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.

What should a Combat DLC look like?

Discussion in 'General' started by SirConnery, Dec 15, 2019.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,368
    Actually, they did have ladders. They took them out because they weren't satisfied with their performance. When modded ladders showed up they put them back in. Not the same as not wanting them in at all and putting them in anyway.

    You want it to be reasonable as a means of accepting it in your mind. Your move.

    The issue is can we talk about something besides shields.

    Yes, and they are not showing any promise. Sure, they all work. Sorta. However in order to get in the game the tech has to be proven and available today. Today I can buy an electrostatic field generator that can make me stick to the ceiling in zero gravity. I can't buy an energy shield today that can stop a single bullet. You have way more laser examples than energy shield examples because research with laser weapons is turning from cutting stuff in half to burning a hole to just blinding sensors. Research with lasers as a main battle weapon is miniscule because you get the same job done easier, quicker, more reliably and cheaper with a bullet and that's not going to change in 60 years.

    Close to reality is not real. Especially when "close" means some experiments showed "promise". You don't get an "A" for turning in a test with answers you are working on. When a company forms that makes energy shields and goes public on the NYSE or NASDAQ I'll change my mind. Short of that, it's as fantasy as fantasy can be. Plot devices for Star Trek.






    Computers have not gotten better. They've gotten smaller. The way they actually work is the same way that they have always worked (and crashed) since the 50's. Quantum computers, that's entirely new tech. Biological computers, new territory. Your multi-core CPU is using 60 year old cores. They are only faster because the electrons don't have as far to travel and there are no vacuum tubes to blow. They are not the best example of "how far we have come". Cell phones are business band radios that got smaller and since there was room now they have CPU's in them that run 60 year old machine language. All this means that if not for the size, everything we do now with computers and cell phones we could have done 60 years ago, but we just didn't. We wanted to but everyone fought over who would get rich off of it. The reason they endure is because the tech behind them was sound, not theoretical, 60 years ago. Technology that requires an entirely new understanding of physics does not go from theory to off-the-shelf in 60 years.






    But... for purposes of "fun factor" Keen might be persuaded to put shields in. Why? Who cares. All I want to know is if there can be any discussion of space combat after shields gets mentioned. Because honestly right now it sounds like shields are the only combat-related thing Keen needs to add, and if that was all that was in the update all the PvP folks will be satisfied. PvP is not why I play so all this is mostly stuff that won't affect my sessions. If shields become standard they won't change anything other than some ship designs (not my ships, though. I probably won't use them). They definitely won't change most players approach to combat in space, and in many ways protecting my fleet and my customers will get easier. I'm pretty sure what the fate of shields will be if they become available to everyone. I was hoping the discussion could move on and perhaps we could discuss some things that would actually make space combat in SE better.
     
  2. ThisIsADogHello Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    123
    Where are you buying your jump drives from?

    [​IMG]

    Some of the basic concepts from the 50s have remained the same, but otherwise modern CPUs barely resemble some of the classic designs. Especially once computers became powerful enough to be used to help design new CPUs, the complexity of what they're doing has exploded dramatically.

    Announced in 1959, the IBM 1401 used Diode-transistor logic (DTL) implemented as discrete components (i.e., no ICs/CPUs anywhere to be seen). At this point, ICs had yet to take off as a thing. Once they did, they often used transistor-transistor logic (TTL), with NMOS and the like coming later on. CMOS based chips (what we use now, with the extremely low power draw that makes it suitable to run your digital watch off a single battery for years at a time) didn't hit the market until 1975, and it took until the 80s to really start taking off.

    Logicwise, the way a modern CPU works bear little resemblance to the CPUs we used when we were first running DOS or CP/M or whatever on back in the 80s. Concepts like instruction pipelining, out-of-order execution, branch prediction, speculative execution, etc, etc, etc starting moving from theoretical to commercially shipping in consumer products over the next couple of decades.

    The instruction set that modern CPUs have, while still being very similar to the older CPUs (or exactly the same, in the case of an 8086 and a modern x86 processor running in real mode), are also handled completely differently. Modern CPUs will take any given instruction, break it down into its component operations, reorder them alongside other instructions, and execute them more or less however they see fit. The only similarity is in their output, as the only constraint on how the CPU executes code is that it gives the correct result as if it had done everything in the expected order.

    The speed increases of CPUs have little to do with them shrinking. Heat dissipation has generally been the major limiting bottleneck, with the major limit being how hot the CPU can run before it starts melting itself or literally burning itself out. Once we moved on to CMOS with its near-zero static power load, one of the major factors involved with reducing CPU heat was better materials production/handling/manufacturing to get the individual gates to draw less power when changing state. Although we treat them as digital circuits, in effect they're still analog, and the switch to/from high and low involves passing through the space between them, where the gates, being neither saturated nor off, but linearly amplifying, results in wasted power draw that results in heat.

    Once CPUs started running at around radio frequencies (once you start measuring the clock frequencies not in kilohertz, but megahertz or even gigahertz), additional problems started showing up in the fact that basically every component of the CPU is a small antenna, and issues with crosstalk there were impeding any performance gains. Also, since it's still technically an analogue device due to existing in an analogue world, each part of the CPU is not only basically a small antenna, but also has some inherent resistance and capacitance.

    Raise the clock too high, and the speed of light starts becoming a bottleneck in itself. If electricity were to propagate at around 1/3 the speed of light in your CPU, then at around 2GHz the signal would only be able to affect anything up to around 5cm around it before the next clock started. Building a CPU larger than that limit would result in different parts of your CPU being on different clock cycles at the same time (at least from some perspectives, relativistically speaking).

    Not to mention, once you start shrinking the CPUs down small enough, quantum effects that previously were immeasurable or ignorable start to become significant barriers as well. Electrons might start tunnelling through gates rather than being affected by them, etc. The problems that modern CPU manufacturers are routinely working against would be considered by most any CPU manufacturer 50 years to be theoretical sci-fi nonsense.

    All of this also completely ignores all the work gone into compilers over this time. I'd recently found some guides on writing emulators written in the 90s, and they all contained a bunch of tips on optimising for performance that in modern days are laughable. Things like "use for (;;) instead of while (1) because the compiler will check if 1 is true or false every cycle", "don't store intermediate values in variables, instead cram all your math into one line", and "you should write some inline assembly whenever possible, it'll be faster than anything any compiler could ever produce".

    Overall, modern CPUs are better than older CPUs in more ways than "the electrons don't have to go as far".
     
  3. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,368
    They still work the same way. They still calculate the same way. They're clockwork done at the atomic level. Instructions are handled the same way. Only thing that changed is how fast.

    Well, and they got cheaper. Mostly because they got smaller.


    Sorry. At my age I'm not easily impressed.



    Let's hope the discussion doesn't become about me. I'd rather discuss space combat :)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. SirConnery Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    279
    Here's a good related podcast clip I recommend for anyone interested

     
  5. Comrade Jenkens Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    55
    My personal thoughts on a major combat update (not DLC):

    - Armour really does need to be stronger, especially if more weapons do get added.
    - Radar blocks would be nice to see. Requiring power to use and capable of being linked to LCD screens. Large and small versions.
    - Shields are an utter nope from me. They destroy the flow of gameplay and utterly invalidate fighters.
    - Guided missiles/torpedoes for small and large ships would be nice. Without a radar lock they would just beeline the first ship they see, but could only go for powered ships (they generate heat). With a radar lock they wouldn't have this limitation. Kind of a combo of heatseekers and radar guided for simplicity.
    - Unguided bombs which just follow the speed and path your ship was heading in for small ships.
    - Railguns: These would be modular and work for both small and large ships. The 'barrel' would be 1 long and 3 wide, and could be stacked for more power (but would eat proportionally more power the more it's stacked). This would be the ultimate long range weapon for capital ships, but could also be used on small grid tanks.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    455
    They took them out and refused to add them back for a long time. So the answer was in fact no for a time. Point being there were items that were once given a "no" for one reason or another, be it technical, aesthetic or so on.

    You've repeatedly said if something is to be added you want something based on the tech of the 21st century. I call the solutions reasonable as they are based on already existing tech expanded out by 57 years, which qualifies as 21st century tech by your own previous standards. So I call it reasonable because of the tech. You simply choose to reject it from being in denial even though it's 21st century tech.

    And with the section I underlined and bolded, you just shot any credibility you had in the foot as you've now changed the goal post. First you had said you want anything new to be based on existing 21st century tech extrapolated out 57 years. Now that you've seen there is technology that given 57 years of development could and probably will lead to more mainstream laser type weapons and a form of primitive shields using 21st century tech per your own previous standards, you've changed the goal post. It was "21st century tech extrapolated 57 years." Now you've changed the goal post to "must show promise and must be readily available today" in an attempt to try to dismiss it again due to a pathological hatred for shields and lasers. This shows me you are not as interested in debate as you claim to be unless it's a feature you personally want. Laser research as a whole has been progressing for years and continues to progress, with amping up the power behind them to further weaponize them as just one part of said research. No one is saying that lasers are going to completely replace laser weapons in the next 57 years and us hit the age of Trek. However given 57 years of development and the fact that the navy is already mounting them on their ships says it's not as far away as you wish to believe. There are also applications beyond just laser weaponry with weaponizing the laser being just one part of it.

    Secondly on this point, yes a regular bullet and conventional round will probably be cheaper, but may not always be the best solution. There are certain things you can do with a laser weapon you simply cannot with a conventional round. Plus you have far more control over the yield of the weapon which can be changed on the fly by adjusting power to the laser weapon. You can change sizes on conventional rounds but you are still limited in what they can do. The fact that the navy sees reason to start mounting these things on their ships tells me the research is not as limited as you would think.

    Thanks for further proof you changed the goal post and were not interested in true debate as you claim.

    A statement like this tells me you don't really keep up with computers that much if you honestly don't think they've improved. ThisIsADogHello did a fairly good job at explaining the ways they have improved and changed so I see no need to repeat what he has said there. I will add however that in all of human history we never had tools like computers and such until recently. They improved our ability to construct things and our overall abilities which in turn

    Seriously I have to ask, who is telling you that's all they need to add or could add? Who has told you this crap, I seriously want to know? Who or what in this thread or elsewhere has said that shields are the magic fix to everything? I am saying they are one thing that will improve durability which folks claim is an issue. I have also provided examples of tech they can be based on.

    No, no they don't. The architecture and designs of the CPUs today are radically different than the one's from 50 years ago. Some of the data we feed them may be the same and a select few of the core principles, but the way the computer handles the data is also radically different. Some of the changes have already been pointed out to you by ThisIsADogHello so I see no need to repeat all the technical aspects they quoted. Modern programming languages are also radically different than what we had 50 years ago as well. Different types of data exist today that simply didn't exist 50 years ago. For that matter the C# language the game is written in wasn't even in existence until 2000 and is a different language than some of the more basic stuff used 50 years ago. So again different type of data handled in a different way. Even the cell phones we have today handle and process data different than the old NASA computers from 50 years ago.

    How do they destroy the flow of gameplay? I really want to hear this one. Fighters would also have access to a smaller version of a shield just as the larger grids would. A large grid cruiser is typically always going to have an edge in durability and potential knockdown power than a fighter just by the sheer nature of the large grid itself and what it can do. With that said, the shields would be balanced around weapons we would have. As just one example, let's assume a shield has 1,000 health to keep it simple. Each fighter gatling does 20 points per hit and each rocket does 35 per hit. Assuming a single gatling is in use this would mean 50 bullets from the gatling to drop the shield and 29 hits from a single rocket. If multiple of each are in play the process is sped up proportionately to the amount of gatlings/rockets in use. Plus I also imagine a shield having a bleedthrough in that they stop 90% of incoming damage until the shields fail, with the occasional bullet/rocket still making it through. The only way it would invalidate fighters completely is if folks wanted them to by a poor balancing of the item. Even then this still doesn't address the human factor which is skill of the individual fighter pilot vs the skill of the cruiser pilot and such. In fact I've found adding a shield to a fighter actually lets them stay in the fight much longer if they know how to fly their ship.
     
  7. Spaceman Spiff Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,877
    Isn't that "chase-your-tail" sort of thinking? I mean, stronger weapons require stronger armor, which in-turn will require stronger weapons and correspondingly stronger armor. Ad infinitum.
     
  8. Comrade Jenkens Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    55
    Without shields, a single fighter can engage a cruiser and take out engines, command bridges, and other vital components. It will lose, but it can deal lasting damage to the enemy ship which will require repairs.

    With shields, it's likely to not even manage to get through a cruisers shields before being destroyed. Any 'damage' it causes is just recharged 10 seconds later.

    Having a big regenerating health buffer gives even more of an advantage to large ships, in a meta where fighters are already essentially useless due to being instikilled by 50 gatling turrets across every armoured face.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. SirConnery Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    279
    How about if shields didn't work against small grids? So you could fly inside the bubble and fire.
     
  10. Spaceman Spiff Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,877
    Now where have I hear this before? Oh, yeah...
    Imperial Officer: "We count 30 rebel ships, lord Vader, but they are so small they're evading our turbo lasers."
    Darth Vader: "We'll have to destroy them ship to ship. Get the crews to their fighters."
     
  11. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,368
    No, you.

    No I haven't.

    Yep. He said stuff got smaller. Compilers got more robust. What do compilers do? Change what you wrote that understandable to you to something the machine can use, which is that 60 year old code. Charles Babbage would recognize today's computers.

    Yeah, cause it got smaller. Main internal piece is still the flip-flop. It's all still clockwork. Doesn't work without a beat.

    Not necessarily. Stronger armor does not require stronger weapons. A "military grade" armor block is not impervious. Small arms would not affect it, but a cannon or warhead would damage it. With ablative armor it would just take longer. We are (I hope) only discussing standard weapons, including the weapons we would like to see in the update. I'm hoping the update would include a cannon, homing missile parts, and a rail gun of some sort. The result, as I envision it, would mean combat-oriented ships would be very hard (but not impossible) to break even with a rail gun, so if the point is to wreck someone's ship just to piss them off it should take a while. No matter how hard Keen makes standard armor, there will always be a mod that can break it more easily. But in the standard game, the Xbox version ;), space combat would be more about disabling and boarding than about which ship can be reduced to rubble first. Combat doesn't have to be limited to who has the biggest gun. In a game, especially this game, it should be way more than that. Those of us that have PCs know deep down that whatever we want that Keen will not provide will eventually become a mod. Xbox players won't have that, so the standard game should offer space combat challenges and opportunities as they are attempting to do with "survival" challenges. Frankly, if a person chooses to spend weeks building a battleship, it should take a single person a lot longer to destroy it. Your strategy for taking on another battleship should be more complex that just pull up alongside and fire.

    Well, most torpedos and other warhead delivery systems are small grid, so that would mean the only thing your shield would protect you from is a ram attempt by a large grid ship. If standard shields worked that way, my first priority would not be to take down the shields. Instead I'd send in small grid drones. Or shoot small grid steel plates? Anyway, see what I'm getting at? If you know what the weakness is, that's what you exploit.

    I'd say there's no real point in discussing what kind of shield would be best. If Keen puts a shield in the game it will likely be the one that's already in the game. They just release it for ships and that's that.
     
  12. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    455
    This is why I've said from the start they need to balance around singular block performance as it's far far easier to balance. Once a balance has been decided ship it off to the players and it becomes a player problem. If they're balancing around anything other than singular block performance and something such as say a 10 turret setup it opens up a hosts of issues. Some folks will say 10 turrets is too many, some that it's too few. If they balanced around 10 gatlings they would get accused of ignoring rockets. If they balanced around 10 rockets they would get accused of ignoring gatlings. If they balanced around 5 rockets and 5 gatlings folks would say it should be 4 rockets and 5 gatlings, or so on down the line. The simplest solution is to balance around singular performance since only a few questions need to be answered. First, how much health do you want a singular armor block to have? Second, how much damage do you want a singular gatling to do when it impacts the armor? Third, how much damage should a rocket do to that armor? Once you've answered those 3 questions you then ship it off to the players and it becomes a player problem. If folks think the armor is too weak they can tweak the numbers higher for armor and/or lower weapon damage on their end or add more armor. If folks think the armor is too strong they can lower the health of the armor and/or raise weapon damage, or add more guns. The same principle can be applied to any existing and future blocks that may get added. Establish a baseline then make it a player problem.

    The bleedthrough system allows for damage to still be dealt to the underlying structures of a capital ship even if the shields are up, it just means you will have to work harder to do extreme damage. However again if the goal is increased durability as folks are saying then that means the shields would be doing their job. Bleedthrough would also be in line with plasma containment technology itself since a physical plasma barrier wouldn't be able to completely stop incoming projectiles over a certain mass and/or speed. Slow them down most definitely but not stop it outright. Much like how armor slows down armor piercing rounds but does not stop them completely. The option of missiles and kamikaze attacks would be largely uneffected provided you can get them up to speed, as the barrier would have to content with extra mass plus the speed of that mass, meaning you will do damage as it won't stop everything.

    Secondly if fighters are already getting vaped by 50+ gatlings as you're saying, then this tells me fighters are already invalidated even without shields, meaning the shields are not/would not be to blame as you suggested previously. However if it really is as bad as you're claiming, then I must ask, why are you trying to take a fighter against a cruiser that outclasses you that badly to start with if you know you're guaranteed to lose? Your own fighter itself would also have shields it could utilize, so it's not like your fighter is just going in naked. A cruiser is always going to have an advantage over a fighter in terms of firepower for no other reason sometimes than the cruiser has bigger guns. So I'm not really sure why some folks (not you specifically) seem to expect a fighter should be on par with a cruiser in terms of knockdown power. I would imagine it would take longer than 10 seconds of not getting hit before a shield or shield facing started to regenerate. More like 20-30 seconds. Your example also has a counter-point to it. If said fighter has shields, but its target doesn't, said fighter is better equipped for hit and run tactics or so on meaning it can survive longer in a fight. So there are pros and cons to each. However again, folks mentioned a goal of wanting stuff to last longer. Shields are a valid solution to this as they would indeed grant more durability. For folks who do not yet have the resources to make metric crap tons of armor, but have more than enough power, the shield provides a solution that grants some protection until they can get their armor built up. Once they build up their armor they have the best of both worlds. If for whatever reason folks still didn't like it, they could always disable the shields on their particular servers, much like folks who despise the oxygen system or economy have the options of disabling those blocks.

    Establish a baseline, then ship it off to players, thus it becomes a player problem at that point.
     
  13. Comrade Jenkens Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    55
    captainbladej52 - I'm not expecting a single fighter to beat a cruiser. What I am wanting is for a good pilot to be able to get in, take out an engine or command bridge, and then fly away. The current meta means you can't even do that due to the aimbot gatling walls on every surface of the ship. Irl fighter aircraft are a vital asset, get any half decent pvp faction won't touch them in SE.

    It's true that shields would not be the thing which made fighters invalid in the current meta, as they're already completely invalid. However it will make it that much harder to make them useful as a hit and run attack would most likely splash against the shield instead of doing damage.

    Stardriver907 - Frankly, if a person chooses to spend weeks building a battleship, it should take a single person a lot longer to destroy it.

    That's ridiculous. I mean I want armour a bit tougher so smaller craft aren't destroyed in 0.01 seconds, but suggesting it should take weeks to destroy a ship is way too much. Irl battleships didn't even take that long to sink. Usually a few hours or even less if they were hit in vital spots.
     
  14. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    455
    Guy says item must be based on 21st century extrapolated out 57 years. Guy is shown laser tech and otherwise meeting the criteria of 21st century tech that can be extrapolated out 57 years with the military saying they have plans to mount said item on many more of their ships. Guy changes standard to, item must be 21st century item completed today and readily available or show promise, thus tacking on 2 additional standards after previous standards were met.

    Yeah dude, you did change the goalpost. but if you need to insist you didn't for your own benefit then more power to you.

    Virtually every machine has some kind of timer build into it today controlling its functions so that doesn't exactly help your case. The fact that all you got out of his post was "things got smaller" tells me you didn't even read most of what he said. Some core principles have remained, but everything else is completely different than 50 years ago. The whole gate thing is one part that did yes keep itself. However the bits governing those gates and governing that processor and such have changed radically. The processors of yesteryear back in the 60s would never be able to do half of the things the processors today even in a cell phone could do. Saying "it's all the same as 60 years ago" is like saying all cars today are the same as 60 years ago. Some key principles may be the same, but they're radically different when it comes to technical specifications.

    I find it ironic that you consider the rail gun to be a reasonable addition to the game when the one's the military use aren't even fully out of the testing phase, yet a laser tool/weapon that IS out of the testing phase is wholly unreasonable. https://www.military.com/daily-news...tic-railgun-may-soon-see-testing-warship.html
    As for durability just how hard do you think these things should be? Even ships today that get hit in the right spot can be destroyed or sank in a moment's notice. Also if someone manages to get aboard a ship and detonate a warhead, sorry but that thing is well and done. If not it's going to be trashed on the inside. Historically battleships would engage from long range by broadsiding with their weapons, so this is akin to what the old battleships would do. Boring perhaps but at least consistent. If folks refuse to come up with new strats, that's on them. Which again makes your job easier so I don't see why that would bother you. You know what they're going to do which lets you plan accordingly. Not seeing an issue here.

    The point I was getting at was, if you know you're all but guaranteed to get shredded by 50+ gatlings before you can hit an engine or even minor stuff like that, why are you engaging with a fighter at all? If fighters are really that invalidated as you claim, then why are you even using them at all? This is part of why I stick cameras on all my fighters and such so I can survey potential targets from a distance before engaging or returning to grab a destroyer or heavier ship. But again why use them if you know they're not going to be effective? Save them for when you know they will be effective as it sounds like a waste otherwise.

    With the shields I've been advocating for you would still be able to do damage, as fighters would also have access to shields. Again a cruiser is going to have an edge because it can channel more energy to its shields, but it's still not invincible. The bleedthrough guarantees you will still be able to get some damage through. Plus if you know you're not getting away, you can kamikaze into the enemy vessel using your fighter itself as the missile. So again, you will be able to do damage. In fact combining shields with our hypothetical ablative armor makes fighters far more durable than they were before. Again I don't see why this stuff needs to be an either or type situation with some folks (not you specifically.)
     
  15. Comrade Jenkens Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    55
    That's an entire different part of the meta I have an issue with. Irl fighters are probably the most important military assets in warfare, yet in space engineers they're near useless. Guided missiles + radar to allow them to engage from several KM out (and their missiles could be shot down by gatling turrets) would give them more tactical flexibility rather than pure scouting or suicide ramming. Even unguided bombs to allow them to drop them on a fixed course from a distance away and then peel off would be nice.

    Hell both of those would be half practical now with a 1x1 small grid merge block, but small grid ships are saddled with massive things which prevent tiny bombs and missiles even being custom made by players.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Einharjar Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    529
    Jesus "Wine Making" Christ I cant even keep up with this anymore...


    Just for clarity,
    Rail guns and DEWs that actually shoot down targets are definitely in the field, right now. Kinetic Kill systems are field ready (and field testing), but not declared IOC. They're basically just earning their certs now; kind'a like the F-35 was actually flying for a decade before it got it's IOC - that's DoD certifications for you (DCMA). They take awhile.

    The NAVY's project has taken so long because it's intended for extremely long range indirect, over the horizon fire up 300 miles to 2000 miles. (then gun you see wont hit 2000 miles, but the project as a whole was setting the foundation for how to make such weapons in the future). The issue was safe energy generation and that the damned rails would typically warp and be unusable after 10 to 15 rounds. Compare that to a typical 16" / 50 Mk 7 naval gun (the ones you find on say, the Massachusetts or Alabama BBs) which could Super Heavies I think up to 150+ times before excessive wear and fouling was an issue?

    Lockheed Martin's smaller rail gun, for the Army? is actually fully operational and blowing holes through trucks. All it needs to power the weapon is a modified APU trailer, like we already see in the field. Same goes for the Laser Weapon System as well.

    Oh boy did WW2 prove that wrong.



    over all I think a lot of player basically don't do real combat right. the whole objective in TRUE combat where you HAVE NO RESPAWNS (you know, you... actually die) is you try to avoid the enemy at all costs and get a first shot, first kill. This is the real reason why during the arms race leading up to WW1, everyone was building bigger and bigger guns. The real strength was range. Being able to hit with out getting hit back. With that in mind, servers without scripts enabled are an absolute bore to me because PMWs are the CLEAR WINNER that validates the usefulness of fighters. Jump in, release cruise missile or two with building decoys at max speed; fly away and forget. Even if the opponent has enough point defense to shred missiles as they come in, I can guarantee you that they don't have enough weapons covering every angle due to propulsion requirements and PMW missiles can be made damned resilient. Because pf the vanilla weapon's limited range, they only have at max 800 meters to explodie an armor piercing pile driver made of the densest possible construction. You don't even need a warhead persay, just a well placed shot that hit's a reactor or two to really jack with the target's performance.

    Its a mistake to think that utterly destroying a target is your only end goal in combat.
    Its not, you just need to spank their ass so hard that they wanna' run away. Follow some Sun Tzu, here. The best battles are the ones that you manage to never draw a sword.

    A lot of the combat I run into is this massive amounts of brawling and that's where shit gets all messy and convoluted and Engineers cry foul over balance. Sure the actual weapon balance and armor balance in game is rather... crap... but most players go about engaging in combat in the wrong way to begin with.

    Keep that in mind.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    455
    i was not aware the railgun tech had moved that far forward. Last bits I had seen said they were still in the testing phases and not ready for actual field use yet. Either way that's actually cool to know they've come along that much. Still this just goes to prove my point even more that the laser tech isn't as unready as certain folks make it seem, and both items are valid bits of tech already using 21st century standards.

    The user you directed that towards was actually quoting a different user, though he didn't use the dedicated quote function. I'm of the mind folks do tend to radically overthink things in this game. For that matter I fall into that same category on occasion. Regardless I would still like to see folks get their ablative armor, me get my shields, and everyone else get their combat goodies, and everyone is happy. I see no reason they couldn't.
     
  18. Einharjar Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    529
    Yea a lot is actually on the horizon or already here. It's just that the more common media outlets are either too stupid or took focused on other drama to notice the true advancements. I'm not going to readily admit as to WHY I know things, but I will say that the information for this is mostly public, just from more niche publications.

    A lot of people still argue that shields are not possible but again, we've proved they are. I've given two IRL examples that were tested with one that was physically tested in field trials.
    The thing is, the science behind actual "Star Trek" shields I find to be more entertaining for a game than we usually see them. We usually see them as this regenerative free HP barrier. In reality, the science HAS BEEN WORKED OUT that you can make a true "Shield" with enough power; but the side effects give a really cool situational consideration. I believe they're Euro scientists who worked out the necessary maths to show that real shields capable of blocking weapons grade munitions and DEWs are definately possible. They however, come with a caveat. They block ALL INCOMING MATTER AND ENERGY of the given power range the shield maintains AND the barrier is a true barrier, meaning unlike Star Trek, you cannot shoot through your own shield. The shield would actually block all incoming light, transmission and any other EM Radiation that does not have the power to penetrate the field. So, IRL Energy Shields would literally be an ACTIVE USE system, not a passive system like Armor. You power up your shields to brace for impact, but have to lower them just to see the target, much less shoot at it.

    If realistic shields based on the real science were actually added to SE? I'd flip.

    Well to be fair, the giant space was supposed to indicate that the last paragraph was directed to the general audience of the thread, lol.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,368
    Good thing I didn't suggest that :). I'm talking about a single player with a grinder. It should take longer than an hour or so. I've witnessed it taking a lot less.

    Well, if you want to take a terrestrial battleship out, you sink it. This is where the "one good hit" mentality comes from for space battles. You can't "sink" a space battleship. So how do you know if you have defeated one? Make it blow to smithereens with nothing left. Same thing as sinking. SE doesn't work that way and people are out of ideas on how to do space combat. I was hoping that we could use this opportunity to discuss alternatives to utter destruction, which I believe we all can agree is boring.

    The conundrum is that SE space combat without mods is underwhelming to begin with. The prevailing approach is to build something with as much firepower as you can fit, then go find a target. Weapons have practically no range at all so all fighting is close quarter combat. This is the result of typical multiplayer gameplay design. After all, the game originally only allowed for four players, and the assumption was they would have space battles with big red and big blue. It's clear no one at Keen really understands combat in space might differ from combat on land with gravity and atmosphere. It's up to us to suggest what might make space combat in SE look, work and feel the way it most likely would be by the end of the current century.

    That's harder than it sounds because it's science fiction, and the rule with science fiction games is that anything you can think of is possible and just a matter of someone stumbling upon whatever that thing is that keeps it from being real. Any game that sets itself in a time period restricts itself to that time period. Science fiction games usually set themselves in a time period sufficiently far enough away to claim this or that has been "figured out." SE is set in a period where some things will not have been "figured out". We can argue about some things that might or might not be ready by 2077, or we could devote more time to that which will unquestionably be likely. We can go back and forth about how something might work, both in the game and real life. Myself, I'd like to talk more about space combat itself rather than the tools we might get. I believe discussion about the event will spur ideas about the hardware that might actually prove useful.

    This is kind of my point about energy shields. Mostly that we won't have them by 2077, but if we did they would be sort of cumbersome to use. I suspect this was figured out long ago (when I alluded to people doing the math) and that's why energy shields went to the back burner and armor as we know it would be most likely by 2077.

    I just think SE should not perpetuate the notion that space combat will take place at close quarters, which shields promote. I think SE should have us think of how space combat might actually be instead of making space combat work as it does on tv.

    Permanent death has always been an option. Not the most popular one, though ;)
     
  20. Einharjar Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    529
    No, not really. I know it may seem like I'm arguing semantics here; but sinking ships was not required; just lighting them on fire was enough or damaging a barbette or two, striking a heat stack, shutting down a boiler- ect. Sending ships back for battle damage repair was more than enough. Yamato could certainly speak for this, along with Gneissanau, Tirpitz and Bismark or any of the Monarch classes. If they were simply battered enough, they returned to port for repairs because they would lose so much performance as they took damage that they'd risk being captured and thus re-purposed by the enemy if they didn't retreat in the first place.

    This is pretty much exactly what we do in SE a lot of the time; actually. I disable my prey so I can salvage the resources. No need to waste ammo literally blowing it to bits.

    Which is a myth, unfortunately.

    The average BB hit rate late war even with Radar + Computer guided fire controls was around 7% per salvo. That's ungodly low, obviously. Hits that saw the Bismark barely escape the British when it lit up the Hood in one shot was literally a 1 in a million shot AND primarily because of very bad British practices of the time stacking their powder magazines waaaay too close to their fire rooms, outside the safety of the fire doors. The Bismark basically punished a very bad habit the British had because they were so focused on speeding up RoF, that they ignored safety practices in warfare.

    Most ship battles even in WW2 resulted in ships taking literally hundreds of primary gun shots, much less the many hundreds more from secondaries. There are cruisers that sailed back to port with LITERALLY THE ENTIRE BOW MISSING (I believe it got home by going the entire way in full reverse the whole time as the wave drag kept the water from flooding into the chopped off front hull)

    But, everyone remembers the Hood and how a well placed lucky shell from at the time; one of the few radar guided with actual computer fire controlled BBs with a very well built 14 inch gun made BBs feel like OP bad asses with one hit kills. The reality of the matter is that even the Yamato's massive ass 18.1 inch shells were deflected by Iowa class STS armor schemes. At the ranges that the Iowa was intended to engage, both the deck plate and armor belt was designed to bounce even the Yamato's shells or even the 16 inch Super Heavy the US used (which arguably had a higher pen value in certain envelopes).
    --- Automerge ---
    *sigh* god damnit, sorry for double posting. I see the big red button and for some reason I keep hitting that instead of "Insert Quote"...

    This is true and even the modded weapons are actually sorely lacking. The issue over all is that the weapon designs seem to be limited by the base metrics Keen established with the Vanilla rounds. Mexpex's 406mm cannons should shoot a lot farther than 2km, simple as that. This is why I don't use the mods as much any more and tend to go with PMWs, though that damned Atlas Super Laser is freaking godly...

    The damage model can be funky as well. There's no armor angle values used to determine deflection of incoming energy. If they had this modeling built in, you'd see less boxes by nature of having carefully designed armor schemes.

    One of the major issues to me is actually the lack of any down side for using so many thrusters. IONs are SUPER effective considering that the total power density per kg unit of ore (winner is Uranium of course) in Reactors means that the thrusters literally cost you nothing but being possible weak-points in armor layouts.
    That's all fine and dandy but I absolutely detest how the lack of punishment for added so many thrusters has lead to users building ships with fucking thrusters, EVERY WHERE. They have so many just to stop, move laterally and horizontally, so SO MANY. In reality, all those thrusters would have the terrible side effect of melting the ship they're on with all of the residual heat they'd produce. We need a heat mechanic for our ships.

    I design my ships to barely use that many thrusters and I use that principle in mind (a pretend heat mechanic). I don't use many thrusters outside of 2 classes, Main Drivers (the main engines to drive forward cruising or retro burning) and maneuvering thrusters (I do use a realistic thruster mod so I get access to differential thrust mechanics). I have a more complete armor scheme as a result, my ships are typically fast as hell and my tactics is usually maxed range kiting, sniping or "lancing" (Zoom and Booms!!!!). I do this on purpose to test the feasibility of not using the current meta on ship design. All of my fighters have been designed more like rocket planes or aerospace concept craft; they're virtually only forward thrust capable and maneuver almost entirely by using extreme angle of attack to change direction.

    Anyways, I'm off ona tangent. So to recap a bit; if the game actually models angle of deflection on blocks from incoming damage AND if thrusters were a lot more punishing to use (severe residual heat), ship design would drive away from the meta box and turret speckled monstrosities we see now.
    The weapons in SE also need good and very diverse design. You need REALLY LONG RANGE accentuated weapons mashed with high exposive / AoE weapons mixed with point defense, mixed with short range brawl, mixed with... you know. Your typical variety. As it is right now, literally all the weapons feel the same. The only difference is that ones that go "Boom" and have less dakka just tend to hit harder per shot, i.e., have a higher Alpha damage. However, that's it.

    Honestly, the scientific paper on real Star Trek like shields is far more feasible than the Gravity Generators and Jump Drives. The Shields are actually achievable given enough power and enough cooled super conducting material.

    Grav Gens and Jump Drives though? They're using unknown exotic matter with a negative mass and as far as we know - that shit don't exist.

    So,... Space Shields or legit actual Space Magic? I''d actually say the Space Shields are far more realistic and probable lol

    I can send you a PM on this, really. It's a discussion I've been looking to having as well. Atomic Rockets is not entirely accurate when it comes to military applications.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  21. hippybaker Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    89
    no way.. have that conversation here :)
    --- Automerge ---
    ..Anyway, all that got me thinking...

    Shields vs Realism: One of the biggest realism gripes I have with this game is the timer block....
    So.. you're telling me that it takes a whole effin 2.5 meter steel box to make a countdown timer and a switch?!! in 2077?!! really?
    ...And it can only do ONE lousy program? in 2077. ohhhh.....k
    One timer block should have like a zillion stacked inside it, Non?
    Shields aint nearly as fake a a timer block lol

    Another thought on an interesting game mechanic would be some components explode with actual force like a warhead upon being destroyed.
    Reactors, jump drives..ESPECIALLY hydro tanks. Maybe even a bigger explosion if a hydro tank is next to an o2 tank (programing nightmare?)
    I think an explosive mechanic would go well with tougher armor...
    Then you would KNOW when you "sunk" that enemy ship
     
  22. KissSh0t Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,725
    It would be nice if the timer block had something like 20 slots for different timers instead of one huge block that does one thing.... the current timer block design is kind of stupid when you think about it.

    I actually did the large rotor to small rotor trick once and made a timer block cluster / computer in a large block ship, all the timers were small blocks, saves so much space doing that.
     
  23. Spaceman Spiff Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,877
    Preach it, @KissSh0t !!

    There are so many small block features...timer blocks, programmable blocks, antenna/beacon, etc., that would be of great use in a large block design. Yeah, we can always do the small block rotor thing, but then you're dealing with subgrids that don't project easily.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,368
    True. Generally speaking, disabling is always the important thing. The further along the war went, the tougher battleships got. In the air pilots shoot the other plane hoping the other pilot got out. That's what happened in real life.

    In the movies and on tv, though...

    Yeah, that computer was ENIAC. Designed by Robert Watson, who went on to establish IBM. Today's computers are designs based on ENIAC.

    Agreed. Jump drives may happen in a hundred years. Gravity generators might happen if we ever figure out what the hell gravity is, let alone how to make it happen without mass. The technology will not be available by 2077. I believe SE can exist without either block. I've explained it a million times. I've also said those two blocks specifically are always used to justify shields, even though there are sound reasons the other two blocks are in the game and shields cannot get in under that banner. Shields 'cause GGs and JDs is not enough.

    Except a timer block is a real thing, just not as big. What's more, timer blocks are more versatile than most give them credit for. Every timer has a hotbar with nine slots, and there are nine hotbars. Timers were forgotten once we got PBs. If someone (**looks at Keen**) set up a timer block challenge with a real prize, timer blocks would end up with more respect. Only thing unreal about timer blocks is the size. Can't compare them to shields, though, cause timer blocks are real now and shields... aren't.

    I'm all for blocks that explode, but I think it should be approached carefully. A lot of people want reactors to go Hiroshima when they get hit. That's not how it works and I'd rather not see that misconception perpetuated in SE. Hydrogen tanks seems like a likely candidate, along with oxygen tanks and batteries. It seems likely to me that damaging those things might result in an explosion. I'd prefer the explosions be the result of incendiary rounds or HE and not because of a spark caused by an ordinary round, and that the level of damage is realistic.
     
  25. Hazee Daze Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    27
    Combat Engineers
    I'd like to see team-based and playa-vs-playa combat missions like capture the flag, capture and hold, and battle royale. Let's get physical.

    At least 5 sizes of armor with lots of kick-ass skins
    Bigger armor eats battery faster but is tougher and slower
    You can have pre-made classes like stealth, speed, repair, etc.
    Lightest armors cannot carry medium or large weapons
    Lots of deployable tech.
    Lots of multi- and single-passenger vehicles, tanks, bombers, drop ships, etc.
    Lots of anti-vehicle choices
    Hand grenades
    Personnel landmines
    Bases and base assets to attack or defend
    Have stations for armor changes be both locked to a team and "open" to capture.
    A map view for Pete's sake.
    Mechs if possible
    Cool weapons
    Crap spawn loadouts to encourage keeping the gens up
    Hand-beam weapons like Star Trek would be great and could be a top-tier tech-tree item that you must engineer during combat with stun and kill settings of course.


    Most of all
    The Combat Engineer module has community map-making. Using constrained map dimensions--it should be big enough to focus combat into a single area--a map maker can make any map he wants and then attach win criteria easily. Start w/CTF or BR to keep it simple and test the hell out of the end product. Boo!
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2020
  26. KissSh0t Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,725
    This is a dirty word.
     
  27. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,837
    A form of limited, theoretical shield perhaps. Nothing like the Star Trek ones. They're still far-fetched enough to still belong in the same Space Magic category, alongside with teleportation. It's a good thing to have an open mind about new technology, but these technologies are frankly the crypto-zoology of the technological world. All of them.

    All of these technologies mentioned - shields, jump- or hyperdrive, artificial gravity (spinless) and teleportation are all technologies I consider fantasy. Cool things, and fun, but none of these will actually ever see reality. Technology that belongs in movies, games and sensationalist technology magazines - about as tangible as Bigfoot and Nessie.
     
  28. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    455
    Like I said, if something has enough mass/energy behind it then it's still possible to get through the barrier. We see this even in Trek, which is actually part of how the Enterprise D was destroyed in Generations. The Bird of Prey matched it's torpedo frequency to the modulation frequency of the Enterprise's shields. Plus they can still see with the wide variety of sensors they have. I would imagine given enough time we would figure how to get around that limitation. Even still for the purposes of SE that would be the one bit of "done for gameplay reasons" logic I would apply to a shield that made to SE. I'm of the opinion things do not need to be 100% realistic 100% of the time, and if bending the truth a little bit makes the game more fun or better then lets have at it. I'm not opposed to realism but ultimately I believe a game should be fun otherwise why play it. However this gets into a different debate entirely. Personally at this point in the game I simply see no valid reason we can't have a shield or shouldn't, especially with complaints about durability. The only reason we don't have them is they simply haven't added a shield up to this point. I simply see no valid arguments left on the anti-shield side save the fact they don't like them. Give folks some more durable armor and shields both, let folks pick what is best for them, be it one or the other or both. Plus folks can always disable them if they didn't like and it would have ZERO effect on their gameplay. The 100% realism thing has long since sailed in this game, especially with small grid small reactors being a thing. I know power sources will improve a good deal by 2077, though I have a hard time believing we'll have a 0.5 meter or roughly 20 inch fully contained reactor dropping 500kw of power, which is more than enough to power a modern house.
     
  29. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,368
    Trouble is, you can't measure that. This whole shield things always comes down to, "it will be more fun," followed quickly by, "if I don't like it, I can turn it off."

    There is not only no proof, there is no possible way to tell if adding shields will make the game "more fun." That is a piss poor way to determine whether or not the game gets a feature. I have suggested untold numbers of blocks and features that I would like to see added. I never claimed any of them would make the game "more fun." I mostly suggest things that help maintain the suspension of disbelief. Things that help me believe I am a Space Engineer living and working in space around the year 2077. Things that contribute to the unique nature of the game.

    Keen and the community said planets would be "more fun." Is it? We don't know because we never got the chance to explore all the possibilities before planets were put in and now even though it's a "space" game the vast majority orient their builds and their play towards planets. Fun? Certainly. More fun? Who can say?

    As far as turning it off if I don't like it really sounds like, "I'm going to like it and I don't care if you do or not." But we're not talking about spiders or meteors. We're not talking about effects. We are talking about a game-changing weapon system. If they're on you have a very different game than if they're not on. On the other hand, harder armor can be in the game, period. Shields on or off will affect how you build things. That's kind of the point. However, if you play "shields off" and you get into a "shields on" session you will be the only one without shields. If you play with "shields on" and get into a "shields off" session you will die because you are the only one that depends on shields and now you don't have any.

    What are people that publish a new vanilla blueprint every other day supposed to do? Make ships assuming you like playing with shields on, or off? Do I publish a beautiful ship with no room for shield gadgetry, or make compromises to accommodate players that like shields?

    There are many that say they will be more fun, and just as many that will say they're no fun at all. We argue about plausibility vs fun factor when there's no right answer. One thing is certain, though. Harder armor does what shields would do yet suffers from none of these issues. Harder armor doesn't have any issues. It does change the game by making ships harder to break, but choosing whether or not to use them does not change the game for everyone else. You don't need to agree to have them before the game even starts. I don't suggest them because I think they will make the game more fun. I think they will add some plausible complexibility to a game where the combat is currently simple and straightforward, thus boring. They can do so without creating a rift in the community over whether or not they belong.

    They don't change Keen's game into my game. Changing the game from what the developer intended to something totally different is not bending the truth. It's ignoring it. We can get good 21st century space combat without resorting to putting in things we have to argue about whether or not they will exist in 60 years. One thing that is certain is that anything that is currently in use today will be smaller, lighter, cheaper, faster, and more capable than it is now. So, if you look at what we currently have and imagine what it will be like in 60 years there is plenty to work with. Starting off with the premise that something we would like doesn't exist now but would be "figured out" in 60 years is pretty much giving Keen the finger and saying, "Stop making your game and start making mine."

    ***
    On that note, I was thinking of a recon satellite block that contained a battery, gyro, laser antenna, and multiple cameras. You would launch it towards a point of interest using ship momentum. The gyro's main job would be to keep the laser antenna pointed towards your ship. Multiple cameras would make it likely that you might see what you're looking for. The small size and small power source should make it hard to detect using the vanilla radar the game also needs ;). You could use it to create a waypoint that other munitions could use. It should self-destruct after a certain time period for performance reasons. All in a single 1x1x1 block (no, it doesn't have to be a cube).

    Just thinking out loud.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  30. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    455
    Just as you say you can't measure the fun factor, you also cannot measure it's opposite. If saying something might be fun is not a valid reason to consider it, then saying something wouldn't be fun also is not a valid reason for keeping it out of the game. Secondly, your ability to suspend disbelief, and my ability to suspend disbelief are 2 very different beasts entirely, and are just as subjective as you say "fun factor" is. Simply because you would have a hard time suspending disbelief doesn't mean I would and vice versa. Whether you like it or not, the fun factor is a question that's going to come up at some point during game development and deciding whether they will add something or not. If enough people are saying "hey we want this and think it would be fun" then a company will take that into consideration, especially if the folks also said "we're also willing to pay you for it" then they will definitely at least listen. So if the "fun factor" question is not asked at some point or another and the only way we determine how to add new stuff or potentially remove old is based on numbers and facts, how do they know what to add/take? I'm not saying it should be the only deciding factor by any means, but I am acknowledging that it has a place.

    As for the "what would the game have been like and builds looked like if we didn't have planets in the game." Well thankfully this is an easy one to answer. Simply spawn into an empty world and fix it so that the only celestial bodies you see are asteroids and similar. Be sure to disable the wind turbine, atmo thrusters, parachutes, and most likely the hydrogen engine as well. Disable anything that couldn't feasibly work in space. Then play the map. If you find it fun, then you know there very well could be people that would've found it fun without planets. Is that guaranteed that you're not simply the odd ball out, no it's not, but you would at least know for yourself. Also nothing is forcing anyone to play with planets if they don't like it.

    2 questions. First have you actually sat down and looked at the advanced menus settings of a world in game lately and all the different things that can be changed? If not here are the menu settings to one of my testing maps for reference.

    In that set of photos you can see just how many things can be changed, especially big game changing systems. First up we have character inventory size, block inventory size, thruster damage, cargo ships and random encounters, block limits, airtightness and the oxygen system, wolves, spiders, drones, random encounters, friendly missile damage, the progression tree, Economy, Bounty contracts, and finally supergridding as just some of the examples. I have bolded some of the more majorly important systems. Of the items I named, every single one of them in bold greatly alter the state of the game, yet every single one of them has the ability to be turned on or off. So using that as an argument against shields is not a valid argument. Just like the systems in bold, and not in bold, people have the option to turn them on or off if they like them or don't like them. I personally play with oxygen and airtightness on, but there are some folks who don't care for those things, thus they turn them off. All of those systems are going to radically effect the gameplay and building choices a player makes depending on whether those items are on or not, so this isn't limited to just shields. Allowing folks to turn those features on or off allows folks to customize their world to their liking with neither side being under any obligation to play with the other. The folks who don't like oxygen aren't required to play with me and I'm not required to play with them. Both sides get the experience they want, both sides win. Their choice to turn oxygen off on their server has zero effect on my server, and my choice to turn oxygen on has zero effect on their server. In regards to the second bit of your post I bolded, that same principle applies to the oxygen on/off example I've been making. If someone who plays "oxygen off" goes onto a server with oxygen turned on, they and their builds will likely be unprepared for it as they didn't build with oxygen in mind. Likewise if someone who plays "oxygen on" goes onto a server with oxygen turned off, they're going to be easy picking as they're carrying a bunch of unnecessary dead weight with the extra oxygen system blocks, assuming those blocks even animate in at all. However your example suffers from 2 fatal flaws. First one is it assumes that the "shields on" guy hasn't altered his build for his server hop and is an idiot. Second flaw is it assumes that a "shields on" person would want to play on a "shields off" server or vice versa in the first place. Why would a "shields on" guy want to play on a "shields off" server or vice versa at all, especially knowing what they're getting into? If a "shields on" person goes onto a "shields off" server unprepared, that's their own fault. The opposite is true for the "shields on" guy. So again why would someone play on a server that they don't like and then complain about it with the options available in SE today?

    Now for the second question I mentioned above. If shields were to release tomorrow, how would my choosing to have them enabled on my server negatively impact your server? In what specific ways are you negatively impacted by my choice to have shields on? Who is going to force you to keep the shields enabled? I really want to know because your entire point and attitude is acting like you're being forced into something when you're not. I have also been hearing folks say they want a food/water system to exist in game where their toon would have to eat/drink on occasion. I am not fond of the idea, but I'm not opposed to such a system being added provided I can turn it off. I most likely wouldn't use the food/water system because I feel that would detract from the Engineering focus of the game in favor of being a space farmer. Plus more often than not in other games the food system is pure penalty with no upside to it at all. While I'm not fond of a food system in a game like SE, if folks wanted to have such a thing added I would be cool with it as long as I could turn it off. The folks who want the system could use it, and me who doesn't want it doesn't have to. If I change my mind the option to turn it on is still there. So again, please explain how you would be negatively effected by shields when you could just turn them off, as I sincerely want to know. So far every single objection you've raised has an easy answer that would be available to you in game. Telling you to simply turn the block off if you don't like it isn't saying "i'm going to like it and I don't care if you do or not", it's saying "I intend to use it but if you don't like it then you should have the option to turn it off." To have the option to turn it off but not use it only to sit back and complain about shields, would be like me complaining it's hot in my room but refusing to open a window or turn on the AC.

    Finally in regards to blueprints, no matter what you do there will always be someone who doesn't like it and someone who does. At some point you're going to have to make a choice as to which group you're going to cater your blueprint to. Do you build it to appeal to the shield folks, or do you build it to appeal to the non-shield folks? Either way one side or the other isn't going to use it. So why worry about the ones who aren't going to use it in the first place? I build my blueprints and ships the way I like them. If folks want to use them and they like my stuff, then by all means they can use it. If they don't like it, no one is forcing them to use it. Personally I don't really care that much for the rotors and piston blocks in game, and as such I don't use them in my blueprints. Simply because a block exists in game does NOT require you to use it in the blueprint. If you don't like it then don't use it.

    If asking Keen to add shields to the game is "making it into my game" then asking them not to add shields is making it into your game. Again this is a game, not a job, and is meant to be fun. Asking a company to add a feature I would like is not "making it into my game" but me as a customer saying "hey I like your product but would like to see it also be able to do x. If you will add x I will pay you cash for it." You've already been told by multiple people it's possible using 21st century tech and how it could work, you're simply choosing to ignore it for whatever reason. Things we have today were once considered fiction or sci-fi just 60 years ago. I know Jump Drives and Grav Drives bother you and you've said as much. However the one thing I think that would really irritate you that I've yet to see you mention, is how in 60 years according to SE we'll have a fully self-contained nuclear reactor that takes up only 20 inches of space and can put out enough energy to power 2 modern houses in the form of the small grid small reactor. So if you want 100% realism then again that ship has sailed. Visions also change over time as do games. Adding shields because I or someone else asks them to doesn't suddenly make SE "my game" anymore than adding a food/water system would make SE "their game" for folks that want such a system. It simply means an OPTIONAL feature has been added that I can use or choose to ignore.

    While I'm 99% sure this part is sarcasm, if folks somehow managed to convince Keen to add such a block and folks wanted to use it, then by all means more power to them. I wouldn't use it because that's a block with an identity crisis. However if folks wanted to use such hypothetical block on their server, then go for it, because it has ZERO effect on what I do on my server.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.