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.

Halloween Update 1.184.6 - Skin Crafting & Ghost Skin

Discussion in 'Change Log' started by flexx, Oct 26, 2017.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. Captain Broadstairs Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    469
    You talk about conjecture in your earlier post, but this notion of adding additional blocks is entirely conjecture of your own devising that KHS is at all interested in making such new blocks. I rate the likeliness of new blocks being added specifically for the purpose of withstanding thrust is very low. Such a block would have such low utility value vs time taken for its creation and the space it occupies in the build menu to really justify its inclusion.
    Additional blocks also seem like a ridiculously excessive method of fixing what isn't broken. Why should we need these new blocks to achieve the same thing we've already managed to do just because of a new damage profile, when what we already achieved was already working?

    Its also entirely conjecture that this was ever a "glitch" or an exploit and not an intentional set up by the developers responsible for the thruster damage code when it was originally devised. I find it highly unlikely that it was coincidental that damage was only being done in the path of the thruster flame, That to me seems like an intentional logical design decision not an accidental glitch.
    Of course KHS can change their mind about how important these sorts of features or aspects of gameplay are valued vs performance cost. Though I and quite a few others here disagree with that assessment if this is the case.

    Now I can't say for sure that this was the case, but neither can you be sure that it wasn't, so perhaps stop asserting things you can't be certain of? You can't dismiss other peoples conjecture with your own and expect it to stand up any better than what you are arguing against.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  2. mojomann71 Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    628
    As someone already mentioned, the exploit of large rotors with Small Heads was widely used, and guess what it became a feature...

    Not here to argue or complain, but to point out Keen has incorporated "exploits" into features.

    Also (this isn't an exploit) Marek was dead against planets in Space Engineers, enough people "demanded" it, and look where we are.
    So we will see what is to come.

    (Not pointed directly at anyone specific, just a thought that popped in my head):
    Those of us who do not work for Keen, shouldn't speak for them. Even if we are friendly with some of the devs and think we have some inside information.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  3. suicideneil Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    227
    1) it was never an exploit, you are mistaken- thrusters always did damage to a pre-determined area in single player; Keen simply increased that amount of damage, twice. Again, not exploiting a flaw in the game design.

    2) SE uses a grid system for building, but it is clearly not a game of cubes; the fact we can build any number of shapes is proof of that, as is the fact that most blocks in the game are not cubes and do not have cuboid collision volumes.

    3) We don't need super computers to run SE; I've built ships with hundreds of thrusters and the game runs just fine since none of the thrusters are damaging anything- or weren't I should say. The game chokes mainly due to physical shapes, number of blocks, and weapon / damage calculations- watch any battle between two large ships with lots of guns and you'll see the game turn into a slide show. Changing the damage area of affect to a square does not make the game run faster, not in any appreciable way- the problems with sim speed lie elsewhere.

    4) You can waffle-on about mathematics and pretend you understand why they made the change and that it'll save the game and that everyone is wrong and you're the sole voice of reason, but in reality it's so easy to destroy your arguments- the fact that Keen's own designs became broken as the change goes from a logical CYLINDER ( yes, a cylinder- a round shape that Keen themselves decided to use, not a cube ), to an illogical rectangle shows a lack of understanding of how people play the game, and a total lack of testing or consultation to make sure their updates don't break the game.

    If you can't make good arguments to support your view point, don't make any at all.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Late Late x 1
  4. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,391
    Actually, I thought I mentioned it in my first post :D.

    Only to point out that I spent my first 100 hours building my ships and the last 5700 hrs re-building them. So when I hear this:
    I'm puzzled because if it's a building game you still have to play by the rules. I'm sure any basketball player would like to just grab the ball and run to the other end and shoot. Rules say you have to dribble the ball. It wasn't always a rule, but they put it in.The new SE rule is you cant put blocks inside the cube. The reason is because the game runs better that way. To insist the only good designs are the ones that exploit the oversight, or to believe all current designs must be preserved at the expense of any improvement in performance leads me to believe we have different definitions of "building game."

    I mean, the ships I built so long ago still work. So far, always have. Every one of these updates that make people bring out the pitchforks and torches has not really interfered with my ships or the way I build them, cause I build Space Engineers type ships. Other people have chosen to risk putting blocks near engine exhausts because SE blocks are blocky and its hard enough as it is to get the shape you want and dammit if i can put a block right here then that's what I'm gonna do (yes, I have been there. Every session), and it would have been fine except even more people had insisted Keen do something about performance, and we mean ANYTHING. I know about risky building. My ships are mostly mods. Next update I'm certain they are all gonna go poof. You think YOU"RE mad.

    This thruster thing, though...

    pffffft.


    Edit: For the record, I don't know anyone that works for Keen Software House. No one at Keen cares any more or less about what I think than anyone else. If they did, the game would be different.


    and... Marek and I were in complete agreement about planets, but I don't think he knew that.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2017
    • Disagree Disagree x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,055
    Ahchchtually (geek voice), Marek was against planets because he didn' think it was possible. Then research into Medieval Engineers tech brought about an Eureka, it's actually possible - and the rest is history.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Lander1 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    44
    And in all that time... you couldn't build a circle?...
     
  7. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,391
    I can. The machine can't. At least, not as fast as I can. If the machine liked circles, SE wouldn't be all blocks. If they let the game calculate the circles, you wouldn't be able to play it on your PC. It's the same reason we don't get water. The game could do it but not on your PC, so we don"t get water.

    I build circles, but they're not really round.
    [​IMG]
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Darkheyr Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    25
    The new rules, Stardriver, rob us of a building and design tool. Before we could build our own thruster nozzles. Now we cannot. Before we could use windows, catwalks to make thinner and sleeker small large grid ships without worrying about thruster flames that are clearly missing said blocks disintegrating half the ship.

    The reason given was a performance increase, which, so far, has not been noticeable and could conceivably be achieved without all those consequences. Hence, I and many others consider this to be a poor design decision. That does not mean Keen must listen to us - but neither do we have to shut up about it.

    And for the record: My ships do not need redesign. I've always been defensive about thruster placement ever since they suddenly burned through my landing pads. Haven't trusted the buggers. But I do see the problem with Keens decision.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  9. mojomann71 Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    628
    @Malware there is an old interview out there with Marek, (maybe the one Xoc did before he started working there..) he said he didn't want planets, as the game was to be about space exploration, if there was to be planets he wouldn't have called it Space Engineers. Not an exact quote but it was along those lines. :)
     
  10. KissSh0t Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,373
    There are planets in space?

    [​IMG]

    Pretty big update today... 286mb *__*
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  11. Roxette Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,067
    There's an awful lot of space in between the planets though. That's why you can fly a long way in a very fast spaceship running at incredible hihg speed without smashing into one. :)
     
  12. KissSh0t Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,373
    Now now.. slow down there sport... are you telling me that there is actually a lot of space in space..

    This is too much information for my simple mind to take in all at once, I need to go lay down.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  13. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,055
    Yes well he had to say something... I'm pretty confident in my statement. It's nothing I'm making up. However I can't present you with evidence so whether you choose to believe me or not... Well, we have planets. The why of it isn't really important...

    Ps: dx11 had to be a thing for planets to even be possible

    I mean don't misunderstand me. If the community didn't want planets this wouldn't even have been a research thing. But it's not only because of demand, is what I'm saying.

    Difference is, planets can be opted out from, easily. Those of us who feels that the thruster damage is way too lenient don't. We can only choose between no damage or lackluster damage. (obvious, presented issues not withstanding)

    Note, the current argument don't really apply to me. It doesn't address my issues about thruster damage either way so I'm not invested.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    223
    Personally at this point I just wish they would pick a thruster damage range and stick to it. Really irritating when yet again the damage ranges have changed. If it's a bug then okay fine I can wait for a fix to be dropped in a reasonable time frame. If it's intentional then yeah that's not cool and would be the 2nd or 3rd time this year the damage ranges have changed without an official note. I still enjoy the game, but it just gets irritating trying to refit some of my larger ships and structures when a change like this is made. In fact I've still not completed the refit on my starbase I started awhile back. At this point I just want to know if it was intentional for Large Grid Large thrusters to now be doing damage at 7 large blocks instead of the previous 5. By @I23I7 's previous statements I can only assume the Large Grid small thrusters damaging at only 2 blocks is a bug and it should be 3. Far as thruster ranges go I just wish that they would stay consistent one way or another from patch to patch.

    Otherwise for the change from cylinder to rectangle, I've not noticed that much of a change in performance in the positive or the negative either. Though I do have to ask why folks would put something in front of a thruster's nozzle unless you're doing some sort of internal thruster design or something like that. I get the point from an aesthetic perspective or internal design, but otherwise I don't get it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,055
    This is something that you will notice when added up, something that's "yet another thing" that affects servers when ships with thrusters start mounting up, not something you'll see on solo play or with only a few ships / thrusters.
     
  16. Darkheyr Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    25
    Nozzle and the full block facing are not the same - especially on the Large Ion Thruster.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  17. I23I7 ME Tester Staff

    Messages:
    3,817
    You know i did say that there will tweaks for thrusters done. I do not understand why you guys had to start setting each other on fire.
    @Thrak Old habits die hard. I remember TF2 players doing the same as well as me :)
    @Stardriver907 Very good arguments as well from other but wait a bit for the next update and then we can discuss this further.

    Alright guys be patient ;)
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Disagree Disagree x 3
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  18. Roxette Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,067
    We didn't start the fire, it was always burning since the rotors were turning.
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. Thrak Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    418
    it gets worse. Since a vast percentage of the volume of any given atom consists mainly of the empty space between the nucleus and the electron cloud... everything is largely made of nothing.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  20. Lander1 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    44
    But with the new damage profile; those of us who were happy with things the way they were, are now faced with either NO thruster damage or OVER THE TOP thruster damage, and if you do a little looking around the room I think you will find that we are the majority of players, who are getting the short end of the stick here.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. FoolishOwl Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    423
    Since you've made it clear you got our messages, I'm content to be patient.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  22. Forjo Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    130
    What tweaks? Will the damage volume of the prism be reduced to more closely compare to the former cylinder? Please be clear so there is no misunderstanding.

    Thanks!

    -Forjo
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  23. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,055
    I simply don't care. As I said, it doesn't affect me either way. So I'm not arguing to keep it, but I'm not arguing to change it back either. Although, you shouldn't underestimate the number of people who wants a bit more gameplay balancing rules in the game. Like I said, this change does nothing for us either way, neither damaging nor improving so why should we speak up?

    [edit] Please folks. Read messages through before judging. I'm not saying this is not affecting "us" as in "everybody", just a subgroup of people who don't build in a way these changes affect. I have no problem with you wanting this changed back.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2017
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  24. PandaTv Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    10
  25. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,055
    @TheDeinonychus could you please explain what it was you disagreed with in my statement? Am I not allowed to be neutral in this matter? I'm neither against you nor with you no matter which camp you're in.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  26. KissSh0t Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,373
    This is you.

    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  27. chrisb Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,421
    There is 'no' "near-infinite space" in Space Engineers.
    Around 200,000km from start point, the game starts to break. Just fact..

    I hope this is one of the changes they are going to make.. That 'floating point', or whatever they call it.
    ;)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Late Late x 1
  28. krypt-lynx Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    174
    I can answer for you instead of @TheDeinonychus

    1) This change broke too many creations.
    2) *For me* the old realism was realistic. Current is not. Welding torch, for example, does not damages internal structures instantly. Also, visually is was ok. on 95% times. But now is more often "not ok".
    3) About balance: you still can create internal thrusters. Until it is not fixed - does not speak about balance :p


    *edit:* woops. Wrong text was send (with extra point). Probably somebody received it in email notification, so, original text was a result of my inability to understand text in right way from first attempt :D
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  29. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,055
    ... But I have not made any statements counter to those points. Actually 3. is exactly what I am talking about, the point that hasn't been adressed at all. The two other points simply does not apply to my builds. So still there's nothing in my post to "disagree" with. I have no problem with this getting fixed for you guys. I don't oppose you. This is why I don't understand it.

    So that explains nothing...
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 1
  30. Syncaidius Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    822
    Compared to the 100km maps we had before that, it's still a massive difference. Like you said though, sorting out the floating point issues would be nice, but no doubt it would take an epic amount of work since it requires re-writing much of how they sectorize space. Or maybe not. I haven't looked at the SE source in over a year. :p
     
    • Like Like x 1
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.