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.

In-game currency will be a thing?

Discussion in 'General' started by Ronin1973, Jul 10, 2019.

  1. BitsNoKibbles Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    82
    I think it's both simpler, and more complicated, than that -- and you hit the nail on the head when you said "balancing." The simple part is, the base game isn't balanced. The complicated part is getting the balance "just right" to meet the expectations of the user community.

    In the stock game, armor seems to be too easily damaged by bumping into things and not resilient enough against weapons. This may be a result of the mass/weight balancing mechanic but, in any event, it is counter to expectations (gats can chew through 2.5m of "armor?" Really?).

    Additionally, the stock weapons feel anemic (again, counter to expectations). They may be appropriately balanced compared to the stock armor, and this may be an explicit intent for gameplay balance reasons, but they don't provide the visceral satisfaction people seek from the genre. This is the modus operandi for first-person shooters of most ilks (ex: nobody in WW2 got up and ran away after taking a .30cal round to the chest) which is why every last one of them gets modded to bump the lethality.

    The differentiation and comparison between small and large grid is almost nonsensical. Under no circumstances can a small grid ship with stock weapons make sufficient impression on a large ship with stock weapons before getting totally wrecked. Again, this may be an explicit decision, but is counter to expectations (ref: torpedo, torpedo boat, and torpedo boat destroyer).

    So, if I have to build a massive ship (and it generally has to be massive, because small blocks are almost useless in any kind of fight) then the payoff should be massive guns. What we get with the stock game is massive ships with (nearly) useless pea shooters, which is why there are so many weapon mods.

    Add weapons that meet expectations, and suddenly the armor is (nearly) useless -- because it's not really armor. It's just a bullet sponge. Bullet sponges don't care about impact energy, deflection angles, penetration, or spalling. Which means the only way to protect your ship is to add more sponge. Which means more weight, and more thrusters, and more fuel, etc ad nauseum.

    It's hard to build a ship that looks cool and is still effective in a fight under those circumstances. In my experience, you can have one, or the other, but not both.

    Shields address this problem directly, by disconnecting looks / weight / construction from protection. The cost is energy usage. You can argue that shields don't actually solve the problem (they just move it someplace else, and probably create a few new problems) but it's the best solution available so far to the armor vs armament problem and, unless / until Keen adds more "realistic" armor (*cough*) it's what we're stuck with.

    This isn't the forum for rants on the difference between currency and money, or the nature of inflation, so I'll just say that in-game economies can be implemented well, and they can be implemented poorly. As long as the autonomous / automatic proffers conform to relative + differential scarcity, component usage, and demand, I think it will work out. That being the case, I'll wager Keen will need to adjust some ore deposit frequencies / distributions and component utilization to get it right.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,863
    A thread titled "In-game Currency Will Be A Thing" seems to be precisely the place to talk about money, although I don't recall pointing out a difference between currency and money or discussing inflation. My rant became specifically about whether the in-game currency needs to come from Keen. My argument is that players can supply the currency. Keen doesn't need to. Stores, yes. Contracts, yes. Currency, no.

    Unfortunately, in a game where shields are impossible, your choices are: Build an ugly ship that can prevail in a battle, build a ship that looks cool but is worthless in a fight, take the time to build a ship that looks cool and can prevail in a fight, or build a ship that looks cool and learn how to win a fight with it.

    Space Engineers is a game that takes place in the latter half of the 21st Century. By no stretch of the imagination will there be energy shields this century, especially as an off-the-shelf item. Please don't post links to the sites that claim they're working on it. I've already seen them. In order to have a technology exist in the future that is SE, it must actually exist in the real world today. There were good, sound reasons to include the gravity generator. Keen's staff was simply not aware of the existing technology they could have used instead (the game's still in development, Keen. There's still time ;)). The ability to have a ship that looks cool and can take some punishment is not a good, sound reason to go back on their word that they would only have existing technology, extrapolated 60 years out. Not in the standard game. There are mods that exist. They make my case far better than I can. Servers that put them in take them out. The mods are good. Trying to balance them is more trouble than they're worth. That's why the admins remove them. That's a headache Keen doesn't need and doesn't want. SE's key feature is block destruction. Players want shields that work for them and not so much for their opponents. Other games that have shields don't work like SE. The only reason to have shields in SE is so that you can build an nice, pretty (and now shiny!) nimble ship that can hide a lack of fighting skill. It's totally possible to build a great fighting ship both in looks and durability. It takes thought, work and time. Just like anything else worth doing in SE.

    Keen's implementation is more-or-less the same as most others. My beef with it is that, like the others, it perpetuates the notion that no trade can take place without currency, and that in a galactic-wide economy there would be only one currency, and that Space Pirates accept cash.

    If Space Engineers is going to have a cash economy, why can't it be an actual one instead of a made up and enforced one? Why have something in the game that perpetuates the misunderstanding instead of providing an excellent learning opportunity like so much else in the game? Gravity generators solve a technical issue that allows players the ability to walk around in their builds while in space. In-game currency does not solve and issue. It creates one.
    You say that as if it'll be a snap. Keen already has issues with ore distribution. In-game currency solves that? What, exactly, does right mean? You think it means the same to everyone else that it does to you? I'll tell you what, why don't you tell us what the ore distribution and frequency should be, then try convincing everyone else that you're right. It's one of the oldest arguments in the game, and just as hot as ever. It's right up there with component utilization. Make that thread and I promise I won't post in it :munch:
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. BitsNoKibbles Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    82
    In-game currency as it relates to SE, yes -- and I prefer to keep the conversation near that topic (*cough*). Your comment about the nature of currency / money invites discussion that's probably better suited to ZeroHedge, and I was trying to avoid that.

    I see a specific use for currency in the game: as a ready medium of exchange, and as a resource sink.

    Absent currency, payments will have to be made in the form of commodities (components, ore, etc), other hard asset (a ship), or service (not something I've seen mentioned). Commodities have mass and must be transported; currency has no mass. Exchanging one commodity (that you don't need, but received as payment) for another (that you do need, but may not be available at that location) can be difficult (due to the transportation and storage requirements) and lack of demand (ie you can only use your commodity as payment if that vendor will receive it, and that vendor may not want to).

    Currency is ultimately fungible, and not as susceptible to revaluation due to supply or demand.

    As a resource sink, check out what Keen did in ME for claiming territory. It'd be great to have a system like that available in SE.

    You're going to make the realism argument in a game that has a 100m/s speed limit and jump drives?

    IMO, that's a non-starter. To argue otherwise is to ignore the existence of all the things that actually exist in the real world today, like radar, 16" naval rifles, and homogeneous steel armor.

    The inclusion of energy shields in SE is no more disturbing to SE's raison d'etre than the lack of big guns and armor that does what armor should.

    As previously mentioned, damage modeling in SE bears zero resemblance to The Real World (tm). It'd be nice if it did (ex: angling your armor actually did something), which would put real value to tactics and strategy, but it doesn't.

    Earlier today I bumped the nose of my ship into the ice at < 10ms; one of the ion thrusters at the back end of the ship burst into flames. Nothing in between the nose and the thruster took damage.

    I enjoy the challenge of taking 2Mk of swanky ship and cargo into orbit using a thrust package that can just barely hover over the ice. It's even more of a challenge to get it back onto the ice from orbit (Vne 20m/s below 5k), and I enjoy that, too. That type of gameplay is something that I think SE does well -- at least, certainly better than ship-v-ship combat.

    I use energy shields to provide the protection that armor should, but doesn't. If armor did what it was supposed to do, and the damage model wasn't so wonky, I wouldn't need it.

    I don't recall seeing or hearing anything that would suggest all payments are made in currency, and I see no reason why contract payments couldn't be made in commodities.

    I didn't mean to suggest that it would be easy, only necessary.

    "Right" means "meets expectations." Maybe not mine exactly, or yours, but the general consensus -- which is how economies develop anyway.

    Ex: If a contract to deliver goods to some far-flung location will net me 5k of iron ore, and I can mine and refine 10k of iron ore in the time it will take me to complete the contract and return, then that contract doesn't meet expectations. If, on the other hand, I'm stuck on-planet, and I can get enough cobalt to build atmo thrusters by delivering something in a wheeled vehicle, then it does meet expectations. Ditto for platinum, because I can't get platinum myself without getting off the planet first, but I can get off the planet with an atmo+ion thrust package. Getting paid in cobalt or platinum isn't necessary, I just need them to be available, and enough currency to buy what I need.

    As for reputation... In God we trust, all others pay cash. Put another way: If the only payoff for good rep is a small percentage markup/down on trades, it's not worth anything. If, on the other hand, high value contracts are only available to players with good rep, then it *may* be worth something, but you're still talking about smaller percentages (and if not small percentages, could wreck the economy).

    I'd rather go over to ar15.com and argue there's no difference between a clip and a magazine.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. KissSh0t Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,414
    [​IMG]

    :woot:
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  5. Roxette Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,343
    I don't believe there is a single feature of the game that has been implemented well.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  6. BitsNoKibbles Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    82
    Ouch.

    I'm at a loss to point to *one thing* that SE does really well, but it does enough well enough to have me burn upwards of 2,000 hours in it.
     
  7. Calaban Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    872
    Well, to be honest, that could be said about anything or anyone... IF one held their own opinion in self regard overmuch.

    [TL;DR?? "lighten up"]
     
  8. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,863
    Understanding what currency is makes it easier to understand why Keen does not need to hard-code it into the game. I am not making the argument that the game does not need currency. Far from that. If a faction decides currency would be more expedient, then they could strike their own coin or use someone else's, as in real life.

    Yes I am, because Keen does. They endeavor to make the game feel as real as technically possible. Where they can't get it right, they try to get as close as they can. Understanding the limits of the technology means we all forebear most of the most glaring inconsistencies like the sun rotating around the way too small and close together planets. The game can't do liquid water so we have lakes of solid ice on planets where the climate seems way too hot for that.

    Any argument that suggests that since Keen can't possibly make an accurate space game, they should just give up and put in whatever will make the game as cool as the other ones. Keen should not attempt to adhere to any design principles or artistic principles or ideology. They should not rest until their game has every feature every similar game has until their game is indistinguishable from all the others, because all the others got it "right", too.

    The game takes place around 2077 (as we know it). The stated principle is that the tech in the game is extrapolated 60 years from when they started coding the game. There will not be off-the-shelf shields in 2077. So, either Marek and KSH sticks to their guns and principles and leave shields to the Modders, or Marek and KSH tosses their word and their principles overboard and put something in the game that does not belong just to try to rake in a few extra bucks.

    You don't need it. You just believe you do. In my fleet a ship has to exceed 15kt in order to be characterized as "large". I don't like repairing damage because I play alone. Therefore, I try to be a good pilot;). I personally would not like to have a shield hide my errors in judgement. That goes for combat as well.

    As it stands in the game today, you don't have shields and neither does the other person. Everything is fair and balanced. The only "problem" seems to be that in order to stand and slug it out with another ship you need to have a lot of armor that makes your ship less peppy and pretty. I just checked and at this moment I have 8956 hours in the game and not once have I wished I had a shield. True, I have only fought against Space Pirates, but I've done it with merchant ships, not combat ships. If the SPRTs have shields and I have shields, we're back to even Stevens. What, then, was the point?

    When it comes to ore distribution, there is no consensus. Not with THIS crowd. My own thoughts are that all ore should be available on all celestial bodies, and that ore deposits on planets should be larger and deeper, and the stuff they want us to work for, like uranium, should be even deeper. Everyone that reads that sentence will have an opinion, and it will differ from anyone else's. Keen will make a decision knowing there will be mods to "fix" it ;).

    I make the argument against space credits purely as an exercise. I know in my heart that there is no way Keen is going out on a limb to enable factions to coin their own currency. It's much safer to do it like everyone else does. It's just that given the people that actually like the game and have stuck with it thus far seem to be more of the thinking variety, it would have been interesting to see what they would have come up with. There already seems to be a lot of people that have trading in their games without benefit of Keen's infrastructure. Keen's specialized blocks and code to facilitate trade as part of the standard game will be a good thing. The worry seems to be that if Keen does not also supply the cash, the whole thing falls apart. I just think playing it safe means they miss an opportunity to stand out. Given the otherwise open nature of the game, the socioeconomics and, ultimately, the sociopolitical relationships that could develop in the game could become features in themselves. Imagine defeating your opponent by running them out of business, or defeating a faction by tanking their currency.

    I dunno. Maybe it will happen in some other space game some day.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    292
    Gonna pick some key portions that I think need to be addressed first if we're going to continue our banter. Then to the meat and potatoes.

    In regards to ships and looks, I'm going to say I agree with Stardriver on this point. You can make ships that look good and can do well in a fight. With that said these quotes demonstrate exactly why if shields, or any feature, were to come to SE balancing around pvp is a bad idea. Everyone is always going to want some type of edge on their opponent, i think that goes without saying and it's not exclusive to just shields, but anything that revolves around competition. Folks are going to want to know they have that edge that will let them win. No one wants their opponent to do as well as them in the midst of the competition because they don't want to lose. That's not limited to just SE and includes any game or sport out there such as WoW, SWTOR, League, EVE Online, Basketball, Football, and on down the line. With that in mind it's the exact reason balancing SE and its features purely around pvp is an extremely bad idea. First not everyone is interested in pvp and having a balance based around pvp shoved on them always fosters bitterness and divisiveness among the playerbase and an us vs them mentality. Case and point is World of Warcraft. As fun as the game can sometimes be, their balancing is terrible because they always try to balance the game based on 3s pvp arena. Because they refuse to separate pvp and pve this means changes made to one side bleed into the other everytime there is a change that gets made.

    In regards to SE it would be literally impossible for them to balance shields (or any feature for that matter) strictly around pvp, which is what the comments in regards to balancing shields suggest to me. This issue of balancing is solved easily by simply balancing around how that individual block performs compared to the weapons. It's pretty much what they do in Star Trek Online. When putting out a new set of shields they build them with a set of base stats which includes their HP, base durability vs the average mission encounter, and how quickly they regenerate when depleted. Those shields can be further improved beyond their base stats depending on what kind of build they're being used with. If they're being used on a ship where they're an afterthought, then they won't hold up well beyond their base durability. On the opposite end of the coin if they're place in a tank centered build with a lot of defensive buffs and items backing them up, those shields can be nigh indestructible.

    In layman's terms, they build the shields with a set of basic stats for how they want them to perform and leave everything else up to the players. Whether the shields get pushed beyond their basic ability or not is then left to the players. If a particular set of shields just drastically over-performs or under-performs compared to what the company wishes them to, they can adjust the shields at that time accordingly.

    For SE all Keen would have to do is give a basic balance for the shields, such as they can take x amount of damage from a gatling and missile turret before they fail. From there players and modders can adjust things to their own liking accordingly much like we do now with everything else. Some folks prefer realistic inventory, some prefer massive ones. Some prefer fast grind/weld speeds, some more realistic. Some folks prefer oxygen and some don't. If folks think their build still isn't up to snuff with just a singular shield, then they can adjust their builds accordingly and add more shields or redo the build until it no longer is subpar for what hey need. Same principle as adding additional generators if you're not getting as much power as you like. At the end of the day it's a sandbox game and it's up to each person to fix their sandbox with all the buckets, shovels, amount of sand, colors of sand, and so on that they like so they can have fun.

    Going to call shenanigans on part of this here, namely stating that small blocks are useless when going against large grid ships/stations. Like anything it's how you use it that matters. I have a couple series of small grid fighters made out of light armor that I use on my worlds. I have completely obliterated large grid ships and stations using those small grid fighters before. I know I'm not the only one on these forums that has ever done it either. As the old saying goes, it's not the size of the dog in the fight that matters but the size of the fight in the dog.

    With that said the balancing issue is easily tackled as I explained above by not balancing around pvp, but around how Keen wants individual blocks to perform, and then leaving the rest to the players.

    I think you have a slight misconception as to what the armor actually is in this game. I'm going to say first and foremost I agree sometimes that the armor feels like it gives out way too soon from a gameplay point of view. With that said I think we need to understand what exactly the armor is and what's being fired at it. In regards to the armor, it's not a 2.5m thick solid chunk of metal, but several decent sized armored plates spaced out slightly and welded into a 2.5m block frame. Next time you weld up a piece of heavy armor check out the construction models that it shows as the block is being welded up. You'll see the arrangement of the armored plates and such before the block becomes solid. So it's not just a straight 2.5m thick solid chunk of metal, but several bits of armor arranged into a 2.5m block frame. If it was just a solid chunk of metal it would also weigh a heck of alot more than what it does now in game.

    This then brings us to what exactly is being fired at those blocks which is 25x184 NATO rounds. That's basically a cannon round with power similar to that of a .50 caliber anti-vehicle gun. Photos below.

    [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Those photos are essentially what's flying out of the large grid gatlings as they're rolling. Those things are designed to chew up armor and get through it quickly. So it's natural they have an effect on the armor like they do, especially if multiple gatlings are hitting the same spot. These aren't tiny bullets flying around. And modded weapons only get bigger than this.


    Need I remind you at first Keen said there would be no planets in the game yet fast forward a little bit later and boom there they are. It's only impossible in the fact that so far Keen hasn't been (at least to our knowledge) working on the shields. From the way it looks right now I agree it doesn't look like we'll have shields this century, but we won't know for certain until we get there. Look at the last 100 years and just how far our technology has come. We've went from horse drawn buggies and still riding horses into battle, to the modern digital age that we have now. In fact if you had told someone just 60 years ago they would be able to talk to someone on the other side of the world in the blink of an eye and see them on a screen they would have laughed at you, yet today we have video chats. 60 years ago if you had told folks that in just a short time even children would have all the collective knowledge of mankind at their fingertips as their plaything folks would have laughed. Yet today you can learn just about anything on the internet and we carry it around with us on our phones. Point being alot can change in 100 years. In regards to SE, it's a fictional setting and it could just as easily be said lore wise that some kind of ancient structure was found on the alien planet or the tech was stolen from the space spiders. Point being it can happen if keen and everyone wants it. I'm a firm believer that the game doesn't have to be 100% realistic to be fun. A game shouldn't let a 100% realism goal get in the way of having fun, otherwise if you're not having fun, why play the game at all?

    I already tackled the balancing issue above. With that in mind block destruction isn't going to just magically go away with the addition of shields like some seem to think it would. Unless someone has jacked the shields up to be impenetrable on their server, then those shields will fail if hit enough, just as armor blocks ultimately break now when hit with enough abuse. If the shields make one invincible because someone dialed them up to make it that way, that's ultimately a player problem and not a Keen problem.

    Like I pointed out above the balancing issue is a simple one when not balanced around pvp as some of the comments I've seen here would require. As pointed out above Keen at one point also stated that they weren't going to do planets, yet here we are several years down the road and boom, we have planets. Companies makes statements about what they're going to do or not do all the time. Sometimes they change, sometimes they don't. No, the gravity generator argument isn't the only one in favor of shields. Changing it to call it an electrostatic field generator doesn't wave that problem away, it just renames it, as it's still allowing for a form of gravity, even if just a more primitive artificial form of it. Also if such a change was made, gravity drives would have to go the way of the dodo, as would spherical gravity generators repelling meteors. Gravity generators, jump drives, the 100m/s speed limit and the like are done for gameplay reasons and are breaks from reality. Gravity generators and Jump drives allow you to get to places faster and allow you to walk around easier without a clunky slow walking system relying purely on mag boots. This goes to what I was saying before, it doesn't need to be 100% realistic to be fun, nor should that 100% realism get in the way of the fun.

    If we really want to get into arguments for or against shields, then those arguing against shields are in a much more difficult position. The only real argument I've seen on that front is saying the game's tech is based on 21st century tech. That's as simple as saying towards the later part of the century the game takes place in the breakthrough of shields was made. The other arguments against shields are purely player created problems wit

    I don't agree with Stardriver on everything as evidenced above, but he has valid concerns about the currency and economy portions. I think you're overanalyzing his statement a bit. He simply disagrees with the need for the space credit portion where as you or I may simply think it's an easy form of exchange. The issue isn't the economy itself, but what means of exchange the economy will use.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,467
    @captainbladej52 That image of those rounds really brings home one of the biggest issues SE has. There's a massive disconnect between what people feel and what actually is. People are having a huge problem grasping the scale of what is being built - just how huge everything is.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
  11. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    292
    @Malware idk how well you can see it but there's actually 2 of them. One showing those rounds in ammo belt form which is smaller, and then the giant one with the round in the dude's hand. I figured the forum would've made them about the same size, but I'm used to a different setup than the one here for posting photos so could just as well be what I did too lols.

    I do agree folks don't think things are as massive as they actually are sometimes. All we see when the gatlings are firing is those sharp bright lines of the bullets flying. really makes folks step back for a moment when they realize just how massive of a bullet those bright lines are supposed to represent. I also think the size of the player characters contributes to that disconnect as well. The player character is similar in size to a 2.5m large grid block in game. In reality that 2.5 meters would translate to roughly 8.2 feet. So unless humanity hit a growth spurt I definitely don't think the player character size is doing the game any favors either.
     
  12. mojomann71 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,588
    You can take 4 small grid blocks which = 2 meters (which = 6'5 opening) and your character will go through. Standard ceiling height (In the U.S anyway) is 8' high. So 2.5-meter block is roughly a good representation in the game. :)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,863
    Well, if I can get at least one person to understand my position I guess it was worth the effort. What got buried about my position was that regardless of whether or not one chooses to turn the trading system on, those that do will endlessly argue over the balance. That's not my problem, it's Keen's ;)

    Here's the difference. When Keen said "no planets" it's because they believed it couldn't be done. They would practically have to re-write their game. If you had asked them at the time if they could put shields in the game they would have said, "Sure. All different kinds. Large and small grid." It was not a matter of feasibility. It was, and is, an aesthetic choice. Like putting dragons in Medieval Engineers. Can they do it? Undoubtedly. Should they? In my opinion, no. That should not be a choice for the standard game. Not even a toggle. That's Modder territory.

    This is the part where I point out that I'm 65 years old. AT&T launched Telstar and we all thought the videophone was just around the corner. Back then we thought nothing was impossible, and everything would be atomic powered. Robert Watson, co-founder of IBM, stated that by this time there would be exactly three computers in the world and everyone would tap into them with workstations. In a short time we got transistors, then integrated circuits, and eventually the computer on a chip. If there ever was a time when there was a chance shields could become a reality, it was the 60's when everything we did revolved around beating the Russians. We put men on the moon, but we never made shields. Even the "sudden breakthrough" argument doesn't hold up because even if someone had a working prototype today we still would not have them by 2077. At least, not as something the average Space Engineer could whip together. Or buy from a store ;)

    The planets in SE are unrealistically close together. Still, at 100 m/s it takes forever to get to one from the other. Some of us are OK with that, but I for one am not selfish enough to insist that everyone should accept the long travel times. A higher speed limit has risks that were deemed unacceptable. The jump drive provides an alternative that is safer. I have them on my ships because when I'm streaming people won't have to sit an watch paint drying when I go from place to place. STO and other like games have energy shields. They also have energy weapons. I'm guessing there's some energy weapons out there that can one-shot your ship, so shields balance that. In SE there is no standard weapon that can take out your ship in one shot. Or two shots. Or fifteen hundred shots. The heavy armor blocks are balanced against standard weapons. Shields would upset that balance, and the "solution" to that problem will be energy weapons, which is the other thing we won't have by 2077.

    Again, anyone, including Keen, that thinks shields in SE is a good idea should either join a server that has them, or download one of the mods and invite their friends over. After a while, you'll see what I mean.

    I will say, though, that Captainblade's approach to having shields in the game is probably the best way to do it. Even then, though, most people will conclude they're not worth the effort.

    The small grid 3x3 wheel suspension, the suspension of choice for building sporty race cars, actually weighs about 4 tons. People that can't understand why their vehicles flip when they try to take a sharp turn at 80 m/s need to stop blaming Keen for that. Keen intended for the game to take place in space where the scale is appropriate. Making the space stuff work in gravity is what's frustrating people. If people want to make cars, Keen should make appropriate blocks.



    Wow. All that and only three sentences about in-game currency.

    Sorry :D
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. BitsNoKibbles Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    82
    Hmm... that's... interesting.

    Not sure what you mean by "hard-coding" currency into the game, but the possibility that different factions could have different currencies (the suggestion being, there's a bank somewhere that will exchange one for another) presents some interesting possibilities as an additional sink. Would be more complicated to code, though.

    The small planets don't bother me, the ice doesn't bother me, and sun rotation doesn't bother me. Sticking 10lbs of shit in a 5lb bag doesn't bother me.

    The 100m/s speed limit does bother me -- and if your product brief is "most technically realistic space sim/game" then you should at least understand what "escape velocity" means, and why it is what it is.

    Just for reference: Mach 1 (speed of sound) is nominally 343 m/s, escape velocity for earth is over 11,000 m/s. So let's be generous and say they're only off by two orders of magnitude.

    I suppose it's a matter of perspective, preference, and priority -- I can forgive quite a bit of precision, but I'd still like a little accuracy. I don't need KSP levels of accuracy, but, if the question is "can a gatling gun chew through 2.5m of armor plate?" the answer should be "no," and if SE says "yes," then I have to call bullshit.

    And before you say it, yes, I know what a GAU-8 -- and my response is, tank armor isn't 2.5m thick.

    I must have missed that memo. I don't recall hearing anyone (on this forum or other) argue that the design philosophy behind SE was "realism or bust." Most of what I hear is "Havoc has limitations." And, I don't know Marek, but he seems more interested in smudging up windows than fixing the physics -- or the hitboxes. And if adding toilets to the game wasn't a blatant attempt to rake in a few extra bucks, what was it?

    No one can say what will or won't exist in 2077. IMO, energy shields are no more or less predictable than jump drives. Neither one offends me, my suspension of disbelief, or my impression of the aesthetic of the game.

    If energy shields are part of the base game, fine. If not, I'll use a mod. I'm free to do so, and you're free to not do so. Not sure what the problem is here?

    Large grid rover with minimal ground clearance on the moon... grounded out face-first on a crater lip. Lower armor is fine (no damage) cockpit (which was recessed and not directly touchable) is wrecked, multiple armor blocks on the roof are completely blown away.

    Explain to me how physics has changed that much in 60 years?

    I recently posted pics of a cargo ship (over in "Show off your Creations") of the smallest large-grid cargo ship I could design and build that met the mission brief -- it's 800K kg empty, 2M kg max load. Is that large enough to be considered "large" in your book?

    That's my point, exactly. Everything might be fair (because we all have to play by the same rules, and we all have the same tech and parts available) but the base game *IS NOT* balanced. The size and weight of a basic armor block (either light or heavy) is not commensurate with its structural rigidity, or protection against projectiles -- nor does it conform to any norm for any kind of material used for that purpose today.

    If you would argue that SE is supposed to be an extrapolation of today's technology 60 years into the future, then I would expect structural materials to weigh less and protect more than they do now -- or, at the very least, be *at least* as good as they are now.

    If I had to choose a contemporary material that approximates the weight and structural capabilities of SE's armor, it would be concrete. Nothing that is currently considered "armor" weighs that much, has that size, and sucks that bad.

    I'm not arguing that shields are a necessary part of the game because space games are supposed to have shields, I'm saying that shields are the only available solution to a glaring problem peculiar to the SE base game. If their armor wasn't crap, then shields wouldn't be necessary.

    However... if Keen fixes the armor, then the guns would have to be fixed as well (and, I'm all for that) and you're back into the rebalancing loop, which doesn't make Keen any money.

    Aside: 9k hours? Hell man, do you get paid to play?

    Conceptually I agree; but the problem is that, if all ore is available on all bodies, then there is no reason to visit any other bodies -- which is kinda the point of SE's gameplay in the first place. And, making ore deposits more difficult to access has tertiary affects, like making starting from scratch for new players exceedingly difficult.

    I'm okay with having certain ore veins only available on certain bodies, but there should be trace amounts available everywhere, and alternative constructions that don't use that ore, so you're never completely stuck. Ex: There's an alternative construction for ion engines that doesn't use platinum / atmo engines that don't use cobalt, but they break down and have to be constantly repaired. And/or tiered thrusters in the base game (they already have tiered tools, why not tiered thrusters?).

    Now, about that uranium deposit on the moon...


    If I wanted all that, I'd play EVE.

    I'm interested in a more casual experience. I play solo most of the time, and the SE world seems very empty, but I'm not the least bit interested in all the drama that comes with a community that's fully invested in a second life based in a game. From what I've seen so far, the new economy elements + some encounter mods seems to be the ticket.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  15. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,863
    Yeah, that's true. Fortunately, the product brief is, "The most realistic space game VRage and Havok can deliver." People that understand that can forgive all the other stuff. Escape velocity or not, it's still a challenge to make a ship that can make it to space, which is the real point. Escape velocity was not a necessary feature in a game that had no gravity wells. Planets were put in the game because people wanted them. Keen rightly figured that having them would be enough for most people, and there was no need to re-code the game in order to have orbital mechanics, rotating planets, a central sun, etc. Planets that you could land on and explore was the goal. Mission accomplished. Anything further? Use a mod.

    Neither is SE armor. I'm guessing a steel plate might be 2 inches thick.

    No. Anything in my fleet that has an empty weight of 15kt or less is considered a small ship.

    In fact, I started a thread asking why in the future the main building material would be steel and not something more exotic like carbon fiber or, yes, concrete. In one of the last posts someone calmly pointed out that since iron was the most prolific ore, it would make sense that steel would be the material of choice (if one does not quibble over where the carbon comes from ;)). I suppose the confusion might stem from the fact that they are called "armor" blocks and not "structural" blocks. I use heavy armor blocks where structural integrity is important and not necessarily for bullet protection. If you are not happy with the performance of armor blocks as armor, perhaps you should examine the blast door blocks Keen graciously added to the game.

    See, since I believe SE armor behaves more or less as it should, I don't see a glaring problem with how much protection it provides. I have, in fact, found that some of the non-armor blocks provide as much or more protection than heavy armor. I would recommend the "Build Info" mod so folks can actually see what they're dealing with when they place a block. Might change your whole building philosophy. I'm sorry but the argument that, "Gee whiz. Every time I get into a fight all my armor gets chewed off. This armor sucks. I need shields" makes me wonder if shields are really the answer.

    Not exactly ;)

    Or is there? Just because it could be true that all ore is available on planets doesn't mean you'll find enough in any one place. Planets are huge. Besides, people keep saying there's no uranium on planets, yet I have found uranium deposits on earthlike. Still looking on the other planets. These trading posts are supposed to make it possible to get ore where you can't otherwise find it. Does that mean there's no need to visit other planets?

    All my SE hours are single player. I agree that being able to trade with the NPC factions would add a lot of depth to the game. Even then the space credits would be unnecessary and, arguably, unrealistic. Think about it. If you are out in the frontier mining asteroids and colonizing new planets, making everything from the resources around you and nothing coming from "home", what good are space credits? Here where I live, (Fairbanks, Alaska) during the first gold rush miners paid for things with gold dust and nuggets even though dollars were available. The merchants that took the gold as payment were the ones that used actual currency, and then only with other merchants. Even in a SP game with NPCs, space credits are not necessary in order to have an economy. I don't see the absence of space credits bringing unwanted drama to a single player game. The existence of trading posts in a multiplayer game will cause some drama with or without space credits. We all seem to be OK with player-made weapons, but the idea of player-made currency seems somehow outlandish. Must be because it would involve thinking.

    A video game where you might be required to think. DOA for sure.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  16. BitsNoKibbles Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    82
    I think we must have been typing at the same time...

    I'm less concerned about PVP fights than I am bumping into things.

    A single large light armor block weighs in at 500 kg (1102 lbs), size 2.5m x 2.5m x 2.5m = 32 kg/m^3 (nominal). Assuming the block is completely hollow, and the actual "armor" is only on the faces, each face is 83 kg. Assuming face thickness of 5cm, it would be 266 kg/m^3, roughly equivalent to 35mm of standard homogeneous steel plate.

    .50 API is good for about 25mm, SLAP is good for about 35mm. So, marginal (at best) for single plate, and nothing doing on the second. And, even if you do poke a hole in it, it's not going to be so structurally weakened that it falls apart.

    If you want to say a block has multiple thinner plates the density goes down but, at that point, there's no point in calling it "armor."

    Now, if you want to step up to 5" naval rifles, or 120mm APFSDS, that's a different story... and also part of my argument.

    My point isn't that a weapon exists that will destroy the block, it's that any structural material (or building block) with that kind of mass and density isn't going to crunch when it bumps into a rock.

    It might make for cool videos of ships ramming each other, but it absolutely sucks when that wasn't the intent.

    Fair enough.
    --- Automerge ---
    Forgot to ask: How many gats did those large ships / stations have on them? And were they auto-aiming, or being aimed by a human?

    I don't have any problems with the stock AIs when attacking with a small ship, it just takes longer.
    --- Automerge ---
    I can understand the rationale in having planets so close together, it makes sense with the 100 m/s speed limit. Ditto the jump drives. And I never played SE in the early days (I jumped in with the release of planets) so I can't imagine what things were like when the only thing punctuating the void of space was an asteroid.

    So, in a world with no planets, and no "natural" gravity (?) does a 100m/s speed limit make sense? I guess so. If there's no place to go, there's no reason to get there fast.

    Wouldn't make sense to be that thick.

    ...

    I misread that the first time... eyes saw "kt" and brain translated to "knots." Converted to "kg" and that didn't seem right.

    Do you land any of those 15+ kilotonne ships on earth?

    Certainly. If we project current technology 60 years into the future, why couldn't we have transparent aluminum?

    Whatever the future material would be, it would have to be better than what we have now. And the best stuff we have now are various forms of composites (various metals, carbons, and synthetics) which are already lighter than aluminum, stronger than steel, and have penetration protection equivalent to many multiples of thickness of standard steel plate.

    Build a solid block 2.5m cubed out of the stuff, and it would be nigh-on indestructible. Build a 2.5m compartmentalized frame cube out of it and it would be structurally equivalent to steel but weigh 1/10th the weight.

    We seem to have gotten the worst of all possible combinations -- all the weight, and none of the protection and structural rigidity. I expected much better.

    I use heavy armor sparingly, and blast door blocks where I need the gap. For me, the weight penalty is rarely worth it.

    Not to give the game away, but gyros can take a terrible beating.

    Just sayin'

    AFAIK earth has everything but platinum and the moon has everything but uranium. My guess is that each planet type is lacking in some resource, thus providing impetus to go someplace else.

    I'm okay with this, but it can be quite frustrating to search for that one ore that you desperately need and, after traveling all over God's creation, you realize it's the one ore that doesn't exist in this place.

    Lots of people say they want realism, but they really don't. Most people that really do want realism don't know what it is, and don't recognize it when they see it.

    I just want to play a game.

    I'm with you on the arbitrary necessity of currency as a form of trade, but I'll offer another reason to include it: expectation. Most people relate to FRNs, and if they don't see FRNs, then something is wrong. Maybe not a really good argument, but I've lost to worse.

    Aside: I got up to North Pole, but I spent most of my time in Anchorage and around Kenai. Currently hang my hat in West (By God) Virginia.

    Was that a cheap shot at millennials? 'Cause that sounded like a cheap shot at millennials.

    I'm okay with that. :)
    --- Automerge ---
    I think we're predisposed (as a species) to argue. If there's nothing to argue about, we make something up.

    So, just so I know what we're arguing about ( :) ) -- are you opposed to adding a formalized trading system to the game, and / or opposed to including a currency in that trading system?

    (I think I know where you stand on the topic of shields :) )

    For the record, I would like to state that adding dragons to ME is a FREAKING AWESOME IDEA.

    Thank you.

    I'm 52, and I disagree -- if, for no other reason, than men like Kelly Johnson still exist. I know several.

    I just wish we still had a Nikola Tesla.

    Some predictions (like the wristwatch communicator from Dick Tracy) have come to fruition... kinda sorta. Is an iWatch exactly the same? No, but we can grant that the technology will get there. Ditto for the communicators from Star Trek. Hell, I even had an original Motorola StarTAC, and I was pretty bummed out when it didn't make the noise when I flipped it open. Do our modern tablets look all that different than the consoles on the original Star Trek? Not by much, and they're even building "primitive" tricorders now.

    I have a standard response for anyone questioning the advance of technology: Who would ever need more than 640K in a PC, anyway?

    My father is retired USAF, he worked with the original SAGE computers. I think I have more computing power in my FitBit than he had in the entire building. My children will never know a world that doesn't have devices that can instantly connect them to the sum total of human knowledge, if not most of humanity; I still remember rotary-dial phones, and trans-Atlantic phone calls with 3.5 second delays.

    Most history books will tell you that Chuck Yeager was the first man to break the sound barrier in a powered aircraft (the Bell X-1) on 14 Oct, 1947. They're wrong.

    The first man to break the sound barrier in an aircraft was actually George Welch, test pilot of the XP-86. Starting with flights on Oct 1, 1947, Welch made multiple test flights, including high-speed dives from altitude, and complained about unusual fluctuations in altimeter and airspeed indicator readings. It wasn't until Nov 21 that ground-based equipment could be located that confirmed that those fluctuations corresponded to the aircraft exceeding Mach 1.

    I mention this only to underscore the notion that we don't know what we think we know, and what we swear to is not always true.

    ... and that's where you lose me. It's not that something that weighs that much wants to flip over, it's that a 3x3 suspension weighs that much in the first place.

    WTF?
     
  17. chrisb Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,452
    I must admit the last thing I want to do in SE is 'fight'. That and I'm a terrible dogfighter at the best of times.

    Explore and survive is really all I want to do. I know we have to place the planets, but you can take a handful place them out there and go find them, well follow the twinkle.
    I'm getting much more into survival now. Only real difference I want, which is a cheat to some, but not to me, is.. I want to build the ship I want to build, to do that in creative then transfer it over into survival and run it. In creative we can all over indulge, which is soon found out in survival with the ship, usually running out of fuel.

    But the challenge for me is to make that over indulged ship survive, its more about the ship than me. Because I don't like to fight, I avoid all contact even though its all turned on, just another part of the survival for me. Just see how long a ship can last with me hiding behind the pilots seat. ;)
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    292
    I get why they added planets in a game like SE as it's pretty much expected to have planets to land on and explore. To find out it didn't have planets at first was probably very shocking to some folks. The point I was making with planets was that it was said they wouldn't be coming at first, yet here we are several years later and we have planets. In other words enough people wanted them and they thought it would make them more cash and they finally put them in. Sort of like with CBS and Star Trek Online. The game is set in the 25th century in 2410 with the latest story content. There used to be no end game Constitution class available for folks to use at max level for the longest time. Part of this was because from my understanding of it CBS thought it wouldn't make as much sense to have TOS era ships still flying around in a post Nemesis era. Eventually the game released temporal ships in celebration of the 50th anniversary of Trek and had an entire expac related around TOS. These temporal ships were basically modern versions of the older classic ships like the Miranda, Daedalus, and other old school designs, but they could use the older skins. Basically game wise they were newer ships but with an old school look. Eventually CBS realized they could make money if they let folks have an end game Constitution class of some type. Today we now have the Kelvin Constitution, Discovery, and Original Series versions. Point being if Keen sees enough folks wanting shields (or any feature for that matter) and they can find a way to make money from it, either just from increased base game sales or through a sci-fi type DLC pack, they very well may do it. In fact I hope they do.

    When getting into aesthetics we're entering a completely subjective realm where there is no right or wrong answer. At that point it boils down to personal preference. I don't fault the folks that don't want shields as folks are certainly welcome to that preference and opinion. In cases with games like SE where one server doesn't effect another, I prefer to err on the side of giving folks additional options and letting the individual server owners sort it out, vs simply holding options back. If it's an option I don't like I don't have to click it on. Just like meteor showers and the wolves. I find them more annoying than anything else so i don't use them. The debate of "should we add x" can be applied to any feature past, present, or future and we can debate about whether it should be there or not, just like this economy feature. Give folks the basic feature then let folks do what they will to adjust it to their liking.

    Dang dude you're almost old enough to be my grandpa lols. Okay friendly ball busting aside, I suppose we just need to find some Russians or another country to compete against to get our butts in gear then lols. With that said this all goes back to that personal preference thing. it's ultimately a fictional universe in which anything can happen.

    Far as stuff that can one shot your ship, it can definitely happen in the game's I've been mentioning, especially some of the higher difficulty missions in Star Trek Online, however it should be an extremely rare event when it does happen. Usually that perfect combination of buffs/debuffs between you and him, right place and right time, and on down the line. Aside from the perfect storm of events, the only other times it happens is if it's a scripted event to be a one shot kill. At that point if it's a scripted one shot kill, then neither shields or armor will help you, but that's a different debate and can of worms entirely. Even unshielded ships in Trek could take a good pounding without their shields before they were taken down so rarely did we see one shots unless something was just so vastly outclassed or already weak there was no hope with or without shields.

    The planets being as close as they are and similar objects, we know were because of gameplay reasons and such. Obviously with Vrage and Havok we're not going to get a 100% accurate to reality thing this far along without a mostly complete or outright complete re-write of the game. While they may have been added for technical gameplay reasons, gravity gens and jump drives are valid examples of outside tech existing in game that we otherwise probably won't have at the rate we're going now by the time we get to 2077. Folks can indeed say because we won't have them by 2077 they shouldn't be included, however that's as simple as saying in this timeline we do have them.

    The only way shields are going to disrupt a balance is if they are balanced around pvp or anything else and not individual block performance. All one has to do is look at the values we have now for current stuff and say, okay how many hits from each type of weapon do we want these shields to be able to take before the fail. That same question has to be asked with every single block in the game that has been added or ever will be added, how much punishment should it take before it blows up and/or goes offline. The same thing would be true with the shields, how much abuse should they take before they fail. Once that baseline has been established then ship it out to the players and let them adjust to their liking. Some folks turn up the damage on the vanilla weapons, some don't. Some use reactors that are stronger than the standard ones, some don't.

    All Keen needs to do is get a baseline put down and then put it out there. From there it's on the players. Some folks may decide to run without them like you said because they don't want to worry about balancing, but I would say those folks don't really want them as bad as they think they did. Like you were getting at before, anything worth doing isn't always easy and takes time. Folks that want the shields will either adjust them the way they want if they want stronger shields, or they'll stack a bunch of shields now thus taking more weight and a fair chunk more energy consumption. Otherwise if they give up on the shields then I would question whether those folks really wanted the shields as bad as they thought to start with. I honestly think folks just overthink this stuff when the topic of shields come up and tend to make it more complicated than it really is or needs to be.

    The reason I brought up pvp is because of the way the conversation was going. The way the conversation was going it would have required blocks like shields be balanced around pvp and so on. I pointed out why it should be balanced purely around individual block performance as anything else becomes a nightmare and essentially forces a balance set based around pvp. As for bumping into stuff if you don't like the block deformations those can easily be turned off or another type of fix can easily be applied.

    We can debate what to call the blocks all day long but that's honestly semantics. Whether it's a single piece of 2.5m thick steel or if it's a smaller set of armor plates put together into a block type form, it's still armor, and it still functions like armor. We can debate how effective either way of doing it is, but it doesn't change what it is functionally, which is armor.

    In regards to the munitions themselves. 99% of the blocks in this game won't get vaporized by just one singular bullet. This is true of light and heavy armor alike. However one of the dangers of going against a gatling gun isn't just the type of ammo it fires, but how many rounds it can fire off in a short time frame. A modern M134 Vulcan minigun can fire between 2,000-6,000 rounds per minute. The M2 Browning .50 caliber machine gun can fire between 450-1300 rounds per minute depending on what variant and type of ammo used. Obviously the Gatlings in SE don't fire nearly as fast as either of those however given the constraints of the game they do decently enough imo. So if we're going to go to real world examples, then the Gatlings in SE should be chewing up armor even faster than they do now. Multiple large caliber rounds in the same exact spot is going to leave a mark and will eventually pierce through an armor plate. These aren't small bullets the gatlings in SE are throwing out as I posted photos above of what they're actually shooting. As far as how fast the gatlings in SE chew through armor compared to real world examples we could actually say the armor is too strong. However that's not what is being debated as we both understand that weapons can destroy armor. The question being asked here is whether the armor buckles and deforms too easy based on light to moderate impacts.

    In that case it boils down to physics. How fast was it going, where did it hit, what did it hit, masses of the different objects at play, and a host of other factors. Consider how fast the ships we have actually weigh and how fast they would actually be going in game if we didn't have a 100m/s speed limit. A ship weighing several hundred tons isn't going to just stop on a dime, as much as I'm sure we all wish they had the tech to do. Given the right set of conditions the armor blocks we have in game can indeed crumble as easily as they sometimes do if we're applying real life conditions.

    Now just because it would go one way in real life doesn't mean it has to go that way in game. I'm a firm believer that a game doesn't have to be 100% realistic to be fun. If a slight change here or there from what would happen in real life improves the fun factor of the game, then I'm cool with that. I play games to have fun and if I'm not having fun then there is no point in me playing. You can make the argument the armor blocks crumble too easy and should be changed because it cuts into the fun factor. Yet that's a completely different type of argument then wanting it changed based on real life conditions. If it bothers you that much deformations can easily be turned off.

    I have a feeling I know what you're going to say in response to this already but I will answer the question. The amount of turrets has varied between the ships/stations I have engaged with a small grid ship. Some of them have only had 1-2 turrets where as others have had 10 or more. In regards to auto-aimed vs human controlled I have gone against both.

    It all depends on how one approaches the target and how you fly your ship vs the other ship/station.
     
  19. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,863
    A trading infrastructure will be a good game feature. I fear that the trading post shields will be exploited and abused. They'll only be necessary on servers you want to avoid.

    I believe the KeenBucks perpetuate the notion most people have that currency (money) just exists so we can buy stuff. I believe currency should come from known sources, and the relative value of their currency should be based upon their ability to back it up and their reputation. I believe instead of just handing us some KeenBucks and telling us to go play, Keen could have given us the ability to work out a real economic system that includes currency, thus creating another engineering element and making it even harder for other developers to copy their game. I believe trading should be on the same difficulty level as mining/refining/building.

    Except it wasn't like that. It wasn't like, "Should there be planets in the game? Nah." It was more like, "Man, planets would be cool. I wish we could do that." Remember, VRage is theirs. They didn't know what it could do. Still don't. Some staff member figured out a way, and it was on. They knew they could do shields from day one. Since Miner Wars. No technical hurdles there. They made a decision that shields would be inappropriate for the game they were making.

    This is another assumption people make about video games, which is that if you include every feature everyone asks for you can't lose. Therefore, SE will be a blockbuster once it has shields, lasers, transporters, wormholes, time travel, multiverses, etc., etc., lots of et cetera. In other words, once Marek Rosa can no longer recognize the game he created, that's when it'll be ready for full release. It's no wonder that he said the next game will not be Early Access.

    Space Engineers is a sandbox game that takes place around 2077. Presumably, there was a second space race that began in 2029, and apparently we are still racing. Players are saying "fuck that. This needs to be a game about fighting and explosions. Lots of explosions. Torched off by lasers. Oh, and photon torpedos, in case the lasers don't work. If Marek wants a game about mining/refining/building, he should just make one."

    KSH is making a game that takes place around 2077 and they want it to be believable. Therefore, certain sci-fi elements have been intentionally left out. They do, however, allow and encourage mods. You are allowed and encouraged to put anything you want in the game that otherwise doesn't belong. It's the ultimate toggle switch. Why bloat the game with code that only certain people will enable? If you want shields in your game you can have them in about two minutes, then you can turn them on and off. Don't try to flim-flam Keen into putting something into the standard game that clearly does not have the support people claim. There are lots of shield mods. Not one of them is even remotely popular. Whatever it is that makes them unpopular is what you are asking Keen to include in their base game. What a great marketing idea. Maybe Keen should also send people that buy the game a free turd. Sure, it's a turd, but it's free.

    Space Engineers needs to be Space Engineers, not SpaceTrekCitizenEveHammerWarEvolved Online.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. BitsNoKibbles Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    82
    Well, that was weird... thought I posted this last night, but it's still in the editor & I don't see it. Apologies if this winds up being a double.

    I think we're predisposed (as a species) to argue. If there's nothing to argue about, we make something up.

    So, just so I know what we're arguing about ( :) ) -- are you opposed to adding a formalized trading system to the game, and / or opposed to including a currency in that trading system?

    (I think I know where you stand on the topic of shields :) )

    For the record, I would like to state that adding dragons to ME is a FREAKING AWESOME IDEA.

    Thank you.

    I'm 52, and I disagree -- if, for no other reason, that men like Kelly Johnson still exist. I know several.

    I just wish we still had a Nikola Tesla.

    Some predictions (like the wristwatch communicator from Dick Tracy) have come to fruition... kinda sorta. Is an iWatch exactly the same? No, but we can grant that the technology will get there. Ditto for the communicators from Star Trek. I had an original Motorola StarTAC, and I was pretty bummed out when it didn't make the noise when I flipped it open. Do our modern tablets look all that different than the consoles on the original Star Trek? Not by much, and they're even building "primitive" tricorders now.

    I have a standard response for anyone questioning the advance of technology: Who would ever need more than 640K in a PC, anyway?

    My father is retired USAF, he worked with the original SAGE computers. I think I have more computing power in my FitBit than he had in the entire building. My children will never know a world that doesn't have devices that can instantly connect them to the sum total of human knowledge, if not most of humanity; I still remember rotary-dial phones, trans-Atlantic phone calls with 3.5 second delays, and extra-thin paper for airmail.

    Most history books will tell you that Chuck Yeager was the first man to break the sound barrier in a powered aircraft (the Bell X-1) on 14 Oct, 1947. They're wrong.

    The first man to break the sound barrier in an aircraft was actually George Welch, test pilot of the XP-86. Starting with flights on Oct 1, 1947, Welch made multiple test flights, including high-speed dives from altitude, and complained about unusual fluctuations in altimeter and airspeed indicator readings. It wasn't until Nov 21 that ground-based equipment could be located that confirmed that those fluctuations corresponded to the aircraft exceeding Mach 1.

    I mention this only to underscore the notion that we don't know what we think we know, and what we swear to is not always true.

    ... and that's where you lose me. It's not something that weighs that much wants to flip over, it's that a 3x3 suspension weighs that much in the first place.
     
  21. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,467
    @Stardriver907 (@BitsNoKibbles) A small-grid 3x3 suspension weighs a little less than half a ton and the large grid about 1500kg. Where'd you get 4 tons from?

    I mean, still a lot...
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  22. Spaceman Spiff Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,272
    You’ve got me by a year! :p
     
  23. mojomann71 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,588
    I have to disagree with you on this point. Make a light armor ship (vanilla blocks of course) fly into something going 7 or 8 m/s, (Which if I am not mistaken is about 15 mph for us non-metric folks - lol) and your ship will be totaled.
     
  24. Calaban Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    872
    well, to that, sir- the small craft was indeed totaled for one very simple reason that people befuddledly continue to ignore/disregard:

    And that reason is quite simply..
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    292
    I'm well aware at first they didn't think they could do it. That still doesn't change the fact that once they found out it was possible they had a choice to make of whether they would actually add the planets or not. Of course we know what choice they made. The point was that companies have changed their stance before, even Keen on certain issues.

    That's not even remotely close to what's being suggested here. Show me anywhere that someone is suggesting we take every single idea from anyone who has ever touched the game and add it to the game or anywhere close to that. What is being suggested is that a highly requested feature be added to the game. Not the sum of ideas from everyone who has ever touched the game, but one single OPTIONAL feature the folks could use if they like.

    What is being suggested here is the same kind of thing with the end game Constitution Class in Star Trek Online. For years people wanted the ship just like folks here have said for years they want shields. CBS always said no because they didn't want an Original Series era ship from the 23rd century flying around in a post-Nemesis 25th century timeline. They felt it didn't make sense for that old of a ship class to still be flying around when you have ships like the Galaxy Class and other far more advanced ships flying around. Just like SE has always had the ability to add shields as you pointed out above, the ability to add the Constitution class to the game as an end game ship was always there. What held it up for so long was their unwillingness to add it just like so far SE has been unwilling to add shields. Eventually enough folks spoke up and said "hey we really want this ship to be playable at end game somehow and are willing to give you money to make it happen." I have said before on this forum as have others that they would pay cash for a sci-fi DLC type pack if it had shields. CBS just like Keen is a business. When enough folks spoke up and said "we want an end game Constitution and are willing to give you money to make it happen" they finally gave the green light for an end game Constitution class. In fact we now have 3 variants of it.

    What I have been suggesting is Keen take advantage of the fact folks are willing to pay them money for a feature that has been requested for years.

    I have yet to see anything like that. What I have seen is folks suggesting the world include NPCs and other options to make it feel less empty. I find it quite ironic that you accuse folks like myself of making an assumption that adding all ideas from every Tom, Dick, and Harry out there would improve the game, yet make 2 massive generalizations yourself.

    As was already pointed out to you several times, look at how far we've come in even the last hundred years. Until we're actually there in 2077 we don't know what we will have and what we won't have. Even the Jetsons thought we would have all this extra tech by now in only the 2060s. Some of the items they thought we would have came to fruition far earlier, and some haven't. Right now Commander Data's abilities in Star Trek such as his data storage and computing ability are antiquated technology compared to what we have just today. The only real argument that's been put forth is "it's 2077 and we probably won't have it by then" which is easily countered by saying, what if we did. The other reasons basically boil down to "I don't like them and don't want them, therefore you shouldn't like them either and we shouldn't add them." By your own logic, if you don't want shields in your world, you can just turn them off if/when they are ever added. Again by your own logic don't try to flim-flam the rest of us out of a feature just because you have decided you don't like it. What I do on my server has ZERO impact on what you do on yours and vice versa.

    In regards to popularity here is just one of the shield mods out there. https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=484504816
    At the time of posting this the mod has 194,376 subscribers. I hardly call that unpopular. In fact if you go into the workshop and set the filter to the Most Popular and All Time stuff, that mod is in the first page. So if you really want to say none of them are popular, I'm going to call shenanigans. In fact if Keen wanted all they would have to do is make that mod part of the base game and adjust the numbers to their liking. Otherwise all the work is done. That's just one example of a shield mod out there. Then we come to the poll in Xoc's stream that you and I both were present for. In that poll 67% of the people said they would want shields and only 33% said no. So if we keep using the type of logic you're using here, you're in the MINORITY. Even if we adjust those numbers with a +/- 10% margin of error to say 10% fewer said yes and 10% more said no, that's still 57% yes and 43% no and you're still in the minority.

    If we're to follow the logic you're putting out here, anything that anyone doesn't like about SE can be considered "bloating the code." I could just as easily say "I don't like this new economy feature, the hydrogen engine, windmills, and blast doors, so why are they allowed to bloat the code." By your own logic if/when they're added you can just turn the shields off. Why continue to have meteor showers when not that many people use them? Why continue to have wolves when not that many people use them? The list can go on and on. Simply because you don't like it is not a valid reason the rest of us shouldn't be allowed to have it and it shouldn't be done. By similar standards to what you're putting forth, there are more people who want this singular feature of shields than those that don't. That's potential money they could be making.

    Adding one singular thing like shields is not going to suddenly stop Space Engineers from being Space Engineers. Not having the Constitution in Star Trek Online didn't stop it from being a Star Trek game. Like I said, I'm willing to pay cash for a DLC with shields in it if that's how I had to get them as part of the base game. For better or worse the game is changing, and this new economy feature is one of those things that so far is changing it for the better from what I'm seeing. Hopefully shields aren't that far behind.

    For that matter I also want to know more about this economy feature as well.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  26. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,863
    I was making the same argument in another thread and I had my game running, so I selected a small grid 3x3 suspension with Build Info on and I swear it said it weighed 4t. Perhaps in my haste I selected the 5x5 large grid? In any event, the small grid 3x3 suspension still weighs way more than what you would want on a race car. Keen gets blamed for the inevitable flip that ensues, when the real culprit is bad driving.

    Because light armor is the structural block. Heavy armor will fare better. Build a ship made of refineries or batteries and do your test again. See what happens.

    @captainbladej52 I have to admire your passion :tu:. If you and I were standing in front of Marek's desk he might become conflicted. Shields, or no shields? What's best for the game?

    Your argument relies heavily upon what happened in Star Trek Online. I rarely bring other games into a Space Engineers discussion because SE is in a class by itself. I fight for SE based upon it's strengths and weaknesses. Your STO argument suggests that bringing an out-of-context element into the game did not hurt it. Bringing shields into SE will not hurt the game. It would hurt Marek's reputation and make KSH look as if all they want is our money and they will prostitute the game any way they can to get our cash. You characterize the introduction of planets as an example of such prostitution.
    Actually, once they concluded it was possible, the only choice they had was when, not if. Why bother figuring out if you can do it if you're not going to do it?

    I submit that the ability to have shields in the game was feasible from day one. We got air. We got artificial gravity. We got jump drives. We got planets. We never got shields. Why? Too difficult? Hardly. Too soon? Pfffft.

    Gravity generators, artificial mass and jump drives make the game playable. I don't like them, but I can't argue against the need for them. Air and planets make the game believable. I can argue against the need for shields, and their continued absence from the game suggests that the game is believable enough without them.

    I remember when Cython's mod came out. Back when SE had two branches. Yeah, that was indeed a popular mod. Everyone thought, "This is IT. This is the shield mod that Keen HAS to make vanilla. Any minute now." That was the mod all the servers were loading and touting. I'm probably the only person still playing the game that never subscribed. That is, in fact, the mod that I watched people use on Twitch and how I found out why so many people want shields. Simply put, they hide poor judgement. They hide bad flying and bad combat decisions. They also allow you to make pretty ships instead of good ships.

    Shields work in STO because the Star Trek franchise literally invented them. Virtually all other shows that have them, have them because Star Trek had them. Here we are, arguing that SE should have shields because a Star Trek game has them. I've never played STO, but I'm guessing it's a combat game, and shields are a tactic. SE is a game where people are trying to live and work in space. The worst threats you encounter are not Klingons or Borg. They're Space Pirates. Other humans that come from the same planet as you and have the same technology as you. Their armor is just as shitty as yours.

    I said players, not you specifically, bring up all the other games/movies/tv shows in defense of having shields in SE. I made the generalization because I was having this same discussion back in 2015 when that mod came out. The arguments have not changed. Other games. Unscientific straw polls. Passion. They're all great arguments for shields. Not so much for making them standard.

    You say we have come a long way in the last 100 years. I have lived the most recent 65 of those years and I'm here to tell you the way things work we won't have any kind of off-the-shelf energy shield by 2077. The reason I say that with confidence is because people knew the math 100 years ago and you know every advanced military/industrial complex that doesn't care how hard something is or how much it will cost has tried. We have atomic bombs. We put people on the Moon. We don't have shields.

    Making shields standard and having a toggle for it is not the same as meteors or space spiders. Shields are a game changer. The reason they are not standard is not because they couldn't be, but because Keen doesn't want their game changed. Not like that. They won't change the game the way air did, or artificial gravity. Or planets. They will get more people to play for a short while till the shine wears off. I'm guessing we'll all see for ourselves when we get the trading post shields safe zones ;)

    Shields as paid DLC is pay-to-win. You might run into some people that are against that.

    Don't worry about it there, lil shaver. One day you'll be as old as me :D
    (get started on that Social Security and Medicare, though)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. Spaceman Spiff Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,272
    Nah, I'll be working at least another 6 or 8 years, mostly because I really like what I do. But I'll be sure to get into the "system" when I turn 65 so I don't lose those benefits (assuming they're still around when I actually retire).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  28. BitsNoKibbles Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    82
    Apologies in advance -- It's been a long day, and I'm sampling my third single malt.

    I'm quite familiar with small arms (everything from .22 to .50 BMG). I have friends that were aircrew on most aircraft in the US inventory from the F-100 to the F-18, including A-10s..Another friend used to pack shells for the PhDs at Aberdeen. I spent several years at Eglin AFB and DARPA.

    I've had occasion to work on and around many... interesting... projects.

    I have poked lots of holes in many things, and not poked holes in many others.

    This has been my experience in SE, and counter to my experience in Real Life (tm).

    Just as a for instance: If LAV-25s worked like vehicles in SE do, the USMC wouldn't use them.

    Just to be clear -- I'm not advocating for the inclusion of shields in the base game. I'm actually ambivalent on that point.

    I just want armor blocks to be more armor-like, so that I don't need a shield mod to keep my ships and vehicles from getting crunched from every incidental bump.

    The current implementation of "shields" (and I put that in quotes, on purpose) for trading outposts seems a little non-shield-like to me... more like a defined physical location where damage is turned off. Similar outcome, but not exactly the same as the shield mods I've been using.

    You and me, both.

    I'm not trying to build a race car. And, I expect that a 3x3 suspension block weighs more than a coil-over-shock unit on an F-350 (electric motors, etc). But a vehicle that;s nominally the size of an F-150 constructed with those blocks shouldn't weigh 10x as much as an F-350. 1.5x maybe, 2x on the outside.


    I return to me original argument of "meets expectations."

    I shouldn't have to build a small vehicle out of refineries and gyros just to have something as resilient in its environment as an F-350 is today.

    @captainbladej52It would hurt Marek's reputation and make KSH look as if all they want is our money and they will prostitute the game any way they can to get our cash.[/quote]

    You could say the same thing about most politicians and political parties.


    I'd say a more believable explanation is that LSH doesn't want to expend the resources to implement them in the base game.


    They also hide the poor implementation of "armor" and a lack of fidelity (interest?) in implementing any type of realistic projectile penetration and damage calculation.

    I don't consider that a very compelling argument.

    Telling me that my neighbors are just as bad off as I am does not make me feel better about my situation.

    I've got 1917 armor and (some really small) 1944 guns. It's supposed to be 2077.

    You're telling me that some backwater redneck pirate hasn't figured out how to mount a Flak-36 on the deck?

    Just because you haven't seen or heard of a technology doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    I've worked with lots of stuff that doesn't exist.

    Just sayin'.

     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  29. Calaban Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    872
    The beauty of 1944 guns is: they work just fine in vacuum of space (ok the receiver spring may get brittle) .. and good luck managing to get similar kilojoules of impact energy from a particle bream gun by that year, so....
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  30. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,863
    I'm glad to hear that, because my only objection to shields is including them in the base game. People that want shields should download one or play with someone that uses one. If you still feel they need to be vanilla after 100 hrs min playtime you might actually be able to change my mind.

    And yes, it could happen. It has happened. Right here in these forums.


    More than once ;)

    But shields are already in the game. With the update there will be two varieties. They've already expended the resources. People complained about flimsy armor back in 2013. Keen's response was heavy armor, not shields, and not because they couldn't have done shields then.

    I don't know. Sometimes I wonder if we're talking about the same game.

    I mean, all these years I've been building all sorts of ships and vehicles. I have a reason for each one, so once it gets built it gets put through the wringer. It has to work or I can't use it. The creations that I have ended up with are as sturdy as they need to be for space engineers physics. What that means is that I try to avoid hitting my 190kt ship with my 18kt ship moving any faster than .3 m/s. If I do, something will break. All my mainline ships are designed to merge with the mothership. That amounts to a lot of close-quarter maneuvering. Any damage from errors in judgement will always be substantial, and there's no one there to fix it but me. Being in Creative doesn't make it any easier. It's part of the reason I have so many hours :D.

    When it comes to collisions, I'm quite satisfied with Keen's armor blocks. There are buffed armor block mods, but that's one type of mod I don't use. In fact, most of the block mods I use are weaker than vanilla heavy armor. The one or two builds I have made specifically for combat have used vanilla armor. In my opinion the armor performs as expected, which is to say that it doesn't last forever, it's a good idea to not get hit, and it's a better idea to give more than you get. If I was going to make a ship specifically to stand and fight, it would have a lot of armor. The more damage I expect it to take, the more armor it would have and, believe me, I wouldn't care what it looked like so long as it worked ;). I have no aversion to using mods, and if I thought I needed shields to keep my ships intact I would subscribe to one. In a heartbeat. I just simply do not see the need.

    In any event, I'm going back to watching people playtest the economy update. I'll be looking for shield trade zone abuse ;)
     
    • Like Like x 1