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.

Why did the physics update remove objects damaging grids?

Discussion in 'General' started by OmegaConstruct, Jan 11, 2018.

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

    Messages:
    23
    I haven't played SE in a while, decided to hop back in. Was messing around with my ore cannon ship and now the rocks just bounce off. I did some searching, someone on reddit said the physics update made it so that floating objects like ore/stone or components don't do damage anymore. What was the point of taking that out?
     
  2. ShadedMJ Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    265
    I've heard others notice this as well. I have not tried to verify this with my own ore cannon ship though.

    Something about it was too easy to fly over a planetary base at 1km altitude and destroy it with an ore cannon.
     
  3. Dax23333 Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    657
    Ore cannon in this context meaning rocks you pulled out of your pockets.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. OmegaConstruct Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    23
    Yeah, stones just bounce off like a freaking rubber ball, even when they're the maximum size you can spawn and moving at max velocity. Apparently the solution to this (non) issue was to pretend like impacts with massive boulders don't do damage.

    I'm really tired of these bone-headed "solutions" being pushed out for this game's problems. Our crappy engine can't keep up with ships as big and awesome as what you're making? Block limits! We can't figure out how to make rotors and pistons not break your ship? Here's a dangerous grid warning! You can't defend against a stone bombardment? Let's ignore physics and make ships invincible against massive objects at high velocities!

    I'm frustratingly close to giving up on this game. I keep checking each update to see if it gets better and I routinely end up more disappointed.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  5. May Rears Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    430
    You mean you actually have to attack someones base in pvp instead of just ejecting a bunch of rocks from 1km up? nah, will never catch on.
     
  6. Dax23333 Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    657
    It hardly does anything anyway because now instead of rocks you just spam un-build blast doors and stuff instead, which for... reasons? Have the same mass as full built ones, last time I checked at least.

    So removing stone damage just ruins ore cannons, which are a perfectly reasonable use and a weapon type I rather enjoy, but does put gravity greif behind the rather small wall of getting steel plates. Its not like ore cannons are even that brokenly powerful in the relm of player made weapons, what with guided missiles capable of locking onto a target at huge distances being a thing. Ore cannon has no lock on and has fairly short range compared to such things.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. OmegaConstruct Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    23
    You mean they completely eliminated an awesome game mechanic to appease the small subset of players who play PVP? Nah, that doesn't make sense.

    If PVP players were whining about it so much they should have made object damage a checkbox in the advanced options instead of pretending that physics don't exist anymore and colliding with massive objects doesn't do damage.
     
  8. Saberwulfy Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    292
    Who care with ore cannons!
    And about containers frag bombs?
     
  9. OmegaConstruct Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    23
    It's a sandbox game. Half the fun is figuring out all the interesting things you can do with the materials provided. I enjoyed engineering the massive ore cannon for a battle cruiser much more than I enjoy slapping on a cannon mod. The fact is, removing object damage is completely unrealistic and if it was a problem they should have either nerfed the damage they caused or made it an option, rather than eliminating a realistic and entertaining mechanic.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. halipatsui Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,253
    Well i take current mechanics over last one.

    It was stupidly easy and cheap to make missiles that penetrate literally over 100 meters of heavy armor.

    By dropping penetration might be infinite. Absolutely no way to defend against that.

    I too like ore cannons but gravity guns are not dead yet. You can still build large heavy armor projectiles that are practically unstoppable. It actually might be better for game balance to have to invest something instead of lumpinh your garbage on the enemy.

    Also collision physics are known to change every now and then.
    Xocliw also said that keen wants SE to have collision physics similar to first version so they can be expected to change again at some point.
     
  11. Arcturus Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,649
    The change was probably NOT made with intent to remove ore cannons or to prevent aerial stone dropping bombardment.

    The change was likely to solve one of the complaints in this "completed" status feedback: https://feedback.keenswh.com/idea/s...is-like-having-a-warhead-go-off-59af3db6c077a
    which is that a bunch of items released from a container near a small ship or other confined space could destroy grids. There were other bug reports about explosions next to stone ejectors: https://forums.keenswh.com/threads/small-ejectors-discharging-impossibly-large-rocks.7393779

    Like many things in this game, solving one problem creates new ones.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  12. Taemien Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    468
    There is definitely something wrong with the idea that dropping rocks does more damage than dropping warheads. If people want to be clever, devise ways to get warheads on target rather than using ejectors or damaged containers to drop rocks.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. May Rears Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    430
    If you have material damage because of realism reasons then you need proper armor mechanics such as angling for the same reasons, you cannot have one without the other without creating an imbalance which is, or rather was, the situation. Even if they nerf the damage the complaining would be the same, a flavour of the month PVP tactic that bypassed game mechanics was nerfed, I expect the whining to drown out most turbines starting up. :)
     
  14. similan Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    9
    You can tell the dinosaurs that dropping rocks were hocus pocus.

    Instead of turning it off they could increase armour. Or make it so that rocks have way slower acceleration(see it as air drag) on planets.
    In space they are just as viable as a missle.
     
  15. May Rears Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    430
    The other way they can deal with it (and the one I suspect they will use eventually) is have turrets able to target inert objects that have a velocity above a certain amount. That way they can be used as mass driver ammunition but can be defended against with point defence.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. halipatsui Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,253

    Doesnt target items already cover that?
     
  17. FoolishOwl Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    523
    Some time ago, I checked on the densities of various materials in the game. The density of stone and ore pretty much uses real-world numbers for the density of stone. But, the density of light armor is a bit less than the density of empty aluminum soda cans; the density of heavy armor is a bit less than the density of the lightest, thinnest steel pipe I could find. You should be able to penetrate "heavy armor" with a BB gun.

    The basic problem is that if you use realistic numbers for one material, and unrealistic numbers for another, and then try to have some consistent physics model use those numbers, you're going to have strange results when those materials interact.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  18. halipatsui Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,253

    When stone for example is dropped as object its volume is definitely not same as announced in invemtories. It becomes way more dense.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  19. Taemien Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    468
    Look up the size and velocity of the rock that caused that. Then post a video of you releasing one of that size and velocity in the vanilla game. Otherwise your colorful analogy isn't very convincing.

    I posed the statement that rocks shouldn't do more damage than warheads. That's making a bunch of you dodge around. At least two of you said armor isn't strong enough in response to that. Increasing armor toughness makes them more resilient to rocks sure, but also warheads. We're back to square one. So I'll pose the statement again:

    It makes no sense to have falling rocks do more damage than warheads.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. FoolishOwl Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    523
    The OP was asking why rocks don't do damage any more. I.e., they apparently "fixed" that problem (likely by accident). I was trying to address why it was a problem to begin with. In general, *everything* is out of whack, and it's a question of what's the least intrusive change that doesn't make things worse.

    My guess is that rocks used to do so much damage, followed from the physics model, in which rocks were denser than armor. If that was the problem, then it could be fixed by reducing the density of rock, which would make its weight negligible, removing a set of practical design challenges. Or, they could increase the density of armor, which would mean you'd need more thrust to move ships (as well as further weakening other weapons, like warheads, as you said). Or, they make it so rocks don't cause damage, which causes problems for gravity guns, among other things.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018
  21. May Rears Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    430
    There is no such thing as "target items" on a vanilla turret you have:

    Missiles
    Small Grids
    large Grids
    Characters
    Stations
    Neutrals
    Meteors

    A block has to be a block that shows in the control panel to be targetted therefore falling rocks (meteors are their own entity) and components are immune to turret fire, a fact that is exploited in pvp by people who are now whining that they have to come up with an actual design rather than just fitting a bunch of ejectors and bypassing all turrets and armour on planets.
     
  22. halipatsui Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,253
    I doubt rock density vs armor density really has anything to do with the damage it made.
    Imo problem rose from the fact that rock was not anyhow used while it chews trough armor. Irl rock would pulverize.

    Before update (not sure if now) large ship vs station damage model difference is MASSIVE
    Lrge ship doesnt take a dent from stuff thay mows trough tons of station armor like wet toilet paper. Just their ways to calculate damage are so different.

    Things like density and pressure dont quite behave in SE like they do irl so they dont behave same way.

    Also you can increase object density like crazy.

    Just try stacking steel plates in creative
    --- Automerge ---

    Wasnt there moving objects?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. Sarekh Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,196
    Yep, there used to be that. Wasn’t that effective but it was there.
     
  24. OmegaConstruct Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    23
    Thanks for the responses and the good debate everyone. It seems that the main reason to remove object damage was people griefing in PvP. I don't play PvP, and I am sure there are many other people out there like myself who do co-op and single player PvE. I never even thought of using ore drops against ground bases, my designs were for hurtling massive boulders in space accelerated by an array of dozens of gravity generators. It was a lot of fun shredding enemy space stations that way.

    As for the points made about rock density versus armor density, and how upping armor density would then make thrusters and warheads and turrets too weak, that's a very good point as well. But how about we hold Keen accountable for properly balancing their game that's been in development for 5 freaking years, instead of pretending like it's okay to remove an entire (realistic) mechanic as a quick and sloppy fix for other problems and balance issues they've build into the game?

    I think the reasonable solution as of right now would be to have it as a check box option in the world settings. That way, PvP server admins can just turn it off, while the rest of us can continue to enjoy building creative designs beyond the relatively boring and underwhelming vanilla weapons offered by Keen.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  25. Arcturus Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,649
    The part I disagree with (see earlier post)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  26. damoran Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    608
    I never cared for the ore cannons or gravity generators in general. It's a gimmick that doesn't fit with the rest of the game.
     
  27. Smbdy Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    3
    I absolutely agree. This game is now dead to me. Keen's misguided understanding that they ever built or will build anything close to a balanced multiplayer, or even remotely fun survival game has slowly, but surely destroyed everything that was actually fun about it - creativity and physics.

    Instead of embracing the creative nature of their player base, they have literally griefed workshop authors with their constant fiddling with basic game mechanics, programmable blocks and functionality. Their "fixes" and "improvements" almost always result in more restrictive and less imaginative gameplay.

    And fanboi troglodytes can spare me the "its beta" bs - it will never be anything but beta, as it is already surpassed by many games in all but few aspects, all of which Keen is slowly destroying. And you don't sell Deluxe editions of betas. SP had massive potential, and to see it wither away like this is tragic.
     
  28. Caatalyst Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    102
    wrong place sorry
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2018
  29. Ronin1973 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,955
    Stones and components are floating objects. The floating objects have mass. However, size and mass aren't always represented accurately. A stack of 1,000 steel plates is represented by one steel plate but has the mass of 1,000. So a dropped stack of plates, ingots, etc. could tear right through whatever it came in contact with.

    Basically, IMHO Keen has a habit of "fixing" a problem and in its wake introducing 10 more. It feels like a decision is made to take a hammer to a problem and it screws up the balance for the rest of the game. Studying the ramifications of proposed changes before making them would be really helpful. Instead, they are released into the wild where they wreak havoc, shut down servers, etc. until they are a priority to fix. It just seems a really inefficient way of producing a game that is supposed to be well into beta.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.