Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

Fix the unrealistically powerful reverse thrust

Discussion in 'Suggestions and Feedback' started by Ralith, Oct 25, 2013.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. Ralith Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    79
    Actually requiring reverse thrust is a great thing that sets this game apart, but it needs to go just a little further.

    If you have ten large thrusters on the back of a small ship and a mere single thruster on the front, and enough power to run them all, you can accelerate forward to the maximum velocity (~105 m/s) in a matter of seconds. When you release W, the single front thruster immediately starts counter-thrusting. Now, because there's 1/10 the number of engines running, it should take 10 times as long to slow down all the way. However, right now you slow down to stationary in almost exactly the same amount of time--as if 1 engine can somehow exert just as much thrust as 10, but only when slowing down instead of speeding up.

    As with the issue of unbalanced thrusters not causing torque, this is a detriment to the depth of ship design gameplay that doesn't give you any benefit in exchange. A staple feature of space flight in both science fiction and reality is the need for either an equal amount of engines in both directions if you want to maintain the same acceleration profile, or the requirement to physically rotate a ship to point its main engines in the direction one wishes to thrust away from.

    This game is so close to having real newtonian physics. Bring it just that final few steps forwards, and you'll give us realistic, deep ship design constraints and ultimately make for a much more interesting and fun game.

    This effect, which acts against motion in any direction once you stop accelerating, is almost like the space friction that so many other unrealistic games use. Removing it would be a straightforward improvement of affairs.
     
  2. Sgt Doom Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    99
    If you're referring to the auto-stop; that seems to be boosted in effectiveness significantly in all directions i.e. it's faster to let auto-brake kick in rather than manually use reverse thrusters. Reverse thrusters themselves aren't more powerful. Same thing happens if you auto-stop from flying sideways or up and down.
    Would be nice to have it being stronger or weaker as a selectable option.
     
  3. Ralith Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    79
    That is what I'm referring to; when I say "reverse" I mean "opposite the current direction of motion". I'm arguing that it shouldn't exist at all. The programming to use the real thrusters is clearly already there and in use; there's no reason to add this magical resistance force in addition to it.
     
  4. W-S-Y Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    36
    Actually one of the devs mentioned a "hard code physics" mode they could provide as an option. This was meant for thruster in relation to an entities center of gravity, but I do not see why this particular feature cannot also be either enabled/disabled independantly or be part of the "hard code physics" mode.

    This way those who want the option can have it, and those who don't aren't forced.
     
  5. Velc Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    16
    100% agreed! It should be more effective to break actively then the annoying auto break function. It doesnt make sense that the ship breaks harder with its autobreak. Furthermore, there should be an opporturnity to turn the autobreak off, or to just activate it when you have low velocity. I thought that might have been the intention of the autobreak at the start. Greetings
     
  6. Ralith Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    79
    There's no reason to make this an option, and too many physics options is going to make this game lose all its appeal as a realistic space sandbox due to actual online gameplay being a roll of the dice as to what you end up with.

    The game already requires you to have reverse thrusters in place, and there's really nothing more intuitive than "more thrusters = more power". Behavior like what we currently have just makes things less intuitive, and removes depth from the game.
     
  7. mmajor Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    26
    honestly that sounds like a terrible mindset for a sandbox game, theres should always be adjustable options for servers to set. most multiplayer servers mark what the basic rule sets of their server are so its not a matter of building a ship to check what the server settings are. you have nothing to lose from this but providing another gameplay option the players may want if you don't want it don't join a server that has it enabled. dont rule out something simply because you do not like it, or it doesn't fit your ideal of the game thats the developers job.
     
  8. Ralith Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    79
    Sometimes things are legitimately detrimental to a game. It doesn't make sense to have those things be an option. I don't think there's much evidence that this behavior would improve the game for very many people. If I'm wrong, then sure, let it be an option.
     
  9. mmajor Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    26
    the problem here is we are walking a fine line, between what the vocal majority on the forums might want and what the people who either don't post on the forums or will look at picking up the game later when it is in a more finished state might want. frankly that is why things are made as an option in the first place so a game can appeal to a wider audience.
     
  10. Ralith Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    79
    And if there is any reason to expect that such an option would significantly increase the size of the game's audience, then great. I know of no such reason.
     
  11. W-S-Y Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    36
    Your bringing in a number of players/sales argument in a discussion over preference.

    I could argue the opposite point the same way:

    "Leaving the reverse thrust as is, and not having an option would not significantly increase or decrease the game's audience, as I know of no such reason." -Neither of us has quantifiable evidence to back up these statements other than "I know of no such reason...".

    I am by no means against a mega realistic mode, but I am fairly certain the devs put that game play mechanic in there for a reason.

    Simply having an option wouldn't hurt anyone, and shows the devs are willing to cater to both player types.. Now I am not talking a big list of options for every physics computation, but simply 1 option. An easy mode and a hardcore physics mode. The devs have already posted about a hard-code physics mode, I was trying to raise discussion whether this should be included in that particular mode or as separate option.
     
  12. kuro11 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    125
    I agree that reversing should be identical to acceleration, I didn't notice it since I think all my ships had near enough equal to not find it strange.

    I am really torn about having options for such fundamental features though. Part of me likes the choice but at the same time I want everyone to play the same game. As in, if we have "easy" mode and "realism" then that's cool, but with every setting like this as an individual option it would be hard to know what server to join without comprehensive server option filter tools and a lot of knowledge of the options.
     
  13. Ralith Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    79
    Just tested this: Manually applying counter-thrust by holding down controls for the opposite thrusters will actually make you take far longer to slow down than by just letting go of the controls. Try it in the small ships that spawn in the default level; the magic space friction slows you down an order of magnitude or two faster than actually using the thrusters. This is just ridiculous.

    Edit: Actually, I think it *does* just give free extra power to the thrusters when automatically slowing you down. You can see their exhaust flames get much larger when under automatic control when slowing down then when you're pressing the buttons manually. If anything, correct use of manual controls should give you an advantage, not a disadvantage.
     
  14. Nepassecraser Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    2
    For that matter of placing thrusters all around and everywhere on the hull of the ships, i am asking if there would be some meaning of pivoting the thrusters in counter directions at least, or even better, in multiple or any directions?

    Remember that the lasts space probes are using ion engines giving thrust for a good part of the trip unlike solid fuel or gas fuelled propellers that gives only an initial thrust.
     
  15. nnerl1n Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    5
    This may be similar to the jetpack, which is currently set to allow travel speeds at 8.0m/s (diagonally) if you read marek's blog, he mentioned tweaking options for the alpha to make testing easier.
     
  16. g4borg Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    271
    This is a game about building ships from parts in a sandbox.

    Arguing about how the endgame should be, and what should be optional, is pretty much in vain. It is clearly the better way to have as much possibility to individualize rules on servers, otherwise, the real creativity such games can offer (offering completely different style and feel on different servers) is lost, and people have to create ugly workarounds just to start simple tweaks.

    A good example is minecraft, where myriads of very successful and mostly used plugins actually have to trick around the engine to work in sometimes very inefficient ways. As more open and sandboxy this game gets, the more it will have it's own momentum, and the more it is likely, that somewhere in the future somebody creates exactly that gameplay, what one might misses, or create the "feeling" of a gameplay, somebody might really want; while of course the basic gameplay of this game should still be entertaining and fun.

    So actually arguing to keep options "smaller", because there are certain expectations somebody has, or fears some things will be missing, is actually proposing self disappointment, if any feature one might really like does not get optionally usable.

    It does not have to be settable by GUI, I even say, it should not be if they are hard deviations from standard, people who set up servers can handle settings files, and once this game gets multiplayer, i don't think there need to be much rules to get interesting, anyway.

    I don't see why this would be a problem in selecting servers. You learn the server rules after you join a server. There are things like websites, and if any server has very custom rulesets, which have to be set up in the background, not everybody will use them anyway, and hopefully if they do, they know why they are doing this. This is literally absolutely and really no problem in any moddable game I can think of (arma, minecraft, uo, ...), and actually titles without bigger customizability until now hardly won the battle against competitors in their own genre, which did have these options.

    also everybody on the same server will play the same game, i suppose!?
     
  17. AlexVestin Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    45
    The engines do seem to get more juice, they also seem to require A LOT more reactor power when it happens.
    Possibly overheating a reactor/engine if done with far to few thrusters as breakes? Or if done too often? Could be one way of balancing it out if it will stay in the game.
     
  18. g4borg Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    271
    and to add, i also rather would have the ship stopping dependent on the number of thrusters in the design, and actually using them to "thrust back" should be possible.

    there is simply not really much fun in a flying game, if the ship stops without any thought of this "feature" into the design (like trying to even out thrusters to be able to do this).

    However I do not opt completely for decceleration to be the same amount as acceleration, because it should be still easy to create a simple design (4 back 2 front) which can stop very well, like it does now.

    I would be glad enough if there would be thrusters which only auto correct if you break manually as a separate type of thruster, and be done with it.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.