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. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,863
    This is absolutely true for a single player game. It gets more complicated when you choose to host a session for other people.

    Here's the thing. Right now there's no shields, so everyone builds ships without shields in mind. Many of these ships are on the Workshop. You can take one of those Workshop ships into any server and you should be able to hold your own. If you go on a server that has shields, you can bet that the server's "regulars" have installed the necessary firepower to deal with shields. Your unshielded ship will be at risk, but it may still hold it's own because it was built tough.

    Now, imagine shields were vanilla. The average player will more likely forego armor for looks and spiffy performance because there are shields. It's the main reason people want shields. Looks are a major component of SE ship design. Scary maneuverability (i.e. lots of thrusters and gyros) is also desirable. Shields let you have that so let's not kid ourselves about whether or not most ships will have them. Shield generators will be on every ship right next to the gas generators. If I'm running a server that has turned off vanilla shields, I'm just not going to attract as many players. What's the point of running a server if I'm the only person there? Sure, it's my server and I can do what I want, as long as I don't care if anyone will join me or not. I do care, so if shields were vanilla I'd pretty much have to enable them. As you so often say, they're a highly requested feature ;)

    I don't care what other people put on the workshop. I'm just saying that if shields are vanilla, most people will builds ships with shields, and those ships will populate the workshop. They won't all have shields, but most of them will. Because the shields would be vanilla.

    I don't equate having shields with jumping off a cliff. Jumping off a cliff is not smart. In a game where everyone can have shields, having shields yourself is smart. Like not taking a knife to a gunfight. Even if you're really good with a knife.

    You probably don't remember Windows Messenger. It's Xbox Live's dad. For most people it was an instant messaging app, but it had a video chat function. That was like Windows 3.1 My son was just a baby. Since then we got Skype and Google Hangouts. Probably some other stuff I never heard of. Cell phones have just about always had cameras. Most come with a video chat app installed. Now you're telling me that 30 years after it was totally possible people are just now discovering an app that just came out. This is the true pace of things. This is why even if there was a "breakthrough" on shields today we still wouldn't have them by 2077. Someone would find a completely stupid use for the technology that has nothing to do with shielding anything but it's something cool and all the money and attention would go into that and years later, probably around 2130, someone will wonder why we never used the tech to make shields. Then we'll get shields. I play SE because 60 years ago I thought going to space would be a thing I could be doing by now but instead SE is as close as I'll ever get. I did actually get a chance to make a video call about fifteen years ago. My big brother was living in Detroit and I talked him into installing Skype and I called him and we talked for about an hour. Then he lost his laptop and apparently never bought another one and I guess he just forgot about Skype cause no one else he knew was using it. Yeah we're swimming in technology but we tend to stay in the shallow end of the pool.

    I noticed the other day that apparently if you buy a ship from an NPC store it just appears out of thin air. NPCs have the technology to instantly transmit an entire ship to a store from who knows where, but even with jump drives it takes forever to go from earthlike to marslike. Something else to overlook for the sake of gameplay. It's all good, though, if it gets people to play.
     
  2. mojomann71 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,586
    You probably don't remember 30 years ago not everyone could afford the tech. ;) (I am not a spring chicken, I been on this Earth for quite a while, lol.) Tech is getting more affordable. I mean cell phones are so cheap nowadays that those who can't afford food somehow still can get a cell phone. (Not demeaning anyone intentionally. It is true.) Even in the most remote areas in Africa tribes have cell phones. So once tech gets to a certain point, it isn't really people are just catching on, they are just able to afford it. 10 years ago not many people had HD T.V's now normal HD is "bottom of the barrel" .... Will we have shields come 2077, it is possible. Do I know for sure? No. I don't even know for sure what I am having for dinner tonight. Lol, I just know I will be eating. :)
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Ronin1973 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,682
    Communications is a major part of modern life. It's not a status symbol or a luxury anymore. People in less-advantaged areas are more likely to have cell-phones than landlines because cell phones require less infrastructure than land-lines. It's easier to put up a cell tower than run copper to everyone's home.

    Advances in surface mount electronics and automated assembly has radically brought down the price of mass produced electronics. I'm a big fan of Eurorack modular synthesis. Manufacturing costs have come down significantly and ACCESS to small companies to produce limited runs of affordable custom electronics is now available.

    Twenty years ago, I was part of a start-up that was trying to bring streaming media to Java enabled cell-phones over existing cellular networks. Sadly the infrastructure and device capabilities just weren't there at the time.

    As far an energy shield, there would have to be a major shift and breakthroughs in technology. Stopping a physical object seems a long ways away considering we're still trying to perfect accelerating physical objects in a relatively narrow electromagnetic field (railguns).
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Spaceman Spiff Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,272
    I don't have a bottom-of-the-barrel HDTV...I'm still sitting on 10-year-old technology because it still works. And, as my wife likes to say, "It's not in the budget..." :?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,863
    Only if you apply the "anything is possible" theory, in which case one could state that we'll have shields tomorrow afternoon. It's possible, but not likely.

    We all like the idea of shields because tv shows and movies show us how they can be used. Not one has ever explained how they work or, even more important, what it takes to make them work. Even more important is the discussion about who will be willing to spend the resources it will take to get a working shield. Private industry? You have to show them the money first. Academia? They have been researching since the atomic bomb. They're still at it, but the enthusiasm just isn't there. The Military? They have the will and the resources. Every country that has a military has a vested interest in keeping their country (or at least their leaders ;)) safe. What could be better than a shield? If there was anything out there that offered even a glimmer of hope for an energy shield, those folks would be right on top of it. Well, they have been right on top of it, especially since the Manhattan Project, and we've got nothing. What's the holdup?

    Well, we have people like Sir Isaac Newton (aka Captain Bringdown by shield enthusiasts) saying stuff like every action causes an opposite and equal reaction, and energy can only be converted. Where do you get the energy to stop a bullet the same way a two inch thick sheet of steel does, and where does the kinetic energy from the bullet go? If you figure that out, is your solution cheaper and easier to manage than a two inch thick sheet of steel? Is it even the same? If it is then I submit that at that point we have moved way past the need for shields altogether because that would be some triple-A breakthrough shit there. That kind of technology would open all sorts of new ways to do things, and we would likely not be doing anything in 2077 the way we do it now. We certainly wouldn't be wasting our time flitting about the solar system using hydrogen and ion thrust and digging holes in asteroids with drills.

    I did offer a solution that's technically feasible and entirely possible as off-the-shelf technology by 2077 that also meets the need for having extra durability without adding armor. It's a technology I first caught wind of back in the 80's. The first (and so far only) time it appeared in any science fiction series was, of all places, Star Trek: Enterprise (my favorite). Once Skylab was in orbit we started talking about what sorts of things could we fabricate in zero gravity that can't be done on the ground. One thing that was mentioned was that we could mix things together that can't be otherwise mixed, thus creating new materials. While this stuff is weightless we can also use electromagnetism to align the molecules of the substances any way we want. With the correct recipe of materials and molecular alignment we could create a material that can maintain it's structural integrity as long as power is supplied. The NX-1 did not have shields, but it did have hull plating that could be polarized. Not as theatrically pleasing as a shield, but just as effective.

    And totally possible by 2077.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    292
    We might not agree on some of the technical aspects but I can respect your reasoning as to why you keep playing. Some of your previous statements made it seem as though you had nothing but problems with the game and issues and made it sound as though the game was unplayable. I'm glad you clarified. I do a good bit of work with computers myself, more desktop than laptop. I've also done a fair bit of modding in other games. Because of that I can give them a fair bit of leeway with fixing bugs and issues because I get it. Fixing bugs and issues can get very annoying. There's several items I would love to improve love to see improved myself. I would say pretty much everyone has at least one item they would like to see improved, but all in due time I suppose.

    It's not nearly as complicated as you're making it out to be and there are very simple solutions. The simplest and easiest solution is playing with a group of like minded people. Not every server needs to be the same. Otherwise there is no point in having multiple servers.

    This just means you need to adjust your tactics based on the given situation. If the ship you're using is superior and so is your ship piloting, then adjusting to the fact your foe has shields shouldn't be that big of an issue. With combat there's risk with or without shields.

    Some will and some won't. If you're going against someone who doesn't have proper armor placement and is relying too much on the shields, then you shouldn't have any issues getting through their shields and shredding them. Why complain about something that makes your job even easier? If you do end up having issues shredding them, then their ship and piloting must not be as inferior as you thought.

    No, that's not the main reason folks want shields. For some it may be, but there's far more to it than that. Some folks want it for the sci-fi themed element it brings and the RP factor. Some want it for the protection it offers, some just because they think it's cool. There's several reasons, many of which we've already been through. Personally I don't care as much about looks as I do functionality. Does the ship function and do what I need it to do? If it does, then I may worry about looks. If I can get functionality and looks then that's great, otherwise I prioritize functionality above all else. Maybe I'm in the minority on the space barbie factor since I don't value it as much but meh. Folks are always going to want as much as they can get out of their ships, this isn't a new concept. If they can have both then naturally some will go for it. The one's that sacrifice critically needed protection and rely too much on the shields in our hypothetical scenario were doomed to failure from the start. Thus we would be back at the original question, why complain about something that makes your job easier?

    If you're going to run a server as I've seen you say you want to do a few times, then you're going to have to make a few choices at some point as to what you care about most. Do you value quality and playing with a core crew of like minded folks and sticking to your ideals, or do you want to have everyone and their brother on the server as well as the kitchen sink and compromise your ideals? If you want to have as many as possible and enable shields, this tells me that you're not as committed as you claim you are to your anti-shield stance, thus undermining your entire position from the get go. Finally on this particular point, if you end up being the only person there on the server with shields turned off as you claim in that situation, then that just tells me you recognize there is more folks who support shields than those that don't. Otherwise if there are just as many folks that don't want shields vs those that do, you should have no problem getting like minded folks onto your no-shield server if/when shields became a thing.

    You say you don't care what folks put on the workshop yet why then say things like the quotes below?

    You claim you don't care what folks do and put on the workshop, yet you cite reasons using what people put on the workshop. If you really don't care, then your argument citing shielded vs unshielded workshop blueprints and how others build their ships are completely irrelevant. You say you don't care, yet the quote above shows that you clearly in fact do. If you don't care what others do with their workshop blueprints, then why complain folks might forgo armor in favor of looks? Why complain about it when it would simply make your job of taking them down just that much easier if you two were to face off? It's contradictory logic.

    And thus we're back to this overthought notion. Simply because one of us isn't aware of something doesn't mean it can't or doesn't exist. We've already been through this.

    None of the technologies we have came about in a day, especially not computers. By the logic you're using, why bother to research anything? Why bother trying to cure diseases or so on when what we have now shows no hope? There used to not be a vaccine for Polio, yet now we have one. Currently there is no vaccine against cancer, yet one day there will be. It took over 1,000 tries for Thomas Edison to invent the lightbulb. When asked about it he simply said he didn't fail, he just found different ways it wouldn't work. For that matter it took hundreds of years of research and development in metallurgy and weapons development to get to the guns we have today. Gunpowder was first used around the year 1000 AD, and it took until the early 1900s to get modern semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons. The general point is that we've only begun to experiment with energy of different types. Energy shields could come tomorrow, or they may not appear for another thousand years or more. Even the ability of flight we take for granted in our society today and airplanes, were once thought to be purely impossible for humans. By 1920 science it was told we wouldn't have the computers like we do today or even the atomic bomb. By 1945 science we had the atomic bomb. By 2013-2019 science we don't yet have shields and 2019 science says we probably won't. 2077 science on the other hand could very well have them. Point being science continues to improve over time as we acquire new knowledge. Things once thought impossible become possible.

    Quoting these as they're both on a similar thought train. Physical shields and armor we have disperse the energy of various projectiles across the surface of the item thus lessening overall damage and effect, or redirect the projectile and energy away from the target. In regards to energy shields, the principle would still be the same. Instead of using a physical armor plate per say, you're aligning excess energy particles and dispersing the kinetic energy across those. Same type of effect just a different medium. By 2019 science it may not be possible but by 2077 science it very well could be.
     
  7. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,863
    Clearly writing a long reply guarantees a long reply :D

    With respect to enabling vanilla shields on my server,
    Which was not my point. What I tried to say was that if shields are vanilla, having a server with vanilla shields enabled would be more attractive than having a server that has vanilla shields disabled. If I just wanted to play with like-minded friends I'd just invite them to a session on my laptop. My point in hosting a server is to invite people I don't know. If shields are vanilla, those people will expect them to be enabled. They will have built ships that incorporate shields, and they would be reluctant to bring them into a world that doesn't have shields. That's why if shields are vanilla, my server will have them enabled.

    That's not the issue, though.

    You ignore an important part of my argument, which is that it assumes shields are vanilla. If shields are vanilla, a server that has shields will be more popular than a server that doesn't. Just as today servers that don't have shields are more popular than servers that do ;)

    It's not a complaint. It's an observation. It's the same observation I make about the early introduction of planets disrupting the evolution of spacecraft design. It might sound like a complaint because I'm clearly not happy about it, but there's nothing to be done about it. I don't expect Keen to yank planets from the game. I kinda hoped they'd yank gravity generators, but I've pretty much given up on that one :).

    My observation of the economy playtest is that players took on contracts in order to get enough space credits to build and maintain a safe zone (shield). They could cover their trading posts with armor rather quickly, but instead the goal always seemed to be getting a shield. If that sounds like a complaint, it's not. It's an observation.

    Based on the player behavior that I have observed since 2014, if shields become vanilla, most players, especially new ones, will incorporate them into their builds. For many it will be the single most important component. The only problem I have with that is that energy shields would be extremely unlikely by 2077. It would be like having dragons in Medieval Engineers. Some people would like that. I hope most wouldn't.

    Well, the armor plate can dissipate the kinetic energy of the bullet because it has mass. It's going to give a little, and it will get hot for a bit. That's the bullet's kinetic energy getting converted into other types of energy that is harmless to the thing being protected. It does this passively. Doesn't need power. Always on. This shield that uses excess energy particles will have to create enough of them to exceed the kinetic energy of the bullet, and the dispersal of that energy is the problem. Where does it go? Of course, there's never going to be just one bullet. There will be... several. From different directions. They will often be accompanied by their friends, rockets and missiles. How do you align the excess energy? Newton said an object in motion will stay in motion until an outside force acts upon it. In order to get it to go in a different direction you need an equal force, or at least enough force so that the opposite reaction results in the bullet no longer heading towards you. When you start adding up how much energy it would take to stop all those bullets, rockets and missiles with just energy, you begin to realize that no "breakthrough" is going to change the math. The math will work the same in 2077 as it did in 300 BC.

    Energy shields are unlikely by 2077, and the game currently reflects that. Keen put the game in 2077 specifically to limit the technology. What stopped them from deliberately placing the game in 2177? 2577? Why did they choose the current century?

    I like to think it's because they wanted to create a game that makes living and working in space today plausible. Because when you build a ship or station or whatever in Space Engineers you can look at it and say, "You know what? We could make that [insert thing you just made here] right now if we wanted to." Most of the technology you see in the vanilla game is stuff you have seen before in real life. It's not a stretch to imagine it working. We are, in fact, frustrated because stuff we know should work, doesn't. We understand and are familiar with the technology behind rocket engines and space suits and communicating with lasers and computers running things. We watch SpaceX launch a rocket, then try to do the same thing in SE because it should be possible. The game has a nebulous backstory that involves a second space race in 2029. That race has already begun in real life. Private industry is right now planning to mine asteroids. It's very possible that some high school kids today might get a chance to do some asteroid mining by 2029. SE's vanilla game represents what is most likely by 2077. Shields are unlikely by 2077. They shouldn't be in the vanilla game. They're fine in a modded game.
     
  8. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    292
    Having certain popular features (or mods in some cases) will always attract more players than those that don't, that much is true and we both agree on that. That portion has never been in debate. What has been in debate is whether you could simply ignore the existence of the shield feature or turn it off if/when it were to become vanilla. The answer of course is yes, you absolutely could turn off the feature. Just because something is a feature or is popular doesn't require you to use it. You're never going to satisfy everyone and you're not going to be able to get everyone onto your server. If you use Mod A instead of Mod B some folks will refuse to join on the grounds they prefer Mod B. Then there will be those who refuse to join the server at all because they don't like playing on modded servers. Then there will be some that may not join because you have the dogs/wolves turned on or such. I could go down the line but I think you get the point. You as the server owner are going to have to make a decision as to what types of people you want to appeal to. You say that's not the issue, but to some extent it absolutely is. If you don't like shields, and if there are as many folks who are anti-shield as you claim, then you shouldn't have an issue getting folks onto your server if you have them disabled. If you did have trouble getting folks on the server, then the community must not be as split as you think.

    As far as reluctance to bring a shielded build on an unshielded server, that actually goes both ways. There would be folks that may hesitate to bring their unshielded build to a shielded server. Stuff like this happens now and isn't limited to purely the shielded vs unshielded debate, or even to SE. Folks are more reluctant to play on servers that have settings they don't like or that falls outside of their normal preferences. Those settings could be mods, or just regular gameplay settings. If I were to put my Ark Server information out there and invite just anyone over to it, there would be some that wouldn't want to play because of the mods I have, and then there would be some that DID want to play because of it. At the end of the day for most folks, if it's too far outside their comfort zone as far as preferences go, they're probably not going to join you anyways, which is something not limited purely to SE.

    In regards to what people went for first, they prioritized the hardest to complete block first, and then filled in the easier to get stuff as they went. It's no different than someone prioritizing parts to get a reactor so they don't have to rely purely on solar, wind, or hydrogen power. Go for the hardest to complete and get it out of the way first, and/or go for the most rewarding item first. Sometimes the most rewarding and hardest to get can be the same thing. I would have probably built up the production of my base first, but that's on them. Not sure why this would be surprising.

    You keep citing what other people are doing or might do on the workshop as to why adding shields would be a bad idea, yet at the same time you still claim you don't care what folks do. Your posts clearly show you do in fact care what other folks do.

    You keep harping on the whole "we probably won't have it in 2077" which is the only argument you have at this point. I hate to break it to you but if you're hoping for 100% realism that ship has long since sailed. And no I'm not talking about it purely from the point of gravity generators or jump drives. Although they're great examples there's more to it than that. I will elaborate more down below.

    In regards to the armor vs shields discussion before elaborating on my above statement, there are a couple points that need to be made. Currently there are only 2 known massless particles which are the photon and the gluon. This means that the energy used in the shields and systems of our hypothetical ship would in fact have mass to them. Each individual energy particle may not have alot of mass to it, but it will in fact have mass. If we can arrange the molecules of various materials using electromagnetism to anything we want right now in space, and make them hold that shape as long as there is power, it's not unreasonable to assume it could be taken one step further. If we can arrange materials, it's not unreasonable to assume we can learn to simply arrange the energy particles themselves. When our hypothetical projectile impacted the shields it would still transfer heat and that kinetic energy to the shields just like it would a normal plate of armor. This would potentially drain more power to get those particles back into the proper alignment and dissipate any excess heat buildup. Thus you would have shields very similar to what we see in Star Trek. If we can create fully self contained nuclear reactors that are only half a meter squares, or roughly 19.7 inch squares that can put out half a megawatt of power by 2077 in SE (small grid small reactor), it's not that much of a stretch to assume we could meet the power requirements to create an energy shield. To put that into perspective, the average house as of 2016 only used about 1.25 kilowatts of power per day or about 0.00125 megawatts. This wouldn't even phase one of SE's small grid small reactors if we had them today. This would mean the average house would have to quadruple it's daily power usage to have a hope of exceeding that 0.5 megawatts of power that just the small grid smalls put out. Point being I don't think power generation is going to be an issue by the time we get to 2077 using SE's standards.

    Now to elaborate on the stuff I was talking about above. Your only argument you keep falling back on is "shields are unlikely in 2077" and basically saying it wouldn't be realistic without some type of crazy breakthrough that is also unlikely. I hate to break it to you but as I said above, that realism ship has long since sailed. In our own history we have had massive breakthroughs that have led to leaps forward in technology. Steam powered engines and steam technology helped build the old west and journeys that used to take weeks or months, took far less time as now we had the locomotive and railroads to get us there much faster. Someone took it one step further and then we gained the Model T car and internal combustion engines which put steam power to shame and shortened that travel time even more. Now today a journey of 50 miles a couple towns over that used to take several days or up to a week on horseback, can be accomplished in as little as 2 hours to get there and back, if not less time than that assuming perfect traffic conditions. Just since the Wright Bros first flight we've gone from basic planes like theirs, to jets that can exceed the speed of sound multiple times over and even fly on the edge of space. We've also gone from a basic telegraph to full on fiber optics in the 1970s and full on lightspeed communications that we have today. Phones have gone from the basic instruments of communication near the turn of the 20th century to full on miniature computers with access to the virtual sum of human knowledge. In the 1960s when we put a man on the moon we were using computer modules that had maybe 64 kilobytes of memory and operated at 0.043MHz. Today an IPhone 6 operates at 1.4GHZ and can process at a rate of 1.2 instructions every cycle in each of its 2 cores for a total of 3.36 billion instructions per second. In other words that's 32,600 times faster clock than the best Apollo era computers, and 120 million times faster instruction performance. So today a child's plaything could guide well over 100 million Apollo era spacecraft to the moon all at the same time. In just the past 30 years we've gone from 3.5 inch floppy disc storage that could hold only a few megabytes of data, to small little micro SD cards that can hold several hundred gigabytes. In fact if a new card specification works out like folks are planning we could see that jump to as high as 128 terabytes for SD cards. Right now the largest drive I have in my computer is a 3tb hard drive aka spinning rust which can hold nearly 12 times the amount of data my 11 year old laptop can hold.

    Just 100 years ago it was presumed by 1920s science we could never reach the moon, yet by 1969 science we did. By that same 1920s science we never would've thought it possible to split an atom, yet by the 1940s we had atomic weapons and were experimenting with atomic energy. By 1975 science when the first home computer was released, it was said we wouldn't have the kinds of computers we do today, yet in 2019 small computers that can run circles around Nasa's Apollo era computers are a child's plaything. When phones had become much more mainstream at the turn of the 20th century it was said we would never be able to see the person we're talking to by early 1900s science, yet in 2019 video calling capability is standard in new phones as well as ye classic voice only. When we were first starting to use automatic weapons near the turn of the century in battle, we never thought in a million years we would have something as fanciful as a railgun, yet they're closer to become standard equipment on the more advanced naval ships. So it's awfully presumptuous to simply write off energy shields as easily as you have, when by even your own admission we have an early precursor which is polarized plating that's been available since the 80s. Major technological breakthroughs aren't that uncommon anymore.

    Finally in regards to realism, and real life you have several factors working against you when citing that argument. First off the planets in SE aren't even close to the size of most real life planets we know of today, small moons maybe, but not planets. The planets don't spin and there are no orbital mechanics meaning the moon(s) of the planets don't orbit them. The Earth planet is also too hot to have as much ice as it does. The hydrogen thrusters don't consume oxygen when firing like a real life thruster would. There's no sense of aerodynamics when operating in an atmosphere in SE. Warheads in SE don't produce an EMP effect when detonating. Missiles would have severely diminished effect in space since blast damage would be impossible due to lack of atmosphere, much similar to how the effects of a nuke in space would be drastically different. In space the gatlings we have now would be far more effective than the missiles, assuming they operate like modern guns and still have an oxidizing chemical to allow sufficient reaction to fire the bullet. You also would not be able to hear missiles and gatlings being fired in the vacuum of space as there is nothing to carry the sound wave. Missiles and gatlings that miss their target would keep sailing forever until they hit something or a sufficient force acted upon them. Thrusters also don't provide torque in SE the way they do in real life. We currently do not have fully self-contained reactors like those in SE, we don't have jetpacks nearly as effective as those in SE. We've not yet figured out how to shrink reactors down to the sizes SE has. Spacecraft in SE would need to move far faster than they do now to reach escape velocity to leave a planet. We don't have Jump Drives which are basically short range warp drives. We also do not yet have artificial gravity generators. There is no current hunger system in the game, nor do our characters relieve themselves at a bathroom. I could keep going but I think you get the point. If you're expecting 100% realism or anything close to it then SE is the wrong game for that.

    Point being it's already not 100% realistic and never will be. There are huge glaring issues staring you in the face that you're either completely ignoring or giving a free pass to such as lack of aerodynamics or ships being too slow to hit escape velocity, yet shields is what you choose to complain about? Your logic is so contradictory it's not even funny. Not to mention at the end of the day you claim not to care what other people do, yet cite what other people do or might do as reasons to not include a shield at some point. I also see people complain they want to see the game have more options for builds, which shields would give people, yet you complain and say you don't want them added when they would give the very options people complain about not having.

    At the end of the day you're using self-contradicting logic and ignoring obvious solutions in front of you already. If/when shields were to be introduced, then don't use them. If you end up being the only person on your server by turning shields off, then there must not have been as many anti-shield folks as you thought. Otherwise if the community is really the way you say, then you should have no problem filling that server up with or without shields. If you really don't care what people do, then why complain if they want to use a feature or potential feature that would make your job easier in beating them? Why complain about something that gives more options? Otherwise in continuing to cite examples of what other people do as a reason shields are a bad idea, I would submit at that point you do actually care what other folks do and simply don't like the fact that they're making or would make a different choice than what you would make. Honestly dude, you're severely overthinking this entire thing.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,863
    You might want to have a look at the length of your last post, and then ask who's doing the overthinking :)

    I'm going to sum up my position as concisely as I can.

    Shields should not be in the vanilla game because Keen said their game will have current tech extrapolated 60 years. There is currently no shield tech to extrapolate, therefore shields do not fit in Space Engineers. Anyone that has a problem with that should take it up with Marek Rosa, not me :). It does not matter if I care or not what others will do with their shields.

    If Marek and Keen go back on their word and make shields vanilla, I will enable them on my server even though I don't think they should exist. Not primarily because I want to attract more players, but because I wouldn't be turning off any vanilla features. They are part of the game and they are expected.

    Shields create a balancing nightmare. The only solution is to nerf them into uselessness. Vanilla shields will be a big hit for about six months after they are released. However, because Space Engineers is unlike other games that have shields, players will quickly learn why they are not worth the effort. In games where shields are a thing, they will work as expected because they have to. In a game where block destruction is a feature, shields don't make much sense. This entire exchange between us has not convinced me otherwise. If anything, it has fortified my resolve.
     
  10. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    292
    You asked a couple of questions and made some assertions and I answered them. Shouldn't have asked a question if you didn't want an answer.

    First I would gladly pitch it to Marek if given the chance. For that matter I would make sure to have several iterations of shield concepts for him and do the work myself of creating the blocks if that's what it took. Only thing he would need to do is pick an iteration to run with. if he had a particular cosmetic look in mind he wanted to roll with then that could easily be taken care of as well. Point being I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.

    With that said, by your own logic you said you knew of a technology that basically amounts to polarized hull plating like that from Star Trek Enterprise, which is a primitive form of shielding. Depending on when said technology first came to fruition that's 90-100 years of time to develop the tech. Alot can happen with nearly 100 years to improve a technology. Our own computers in going from the Apollo era to today is a prime example of this. So by your own logic, yes using current technology a type of shield can and absolutely does fit with the game. Whether you want to call it hull plating or go with a full on shield like Cython's or another, it's still a type of shield. Then let's not forget you calling the new safe zone block a type of shield, indicating you believe it to be just that. All they would need to do is clone the safe zone, add some additional code to it and boom you have shields. So unless you intend to contradict yourself now on this stuff, you would have to concede that some form of shielding does in fact fit within the game regardless of what one calls it. Let's also not forget what could happen with railguns between now and then as well. 58 years is a long time to develop new technologies and improve the ones we have now. Alot can but we've already been through historical examples.

    Then again I must ask, why complain about shields if you would just use them anyways and they would give more build options? Again no one is going to hold a gun or a phaser (pun intended) to your head and tell you to turn shields on or they're going to shoot you. If you don't like a feature then turn it off or don't use it. Otherwise if you continue to use an optional feature you don't like and can disable, you're complaining just to complain at that point. Personally I've yet to find a build I like to use rotors with, so I don't use them. At the same time I'm not out here trying to say rotors shouldn't be a thing either. Simply because I'm not a fan of something doesn't mean it shouldn't exist or others should be precluded from using it elsewhere in the community. With that said you had previously stated you weren't going to turn off shields because "servers that have them would be more popular than those that don't," yet now here you're saying it's because you don't plan to disable anything vanilla at all. Thus you've shifted your goal post. At the end of the day using similar logic to what you've displayed here, you're still going to have vanilla settings disabled no matter what you do. If you go with a realistic inventory size for blocks, then the higher inventories will be disabled and so on. I could keep going with that but it's starting to become a side tangent.

    The only time a "balancing nightmare" would occur is if one attempted to balance the shields around pvp or anything other than individual block performance. In a game like SE where you're only limited by your imagination and the technical power of your server/rig, there are far far too many variations and factors to balance around anything but individual block performance. Establish how a single shield should perform against a single gatling and a single rocket. From there once the baseline has been established it's shipped off to the players and becomes a player problem. If folks think they need more weapons they can add more weapons, if they think they need more shields they can add more shields. It's literally no different than any other block we have now, with a primary example being reactors. If a single reactor isn't enough add more, if you have too many reactors then take a few off. Every single block had to have a baseline for its functionality established, and from there it was shipped to players and made a player problem.

    Simply because you personally were unable to balance something doesn't make it impossible for others to do. It's already been explained to you by myself and others just how simple it would be and how easily shields can fit into the game, even by your own logic. Several of us have done work on older games and programs, and even a newer ones. Some of that work has been at the professional studio level and some at the small time modder level. Every single objection you've raised has been answered and simple solutions given. You just can't see it because you refuse to see it and have chosen to bury your head in the sand like an ostrich, as the classic idiom goes. It's not nearly as complicated as you're making it out to be nor does it need to be.

    Finally, block destruction doesn't magically disappear or cease becoming a thing just because shields, polarized hull plating, safe zones, or some other similar feature gets added to the game. Unless someone deliberately disables block destruction it will still be there even with shields in the game. The only difference is now is some blocks won't be as easy to break as they were prior. If folks don't like a 100% damage immunity until the shields fail, then put a 10% bleedthrough on the shields. 90% damage absorbed, 10% still transfers to the block underneath. Once the shields fail, all 100% of damage goes to the block underneath. Again very simple solutions on that front.

    Overall there are very simple solutions using even today's technology. I will grant you one thing, it's also strengthened my resolve as well and given me reason to look into other shield iterations that could easily be put together for SE.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  11. Spaceman Spiff Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,272
    I think all y'all need to ask yourself: "Can we agree to disagree?"
     
  12. Sirhan Blixt Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    447
    I asked my personal AI assistant to compose a precis of this thread and all it did was play ten seconds of farting noises.
     
  13. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    292
    Is it wrong that I actually want to hear those farting noises lols :woot:
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  14. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,863
    With the shields-n-lasers group, that's apparently all you can do. The fact that the game is not 100% accurate when it comes to what technology should be in the game means that nothing should be ruled out. You know what will never be in the game, ever? Popcorn machines. You can't defend them. Don't even try.

    You need to get your AI fixed. It should have said,

    Way! No Way!

    Did Not! Did Too!

    Uh Huh! Nuh Uh!

    Actually, I made it up. What I actually said was that once we put SkyLab in orbit (1973), people started talking about factories in space that could create materials in low gravity that couldn't be created on the ground. This is because when you mix things in 0 gravity they stay mixed. Heavy stuff doesn't settle to the bottom. Compounds could be created that are impossible otherwise. I did read something about using this technique to make "room temperature" superconducting compounds. The structural integrity of some such compounds could be enhanced by running a current through them. This tech is used in Star Trek: Enterprise, which takes place in the mid 22nd Century, a full 100 years after Space Engineers. I presented the tech as being more believable than the shimmering bubbles players actually prefer. Since there is no working prototype today that I am aware of, I would still be against it being in the vanilla game, even though it's far more likely than the bubble shield.

    At one point I also proposed a shield made of a titanium foam. People just can't picture it, so no chance it'll ever be vanilla ;)

    I do indeed believe the trade zone is a shield and will be used as such in battle. You sound as if Keen suddenly stumbled upon a way to make shields.

    Let's be clear. The staff at KSH knew how to put shields in the game the day they decided there was going to be a game. They didn't just figure it out. At any point between Oct 2013 and today Keen could have added shields to the game. No technical hurdles. No coding breakthroughs. They could do it. They can do it. Yet, they haven't. Because they said they wouldn't. Because they don't want them in the base game. There is no other reason.

    The trade zone shields are a response to the threat of trading blocks getting griefed. That's why they don't work on moving ships, because that would make them actual shields useful in combat, which is not how they want them to be used. Players will figure out a way, and Keen will have to deal with that.

    I have to ask why you characterize my arguments as complaints? Since shields are not part of the base game, there is nothing to complain about. Life is good (for me ;)). These trade zone shields are a thing, and I did, indeed, complain. Once they're fully released, I won't be the only one ;)

    It's not because I am not a fan of shields, or of shields being in the game. My stance is based on Keen Software House's stance, which is that their game takes place in the 21st Century, and the technology in the base game is based upon existing technology extrapolated 60 years. There is no existing shield technology.

    No one is precluded from having shields in their game. There are several shield mods, any one of which can be downloaded in less than a minute.

    You say that as if I shifted from one argument to the other. I said both, and I will continue to say both. If shields become vanilla they will be enabled on my server because a server that has all the vanilla stuff enabled, shields, pressurization, whatever, will be more popular than servers that disables them, because they will be expected. Exceptions are meteors, wolves and spiders. If Keen improves those features, they'll have to be on.
    That's awfully close to a personal attack, and you are better than that. In a debate, don't tell your opponent they're wrong because they're stupid, which is what the idiom does.

    I never tried to balance shields. I have also never tugged on Superman's cape, spit in the wind, or pulled the mask off of the Lone Ranger. (How old do you have to be to get that?)

    What's actually happened is that as various and sundry shield mods have appeared on the Workshop they were all received with great fanfare, and servers galore featured them, in part to show Keen that they are a good idea. I'm sure Keen had someone tasked to pay attention. As far as I can tell, most of the servers that featured shields took them down. I watch a lot of other people on Twitch play SE on servers. I haven't seen one with shields this year. This leads me to believe that the average player wants a shield that works great for them and... not so great ;) for their opponent. This is what I mean when I say "balanced." This is what most players mean when they say "balanced". If it seems to be working for the other guy better than it's working for me, it's not balanced. Doesn't get any more technical than that.

    No, it doesn't. That isn't the point.

    Block destruction is a specific feature of Space Engineers. That's why all the loading screens and such feature ships crashing. In other games damaged ships explode into dust. In SE damaged ships look damaged. In SE ships get damaged more or less like the real thing. They get all wrinkled up. Parts of the hull go missing. You can find them floating away.

    The real thing is, you can riddle an SE ship with gunfire, rockets and missiles till the cows come home and it still can make it back to base if it has any power and an engine left. Shields only mean you have to spend an extra ten minutes to get a ship to that state. My main argument against shields is that a vanilla shield will only give you that small amount of protection, and the "balance" will be the enormous time and effort it will take to install shields in your ship. It's the same "balance" jump drives have in order to keep them from being an early combat strategy. If you manage to build one early in a survival game it might be handy for shortening travel time between planets, but it won't be enough in a combat situation. One vanilla shield generator might make up for all the armor you left off your ship so that it could look cool, but your ship won't last any longer. Anyone that wants to test this theory so that they can call bullshit need only a) play on a server that has shields or, b) install a shield mod and play with your friends.

    Keen wants Space Engineers to be as realistic as possible. Shields make the game less realistic. Shields do not provide a compelling quality of life feature the way gravity generators and jump drives do. There is no doubt that the game could not survive without some sort of gravity feature and a fast-travel feature. I can only argue over the implementation of either, but I must acknowledge that the game needs them. The fact that the game has survived, even flourished, so far without shields makes it unlikely that the game must have them, whereas no gravity generators of any kind and no fast travel of any kind would have killed this game years ago, planets or no planets.

    What gets into the base game has to be more or less essential. There's nothing going on in Space Engineers that requires shields. They're just... desirable.
     
  15. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    292
    You know I could say similar things about anti-shield folks as well. If something is even 1% unrealistic or beyond our current technology at the moment, nah we should never have it in game because this game is trying to be 100% as realistic as possible. Even if alot of folks want it or have been requesting it, nah screw that fun thing we gotta stick to realism. That's the problem with quite a few of the anti-shield crowd. The anti-shield group has to misrepresent what's being asked or even outright slander folks asking for shields because the anti-shielders have no legitimate arguments as to why they shouldn't be included. Anytime an objection is answered with a clear and viable solution, the anti-shielders change the goal post to something else. Quite a few are in denial and just don't want to accept solutions proposed to issues they raised and have just made up their minds that they don't like it and therefore it shouldn't happen. It's no different than a little kid that gets mad someone picked a character he didn't like in the video game they're playing, and as a result he turns the game off, takes the console and goes home. It's essentially the same as saying "I don't like green legos, so no one should like green legos or get to use green legos. If folks want to use green legos they should go play something else or make their own." Even though folks using green legos has literally ZERO effect on them and their ability to play with the legos they have now, and they could just as easily not use the green legos they hate, while leaving those that do like green legos the option of using them. However the anti-shielders aren't willing to accept that. Since they don't like it no one should get to have it or use it.

    No one is saying they should add ideas from every Tom, Dick, or Harry who suggests something to Keen on a whim. What is being said is that if enough people are requesting a feature, Keen should consider adding the feature in some form or fashion if it's technologically feasible, as either part of the base game or some form of DLC for those that want it. Those that want to use the feature would have the option to use it or purchase the DLC, and those that don't like it could turn the feature off or simply not purchase the DLC. As fun as something like a Stargate or warp gate from Starfox etc could be, that could transport someone anywhere in the universe, or anywhere on the map or 100,000km+, something like that would be overpowered for the vanilla game. It would also be cool to have a laser that could destroy planets in game like the Death Star, but again, that would be overpowered for the game. No one is saying nothing should ever be ruled out. What is being said is that a single highly requested feature should be added in some form or fashion. That's it, nothing more nothing less.

    In regards to the realism argument. It's a bad argument to cite as your chief basis, as I've been seeing here, as there are plenty of other unrealistic aspects to the game that do not fit with how things work in reality. Hydrogen Thrusters don't consume oxygen in addition to the hydrogen to do their thing, they also don't apply torque in the ways a real life thruster would do, we don't have aerodynamics, the sudden acceleration and deceleration of the Jump Drive to the extreme speeds it goes would turn the crew of the ship to goo in real life. The only potential way around that is if the Jump Drive creates a miniature worm hole, but even then we've still yet to figure out wormholes and how exactly they function in real life so that still defeats the Jump Drive by the argument I'm seeing here, and Jump Drives shouldn't be part of the game. Then there's the gravity drive shenanigans people pull or pulled. So to cite the realsim argument as the chief argument as to why something like shields shouldn't be included is a bad argument to make because there are other very huge inconsistencies with reality that dwarf that of a shield.

    Not quite a full move of the goal post but a half of one. I believe you when you say you've read different papers on various subjects as I have also read various papers on the plasma window and other super durable materials. I have also read papers where folks have theorized they could create super charged iridium batteries that could hold as much power if not more than a nuclear reactor of today could hold. It's also said we wouldn't have cloaking devices like those the Romulans use, yet today we have adaptive camouflage technology in various forms that can make someone who stands behind it invisible or almost completely invisible to the naked eye. Stuff like this is a precursor to cloaking technology. Fast forward to the time of SE and it's not unreasonable to assume that scaled up and more effective versions could be created that are capable of hiding a full on ship. We've also begun manipulating energy in new forms and different ways and it's not unreasonable to assume someone has made that breakthrough by the time of SE and created a shield, or even basic polarized hull plating, regardless of whether you made up your previous claim or not. It gives people new options for builds which I fail to see as a bad thing.

    In regards to Star Trek Enterprise it takes place from 2151-2155, with several flashbacks and events taking place earlier than that, closer to the Space Engineers era. It's also established in Star Trek that there are multiple universes with different timelines of events having taken place in them. So just saying, not unreasonable that if/when shields were to be added to SE it can be said the game occurs in a universe where they exist. The beauty of it is that it's fiction and can be whatever we want it to be.

    Also I pictured that titanium foam as some sort of weird cotton candy looking monstrosity covering a ship.

    Them having the technological ability to add shields has never been in doubt, nor am I saying they just suddenly found out they could do shields today. What I have been saying is that story wise they can absolutely fit and have cited technological examples and story reasons as to how they can say they came to pass. It would take all of 20 minutes if that and they could have a highly requested feature in game that would give people additional build options, or ready that they could throw into a DLC to make cash off of, and folks don't have to see shield threads every other week pestering Keen to add them. As I've said previously I fail to see how giving people additional options is a bad idea.

    In regards to the potential griefing, we both agree it's a bad thing and something that should be guarded against in some way. They may be intended purely to combat griefing, but it doesn't change the fact they've essentially added a shield block even after saying they didn't want to add a shield block. I'll bet you a large cargo bay of ore that within the first week after it releases someone will add a modded version of the safe zone to the workshop that is an actual shield. They wouldn't need to do much honestly. Add a health stat so the shield bubble can be broken with weapons fire, add a regen stat so it can heal after not taking damage for awhile, or at a moderate rate over time in or out of combat, adjust the bubble size and remove the station only restriction and no combat restrictions, and boom you've got a working shield. The major legwork has pretty much already been done by Keen and those extra changes wouldn't take long at all. Honestly the only thing separating this safe zone from being called a shield is pretty much only the name. As the saying goes, let's call a spade a spade at this point.

    I call it a complaint for a couple of reasons. First you claim you don't care what other people do or might do on the workshop or with their builds, yet cite what people might do with their builds or on the workshop as reasons why shields shouldn't be added. You have also basically said some folks will forgo armor to use shields so they can make their ships look pretty, and thus lead to an over-reliance on the shields. At the same time this would also make your job of destroying those ships easier since you could easily shred them once their shields drop, but you're opposed to them doing something that makes your job easier. Overall it would give people options for their builds, in addition to making your job easier, yet you oppose it even though I've seen you say before you want to see more build options. As for the rest of that line, we'll see when the update releases I suppose. Which will hopefully be soon.

    I said you shifted because you first cite popularity of the server as the reason chief reason you would leave shields on should they become vanilla, yet then go on to cite "not disabling anything vanilla" as your main reason. So if you're just going to use the tool anyways, why do you care if it gets added or not when you can just as easily turn it off if you hate it that badly. It's like complaining about the color of one's walls in their home even though they have the means and ability to paint them but never doing so.

    That is absolutely not what I said and I have not called anyone stupid, nor is that even remotely close to what that idiom means. To bury one's head in the sand means they are ignoring a particular thing or situation and pretending it doesn't exist. In this instance I say it because every single objection you have raised as to why shields couldn't work in game, regardless of Keen's ability to add them or not (which has never been in debate), have all been answered by myself and others. I used the idiom because in various replies you have made you've essentially dismissed any and all solutions given to you as though they don't exist and just repeated the same mantra point over and over again, refusing to acknowledge the solutions or explain why they won't work in your mind.

    Simply because you haven't seen folks on stream using a shield mod doesn't mean folks don't use them. It can simply mean those particular streamers don't use them, or simply choose not to use them on their stream.

    Let's be real here, if I go into battle against someone, of course I hope his shields fail him and he loses. In fact I hope his ships crashes and burns for daring to oppose me. No one wants their opponent to win in a battle, that's nothing new. In seriousness though from the technical side of things I would obviously hope his shields work because if his spaz out and bug out, then it's not unreasonable to assume that mine may not be too far behind his, then we're both screwed on that front. In regards to balance I would dare say quite a few people have never messed with any behind the scenes stuff in a game or such. I would dare say that neither of us fall into that "most players" category.

    When I think balance in a game like SE I think of how something performs on the individual block level. If our hypothetical shield block is supposed to be able to tank 200 gatling or 100 rocket hits before it fails (just to keep the numbers simple), then I fully expect I will need to bring at least 200 gatling rounds and/or 100 rockets to pierce the shields, and he will need to do the same with me. If I think I've hit the target with those 200 gatling rounds but the shield is still up then I know one of several things is going on. Either I didn't hit the guy as many times as I thought (our most likely scenario), he was able to repair/regenerate some of his shields, he had more shielding than I thought he did, or his shields are bugged out and not working properly. If it's suspected the shields are bugged out, then evidence would need to be collected and presented that they're actually bugged and it's not one of the other 3 more likely scenarios.

    If he's getting away then this tells me whoever is controlling the guns needs to direct their aim better and didn't do a good enough job at prioritizing targets. That's why you keep shooting until it stops moving, or at the very least you've disabled the engines and jump drives, which is a player/strategy problem. Once more if someone forgoes armor in key areas purely because they have the shields and they gimp themselves and/or their ship as a result, that's purely on them and once more is a player/strategy problem and not the fault of the shields. Even then it goes back to what I was saying before, if someone is over-reliant on shields in that hypothetical situation, how is it a bad thing since it makes your job easier in taking them down? If someone is getting shredded that easily, that's their own fault for not placing armor in the proper places. That'll be a lesson they have to learn on their own. Your theory also relies on folks becoming too reliant on the shields and thus some ships not lasting any longer, which will happen to some people, but if someone doesn't become over-reliant then that shoots that theory out of the water. In regards to a single shield generator not being enough, again that's a player problem and not a shield problem. I don't need either option you named to see the flaw in that theory.

    Again that realistic argument has long since sailed. They've said they didn't want to add shields, yet have essentially done exactly that in the form of the safe zones. In regards to fast travel options, they could have simply made it a type of engine block that goes super fast for a short time instead of what amounts to a short range warp drive/wormhole jump or whatever you want to call it. If we're going to get technical it's much easier to believe a ship has engines/thrusters that let the ship hit ludicrous speed when it needs to vs what we have as a jump drive.

    As far as what is required, we don't exactly need the hydrogen engine or the windmill but we have them. Neither one is essential and the game functioned just fine without them for years and even flourished without them. There's several blocks that we don't need and that aren't essential to gameplay, but they make it more fun and give additional options. You might not find shields fun, but I do, and they give more options to folks who want to use them and who choose to use them. The windmill, and hydrogen engine weren't needed, but they were desireable. The hydrogen engine (or an engine of some type really) was desired so folks could have them for their wheeled vehicles so you can legitimately say it has an engine. For that matter this new economy updated isn't needed, but it is desired by alot of folks. So honestly if all we did was just add things that allowed basic play, then this game would be pretty barren and missing several blocks, with the programmable block being one that definitely is non-essential, but is great to have. There's nothing in SE that requires a hydrogen engine, a windmill, a programmable block, a projector, or several other blocks that could be named, yet many builds have them as they are desireable. So this argument doesn't hold as much weight as you think it does.
     
  16. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,466
    Easy answer. The jump drive was the quickest and cheapest way to solve the problem at hand. "A type of engine block that goes super fast" would have a whole bunch of problems that would have to be solved (there is, after all, a reason why there's a speed limit). Meaning the jump drive was the simplest technical solution. That's all that went into it. (Unfortunately. I find the "pop" very unsatisfying.) They were very aware they were "breaking the believability". Like the gravity generator, it's a gameplay concession. Since there had to be a speed limit, and the space was this large, there had to be a faster way to get around. Everything that breaks realism has a similar thought-out reason behind it, whether or not we agree with it is immaterial. Which is why a "that realistic argument has long since sailed" counter argument falls flat, because they (Keen) do not see it that way. They don't have a problem making exceptions out of the rule, if they feel the reason is good enough. And so far, that reason has been technical, not "because it's cool".


    Indeed... and that does not bode well for your wishes of a "traditional" shield in vanilla - if this is how they envision what "shields" are to be.

    They may be "shields" but they have some rather large short-comings compared to the "traditional" shield.
    1. Safe zones have a rather long charge-up time before they activate, once you press the button. It makes them... impractical to use in battle.
    2. Safe zones require "safe zone chips", which must be purchased and cannot be assembled.
    3. Safe zones require vast amounts of power. (Obviously, so should the hypothetical traditional shield, but it's a factor)
    4. Safe zones must be static - they cannot be used on dynamic grids (ships). The "convert to ship" button can be disabled.

    I don't understand why you guys bother wasting your time like this, either of you. None of you will "win" this. At the current point, the probability of Keen adding typical ship shields is miniscule. That's the fact of this situation. Captain, you will not convince @Stardriver907 any more than he will convince you. You want Keen to add shields, convince them. And they are extremely unlikely to be reading this thread.


    And captain... you need to learn to shorten your posts, because only the few will bother reading your novels :p
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    292
    I'm well aware that some of the things in game like the jump drives and gravity generators are the way they are due to gameplay reasons, as well as the speed limit. I don't fault Keen or anyone for going with whatever is the most technologically feasible for what they want to do. The technical reasons for why those blocks exist have never been in debate. At the same time it still doesn't negate the fact that it's a glaring issue in the face of desiring 100% realism. If someone is going to cite realism as their chief argument against something and only real argument against something, there are far far greater issues at play to worry about besides cheesing the story or something to say shields are a part of the game. Aerodynamics not being part of the game is a big one, as well as planets and celestial bodies being far too close to each other. Compared to some of those issues I see shields as a minor drop in the bucket. The realism argument fails because there are far far more severe issues plaguing it than folks wanting shields. It's faulty logic.

    The point was to show that they've said they don't want to make shields, yet they've essentially done just that with the safe zone block. At that point they may as well just add a full on shield block since it's 95% there already. I also have a hard time believing that there wasn't another viable solution than the safe zone block. The second point was to show that even by the "technology" we have in game, how easily a functioning shield could be introduced. I never claimed it would be a traditional shield that folks think of, or even a greatly functioning shield, only that most of the leg work has already been done.

    I had honestly intended to let it drop finally after my last post, well save for wanting to hear the fart noises mentioned previously because I appreciate toilet humor. If not for basically accusing me of personally attacking someone when I did no such thing I would not have came back to this thread, at least not for that. I don't take too kindly to false accusations. With that in mind I've said my peace at this point and dude is welcome to his opinions.

    In regards to Keen like I said if given the opportunity to pitch it to Marek I would gladly do so and do the work of creating the blocks myself if that's what it took. I was serious when I said I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.

    Yes I rant I know. At the same time yall shouldn't ask questions if yall don't want an answer. Pushing my rant button is just like pushing the Goku button with Vegeta, don't push the Goku button =p
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,863
  19. Spaceman Spiff Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,272
    Always! :munch:
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  20. May Rears Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    398
    I don't see why shields shouldnt be part of vanilla, they are already IN the game as mods and already balanced thanks to them being power hungry. Rediculous levels of shielding are only possible with the various power generation mods. If they are introduced to vanilla then at least they would continue to be supported as game versions change.

    Want to run a server without shields? mod them out.
     
  21. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,466
    Repeat note: I am neutral on this. I couldn't care less whether the shields are added or not. I am merely spewing what I believe are the facts of the matter.

    So - to repeat an earlier answer: Why wouldn't Keen add shields to vanilla? Because Keen doesn't want shields in vanilla. Plain and simple. It's not about technical issues, or balancing issues, or any such thing. They just don't want them. So, the fact that shields are controversial among the community as well makes the issue very easy for them: want to run a server with shields? Use a mod ;-)

    The general answer to why [insert thing here] shouldn't be in vanilla is quite boring... because it takes time and money to implement. Even if it's "just" about merging a mod - because apparently there's no "just" about it. Not a single mod has been merged into SE verbatim. So the question becomes, will that time and money be paid back? In this case, it doesn't seem like it because of the large resistance to the idea. You can argue the logic of that resistance, but it doesn't really matter. It's there whether it's logical or not.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2019 at 11:49
  22. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,863
    Dude. First you throw me a rope so I can pull myself out of this quagmire, then you bellyflop right into it. Your answer to the question is just chock full of reason and logic, which has absolutely NO PLACE in a debate about shields. The game Keen wants to make is NOT the issue here. Those guys (and girls ;)) simply don't matter. All they ever did was to go out on a thin, shaky limb to create a game like no other in a style of their own choosing.

    It's like a Master Chef opens an Armenian restaurant, and people come in wanting burgers and fries. Because it's a restaurant. Restaurants serve burgers and fries. You go into any restaurant, French, Chinese, Italian, Egyptian, there should be burgers and fries. Everybody likes them. You can get burgers and fries in any restaurant, but you have to ask because they won't be on the menu. If you ask for burgers and fries in our Master Chef friend's new Armenian restaurant, you will hurt the Chef's feelings because burgers and fries are not Armenian cuisine. The Chef might ask you if you wanted American cuisine, why didn't you go to McDonalds? The answer would be, "This is a new restaurant. There should be burgers and fries. Everyone wants burgers and fries. They're good. If you have them, more people will come here." Then the Chef says he doesn't want everyone coming here. He wants people that appreciate Armenian cuisine coming here. That's why he opened an Armenian restaurant. The response would be, "I don't care what you want. This is a restaurant, and if you know whats good for you, you will serve burgers and fries, and they will be just like the one's McDonald's makes. In fact, stop calling your restaurant an Armenian restaurant. Just say it's a restaurant, and people that don't want burgers and fries don't have to order them."

    People want shields in their game, but they don't want to use a mod. Keen should put shields in their game, whether they want them in or not, because the people that want shields don't want to use a mod. They shouldn't have to use a mod. People that don't want shields, THEY should have to use a mod. People that don't want what's already not in the game should want Keen to put the shields in so that people that understand why the shields shouldn't be there can mod them out. Or just not use them. Like we are already doing.

    People that agree with the developer should have to mod out the shields that the developer doesn't want in the game.

    Ok Mal, if you come up with any more reasonable and/or logical reasons why shields should not be in the game, feel free to post them. When you're ready, I've still got that rope you threw me ;).
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. Zoladen Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    110
    So about that in-game currency... :p

    Sounds good to me. And I already admitted something to myself that I would likely just use it to buy ships and grind them for parts for construction of a mobile base in a multiplayer game and then just go on from there.

    Anyone else?
     
  24. Oskar1101 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    224
    Thank you.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  25. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,863
    I'm thinking I'll be creating my own competing currency. I'm thinking I'm going to call them StarBuc's.

    Hang on, I'm getting a call. Looks like it's from a law firm. I better take this...
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  26. Ronin1973 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,682

    Frak! They are coming after you!
    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  27. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,863
    I shook those guys off by ducking into a coffee shop. I ordered a latte, but I got served a Cease and Desist Order.
     
  28. May Rears Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    398
    Starbucks in Starbucks :)

    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 2