meant to be able to both deal and take insane amounts of damage. I mean, we're talking about ships that weigh tens of thousands of tons and are hundreds of meters or even kilometers long (1 block unit = 10 meters according to koonschi), they shouldn't be able to stop and turn on a dime. IMO removing the thruster spamming exploit would be a very good thing because it would force you to rethink your ship choice. You could no longer just build a single massive battleship that does all the things. You would actually need an entire fleet and the composition of the fleet would determine its strengths and weaknesses. This would also bring a ton of depth to multiplayer PvP because it wouldn't be "the guy with the biggest ship wins" anymore. Tl;dr: I, for one, want capital ships to be slow, lumbering giants, ideal for destroying stations or other capital ships, but useless against targets that are significantly smaller and/or faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageThe13th Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 Why, because probably this is a game and nobody wants to stare at the ship by breaking 20km before the target area and turning/rotating like a turtle. And to have capital class ships fast, agile and effective in breaking and maneuvering, we are more or less forced to spam these thin sheets. Probably an unpopular opinion, but capital ships aren't meant to be fast and agile. They're meant to be able to both deal and take insane amounts of damage. I mean, we're talking about ships that weigh tens of thousands of tons and are hundreds of meters or even kilometers long (1 block unit = 10 meters according to koonschi), they shouldn't be able to stop and turn on a dime. IMO removing the thruster spamming exploit would be a very good thing because it would force you to rethink your ship choice. You could no longer just build a single massive battleship that does all the things. You would actually need an entire fleet and the composition of the fleet would determine its strengths and weaknesses. This would also bring a ton of depth to multiplayer PvP because it wouldn't be "the guy with the biggest ship wins" anymore. Tl;dr: I, for one, want capital ships to be slow, lumbering giants, ideal for destroying stations or other capital ships, but useless against targets that are significantly smaller and/or faster. I hate to break it to you but other building games have proven time and time again the biggest ship does win regardless of what mechanics the devs put in place to deter their use. Since, AI controlled support ships are pretty unreliable I think it would be a bad Idea to make large ships too hard to use because they are the player's best option for progression. That being said what you can do now is pretty crazy town. The thruster mechanics are clearly in need of a reworking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seekay_ Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 I hate to break it to you but other building games have proven time and time again the biggest ship does win regardless of what mechanics the devs put in place to deter their use. Since, AI controlled support ships are pretty unreliable I think it would be a bad Idea to make large ships too hard to use because they are the player's best option for progression. That being said what you can do now is pretty crazy town. The thruster mechanics are clearly in need of a reworking. It's only a matter of balancing. Look at EVE Online. Not a building game, but still. The biggest ship does not always win. With a bit of luck, a skilled frigate or destroyer pilot will be able to destroy a battleship 20 times their size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageThe13th Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 It's only a matter of balancing. Look at EVE Online. Not a building game, but still. The biggest ship does not always win. With a bit of luck, a skilled frigate or destroyer pilot will be able to destroy a battleship 20 times their size. And single X-Wing can destroy a Star Destroyer in Star Wars. The fact that I said building games was pretty darn important. As the ships in other games can be balanced exacting ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoSboccacc Posted February 5, 2017 Author Share Posted February 5, 2017 First of all, the thousand slices issue has nothing to do with capital ship balance and capital vs fighter performance. That can be easily tweaked with the right math and matters none with the issue at hand, which is: Annoying to salvage a buttload of them Annoying to see the fps die as they get destroyed in droves during combat Annoying to have one destroyed and now the whole ship can't be modofied Requiring a lot of annoying mindless click spam while adding little as gameplay element Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now