Alpha 9.4 - Hotfix Releases

Discussion in 'Patch Notes' started by EleonGameStudios, Feb 13, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Frigidman

    Frigidman Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2016
    Messages:
    6,073
    Likes Received:
    9,186
    A poll from a bunch of uninformed players who just knee-jerk balk at the mere notion of 'less hp for this block'... without actually sitting back and looking at the big picture.... yeah, thats a great idea.

    If 'its worse in pvp'... dont forget, other players are under the same rules.

    If 'its bad against poi'... thats simply because right now the NPC damage output had been ramped up to unreasonable levels. They shredded full combat armor BEFORE this change. Of course it will do the same after the change.

    Before jumping the gun and demanding a bad design be put back into place... think of the big picture, the consequences, and be more informed about what this change really is achieving, and heading for.

    Do you forget shields are coming?
    Do you think its right someone can pepper the entire outside of their hull with 'tiny spikes' and make something 2x as stronger?
    Do you honestly think the NPC damage output will remain the way it is?
    Do you think that some other player magically doesn't have the same HP constraints per block sizes as you?
    Do you think losing one tiny corner, is actually causing your whole ship to be compromised?
     
    #41
  2. IronCartographer

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    1,238
    To be fair, it is a real concern that blocks all cost the same despite having lower HP if not using the full size. Combine that with the as-cargo weight/volume always being the full-block values (even if used to construct something smaller and with less HP) and there's a compelling case.

    That said, this is nothing new, it's just that it has been stretched onto a smoother curve so people are forced to realize that they've been ignoring blocks all this time and to continue that strategy would reduce them to building with cubes.

    There is an argument to be had that as long as they cost the same, every block should have the same HP and mass, no matter the size, because even a partial block occupies the same "collision space" within the grid of the structure. You can't place two half-blocks next to each other and get twice the health density, because they have to be in separate cube slots.

    The saving grace of the current situation is that block mass and HP being proportional are all that matter when the ship handling vs. durability tradeoff is considered. But there are significant balance issues even so.
     
    #42
    Numonar, StyleBBQ and Cleff like this.
  3. KnowItAllDM

    KnowItAllDM Commander

    Joined:
    May 31, 2016
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    111
    I just loaded into a server on Build 2281, which had last been logged in on build 2279, and all my food was spoiled in the fridges.
     
    #43
  4. Thundercraft

    Thundercraft Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2017
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    391
    I've been using WinMerge to compare Config_Example.ecf from Alpha 9.3 with the current 9.4. And I noticed some interesting changes. Some of these have me positively elated, while some have me concerned, if not a little disappointed.

    Code:
    Block Id: 589, Name: ThrusterGVDirectional
    Code:
    ThrusterForce: 60, type: int, display: true, formatter: Newton
    EnergyIn: 10, type: int, display: true, formatter: Watt
    They not only increased the thrust of the HV "Thruster S" from 40 kN to 60 kN, but also reduced the energy usage from 12 PU down to 10 PU. I'm happy with this change. Previously, since "Thruster S" had half the thrust of the "Thruster M", yet required more than half of the energy (12 PU vs. 20 PU), there was a strong incentive to use one "Thruster M" instead of two "Thruster S" since the former was significantly more energy efficient.

    Code:
    Block Id: 590, Name: ThrusterGVRoundNormal
    Code:
    ThrusterForce: 125, type: int, display: true, formatter: Newton
    Code:
    Block Id: 1107, Name: ThrusterGVRoundBlocks
    Code:
    ThrusterForce: 125, type: int, display: true, formatter: Newton
    The HV "Thruster M" had it's thrust increased from 80 kN to 125 kN. (Note: "Thruster M" uses 20 PU of energy, now exactly twice as much as "Thruster S".)

    As I said, I'm rather happy with this. Comparing the now 60 kN of "Thruster S" with the new 125 kN of "Thruster M" shows there is still a slight incentive to use one "M" instead of two "S". However, the difference is just 5 kN, which is insignificant. Anyway, I think larger thrusters should have slightly better thrust/energy performance.

    Code:
    Block Id: 1417, Name: ThrusterGVJetRound1x3x1, Ref: ThrusterGVRoundNormal
    Code:
    ThrusterForce: 200, type: int, display: true, formatter: Newton
    EnergyIn: 24, type: int, display: true, formatter: Watt
    The HV "Thruster Jet (1x3x1)" not only had it's thrust more than doubled from 90 kN to a whopping 200 kN, but also had it's energy usage reduced from 25 PU down to 24 PU! This is a massive change and one that I'm not exactly happy with.

    Consider that the new "Thruster S" has a thrust/energy ratio of 6:1, the new "Thruster M" has a thrust/energy ratio of 6.25:1 and the new "Thruster Jet (1x3x1)" has a thrust/energy ratio of 8.33:1. This means that the new "Thruster Jet" for the HV has such a high thrust/energy performance that it blows the "Thruster S" and "Thruster M" completely out of the water. Granted, a larger thruster should have slightly better performance. But why use the latter two if there is room to fit the former?

    To be fair, "Thruster Jet (1x3x1)" is level 12, while "Thruster S" and "Thruster M" are level 3 and 5, respectively. But, even considering the higher level, I question whether the former should have a thrust/energy performance quite that high.

    Still, overall, I'm happy with these changes.

    Code:
    Block Id: 457, Name: ThrusterMSDirectional
    Code:
    EnergyIn: 450, type: int, display: true, formatter: Watt
    The energy usage of the CV "Thruster S" was nearly doubled from 240 PU to 450 PU! (Note: The CV "Thruster S" still has a thrust of 8 MN or MegaNewtons.)

    Code:
    Block Id: 497, Name: ThrusterMSRoundNormal3x3
    Code:
    EnergyIn: 26500, type: int, display: true, formatter: Watt
    Code:
    Block Id: 835, Name: ThrusterMSRound3x3Blocks
    Code:
    EnergyIn: 26500, type: int, display: true, formatter: Watt
    Meanwhile, the CV "Thrusters XL" had it's energy usage reduced from 30,000 PU down to 26,500 PU. (Note: The CV "Thruster XL" still has a thrust of 800 MN or MegaNewtons.)

    To put these changes in perspective, let's consider the thrust/performance ratios:
    • CV "Thruster S" uses 450 PU (used to be 240 PU) and provides 8000 kN thrust. Thrust/Energy ratio = 17.78 (used to be 33.33).
    • CV "Thruster M" uses 1000 PU and provides 20,000 kN thrust. Thrust/Energy ratio = 20.
    • CV "Thruster L" uses 8000 PU and provides 200,000 kN thrust. Thrust/Energy ratio = 25.
    • CV "Thruster XL" uses 26,500 PU (used to be 30,000 PU) and provides 800,000 kN thrust. Thrust/Energy ratio = 30.19 (used to be 26.67).
    Overall, I think these changes are smart since the thrust/energy ratio now steadly increases with larger engines, high tech levels and rarer materials (like Neodymium, Zascosium and Erestrum). Previously, CV "Thruster S" was the clear winner as it had far better performance than any other thruster, even the giant "Thruster XL" that required Zascosium and Erestrum. Moreover, "Thruster XL" had thrust/energy performance that was worse than "Thruster L", which made no sense.

    That said, I think CV engines could use another balance pass before the final 1.0 (beyond Alpha and Beta) release. I think the increase in energy efficiency with increased thruster size is slightly too great. Specifically, while I do believe performance should increase with larger engines and higher tech, I think the smaller engines should have a somewhat higher energy efficiency that what we have now.

    Personally, I'm going to set the energy usage of CV "Thruster S" in my Config.ecf to 430 PU. This still makes the thrust/energy ratio of the "S" much, much worse than it used to be (430 PU would make it 18.6:1) and still leaves the "M" and larger thrusters significantly more energy efficient.

    Code:
    Block Id: 456, Name: ThrusterSVDirectional
    Code:
    ThrusterForce: 75, type: int, display: true, formatter: Newton
    The SV "Thruster S" had it's thrust reduced from 80 kN to 75 kN. (Note: Energy usage is still 45 PU.)

    Code:
    Block Id: 698, Name: ThrusterJetRound2x5x2, Ref: ThrusterJetRound3x7x3
    Code:
    EnergyIn: 200, type: int, display: true, formatter: Watt
    Both the SV "Thruster Jet M" and "Thruster Jet II M (2x5x2)" had it's energy usage reduced from 210 PU down to 200 PU. (Note: Thrust is still 840 kN.)

    Code:
    Block Id: 694, Name: ThrusterJetRound3x7x3
    Code:
    EnergyIn: 260, type: int, display: true, formatter: Watt
    The SV "Thruster Jet L (3x7x3)" had it's energy usage reduced from 300 PU down to 260 PU. (Note: Thrust is still 1.16 MN.)

    Code:
    Block Id: 695, Name: ThrusterJetRound3x10x3, Ref: ThrusterJetRound3x7x3
    Code:
    EnergyIn: 270, type: int, display: true, formatter: Watt
    The SV "Thruster Jet XL (3x10x3)" had it's energy usage reduced from 320 PU down to 270 PU. (Note: Thrust is still 1.26 MN.)

    Code:
    Block Id: 696, Name: ThrusterJetRound3x13x3, Ref: ThrusterJetRound3x7x3
    Code:
    EnergyIn: 280, type: int, display: true, formatter: Watt
    The SV "Thruster Jet XXL (3x13x3)" had it's energy usage reduced from 340 PU down to 280 PU. (Note: Thrust is still 1.33 MN.)

    To put these SV thruster changes in perspective, let's consider the thrust/performance ratios:
    • SV "Thruster S" uses 45 PU and provides 75 kN thrust. Thrust/Energy ratio = 1.67:1 (used to be 1.78).
    • SV "Thrusters M" uses 80 PU and provides 160 kN thrust. Thrust/Energy ratio = 2.0:1
    • SV "Thruster Jet S" uses 90 PU and provides 350 kN thrust. Thrust/Energy ratio = 3.89:1
    • SV "Thruster Jet M" uses 200 PU and provides 840 kN thrust. Thrust/Energy ratio = 4.2:1
    • SV "Thruster Jet II M (2x5x2)" uses 200 PU and provides 840 kN thrust. Thrust/Energy ratio = 4.2:1
    • SV "Thruster Jet L (3x7x3)" uses 260 PU and provides 1,160 kN thrust. Thrust/Energy ratio = 4.46:1
    • SV "Thruster Jet XL (3x10x3)" uses 270 PU and provides 1,260 kN thrust. Thrust/Energy ratio = 4.67:1
    • SV "Thruster Jet II XL (3x10x3)" uses 270 PU and provides 1,260 kN thrust. Thrust/Energy ratio = 4.67:1
    • SV "Thruster Jet XXL (3x13x3)" uses 280 PU and provides 1,330 kN thrust. Thrust/Energy ratio = 4.75:1
    • SV "Thruster Jet II XXL (3x13x3)" uses 280 PU and provides 1,330 kN thrust. Thrust/Energy ratio = 4.75:1
    Granted, the performance or thrust/energy ratio does increase the larger the thruster. But notice how the largest jump in performance is at the smallest end and with the lowest tech? The jump from a Thrust/Energy ratio of 2.0 for "Thruster M" to 3.80 for "Thruster Jet S" is huge, while the jump from 4.67 for "Thruster Jet XL" to 4.75 for "Thruster Jet XXL" is minuscule in comparison.

    This is a mistake, IMO. If nothing else, the performance increase should be steady. I'm thinking it might be even better if it was just the opposite - if the smallest and lowest tech thrusters had a comparatively small increase in performance while the largest and highest tech thrusters had the largest jump in performance. That would at least excuse finding room on a design for huge thrusters and excuse the high unlock level and more costly materials.

    Until SV thrusters get another balance pass, I'm going to set the thrust of SV "Thruster S" back to the old 80 kN (for a performance ratio of 1.78) in my Config.ecf. Also, I'm going to increase the thrust of SV "Thrusters M" from 160 kN to 200 kN (for a performance ratio of 2.5, which is far more balanced between "Thruster S" and "Thruster Jet S").

    By far, the weirdest part is how the "Thruster Jet II" series seems completely and totally pointless. "Thruster Jet II M" has exactly the same stats as "Thruster Jet M". "Thruster Jet II XL" has identical stats as "Thruster Jet XL". And "Thruster Jet II XXL" has identical stats to "Thruster Jet XXL".

    If I had my way, the "Thruster Jet II" series would have higher thrust than the equivalent regular "Thruster Jet" series, but they would also require more resources and get unlocked at a higher tech level. Otherwise, if they are identical in every way besides appearance, why have separate thrusters? If nothing else, couldn't the regular "Thruster Jet" series have a right-click menu to select the appearance, like we already have with other thrusters and devices?

    I'd change the "Thruster Jet II" series, myself, in my Config.ecf (Block Id: 1585, 1591 and 1592). However, I'd have to invent custom thrust values as well as increase the tech level and adjust the template material costs. And if I share an SV blueprint with type II thrusters... Well, nobody is likely to have the same Config settings as myself. So it doesn't seem worth it.

    Finally, I want to point out that three new HV thrusters were added:
    Code:
    Block Id: 1774, Name: ThrusterGVRoundNormalT2, Ref: ThrusterGVRoundNormal
    Code:
    Block Id: 1775, Name: ThrusterGVRoundLarge, Ref: ThrusterGVRoundNormal
    Code:
    Block Id: 1776, Name: ThrusterGVRoundLargeT2, Ref: ThrusterGVRoundNormal
    This is awesome, especially since these are unlocked at a higher tech level and are more thrust/energy efficient!

    In conclusion: Overall, I like these changes. But I think SV Thrusters, in particular, need to be completely re-balanced. And please do something different with the SV "Thruster Jet II" series. Either merge them (their unique appearance) with regular "Thruster Jet" thrusters or make them have better performance with a higher unlock.

    P.S.: I would mention that "FoodDecayTime" has now been added for various food items. Thank you devs! Finally, we can adjust how long until food spoils by making changes to our Config.ecf!

    P.S.S.: They also added recoil to MultiTools and the SurvivalTool. Or did they always have recoil, except now we can edit it via Config.ecf?
     
    #44
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2019
  5. ravien_ff

    ravien_ff Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2017
    Messages:
    1,775
    Likes Received:
    3,159
    Yup. Not sure I like it. Tools don't really need recoil I think.
     
    #45
    Thundercraft and Frigidman like this.
  6. GTv

    GTv Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,173
    Likes Received:
    811
    Is there any possibility of getting the texture bug on 7 and more sided blocks fixed soon please? It's very annoying and has been broken forever.


     
    #46
    Cleff likes this.
  7. Cleff

    Cleff Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    874
    That and some mirror issues. Like with the thin sloped wall blocks.
     
    #47
  8. Frigidman

    Frigidman Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2016
    Messages:
    6,073
    Likes Received:
    9,186
    Its not a "Bug". Its a limitation of the engine which they looked into years ago, and were unable to find a suitable work-around.

    Maybe someday if Unity and the engine update itself to a point where such a new feature can be added... but as it stands, they can only allow 6 sides of a cube (thus any shape derived of that cube) be texture/colored.

    What they can do to alleviate the glaring issue on a few of them, is pick better shared sides. They change one of the blocks, its much better, but they forgot to change all like-blocks to follow the same sort of side sharing standard.
     
    #48
  9. Scoob

    Scoob Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,237
    Likes Received:
    5,777
    Hey all :)

    I recall reading that there were changes to the Troop Transport's behaviour in the recent update, but I thought I'd share my experience with one from moments ago.

    I just loaded my 9.4 survival game, I'm standing in my small CV parked just outside the Abandoned Factory POI, in which I've cleared a handful of the early rooms.

    Anyway, the instant the game loaded I got the warning about an approaching Troop Transport. I ensured my CV's turrets are on - just Sentries at the moment - and wander outside. I run around on top of the outer wall of the POI, looking around for the Transport. To kill time while waiting, I kill some spiders roaming around outside the POI's walls, while keeping an eye on the skies.

    Suddenly, there's a Troop Transport hovering directly over the POI - it seems to have just appeared there, I observed no flight to the POI, despite being on the look out constantly. So, that was the first odd thing. Secondly, it proceeded to simply fly off to the south until it vanished from Radar and view. It in no way appeared to interact with my location by dropping off troops. Sorta disappointing and I assume not intended.

    As is the nature of the game, my current save has already been overwritten so I'm not sure if I can provide anything to re-create this situation, but I wondered how others are finding Troop Transport behaviour in their games.

    Scoob.
     
    #49
    StyleBBQ and Thundercraft like this.
  10. Scoob

    Scoob Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,237
    Likes Received:
    5,777
    Btw: I'm noticing that lots of POI are still using the old, weaker Walkway Blocks that only have 25 hit points. The ones the player can make now have a full 250 hit points, plus they take multiple T2 Multi-Tool hits to recover...more than the higher hit point basic Steel Block.

    Not a bug as such, nor a huge issue plus I expect creators are aware, but thought I'd mention it just in case. Breaking in certain places is a little easier than perhaps intended is all :)

    Scoob.
     
    #50
  11. Scoob

    Scoob Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,237
    Likes Received:
    5,777
    Sorry, another comment from me...something that's been a problem for a while I feel. Friction.

    When I'm jet-packing through the air, even quite slowly, and land, I'd expect the grip from my boots to allow me to stop fairly quickly. However, this is not the case. My problem is, that when landing on a block after using the jet-pack it's like the soles of my boots have been greased. Almost all horizontal momentum appears to be retained. The technique to work around this is to jet-pack jump, slow down to above the target and then drop, which burns through jet-pack fuel. However, when the target location only has one block of space - common when jumping around POI's to retain the high ground / a degree of protection - this doesn't work as there's simply no room to drop from above.

    I'm testing currently, jumping from block to block in a POI to avoid the Nightmares I've attracted. However, despite being fairly competent at landing on my target block I simply cannot slow down and fly right off it - my boots providing zero friction on the block surface.

    Now, as I cannot do the slow-down then drop technique due to the tight quarters, I do land on the block and press the opposite directions movement key of course, but this generally has zero effect.

    A lesser issue related to perceived friction, or lack there of, is when standing on the edge of the block to shoot down. Visually the player seems quite secure in their footing - judging by the external view - but the slightest twitch of move can often see the play slide horizontally before tumbling off the edge.

    I like the general feel of momentum etc. the player has when moving is fine, and the fact that countering movement when in the air is hard with the jet-pack while still staying in the air. This is all well and good, but if the player has contact with the ground / floor / block then having enough grip to slow down on contact should be a given I'd of thought.

    Now, I'm all for slippery surfaces to aid in trap design, that'd be quite cool, but I think general blocks should be a fairly grippy surface for the player.

    What do people think? I personally am getting a little frustrated at my characters total lack of grip & often shooting off blocks like they're iced.

    Scoob.
     
    #51
  12. Frigidman

    Frigidman Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2016
    Messages:
    6,073
    Likes Received:
    9,186
    Yeah yeah ;) Theres a lot of POI to go through lol.
     
    #52
  13. Scoob

    Scoob Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,237
    Likes Received:
    5,777
    Heh, yes, I appreciate that! I assume the replaceblocks command is able to remove the grind on a per-POI basis though?

    Scoob.
     
    #53
  14. Scoob

    Scoob Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,237
    Likes Received:
    5,777
    Here's a random thing... People might wonder why I post on these threads a lot, but rarely post new threads. Well, up until recently, when trying to post a New thread, it'd be stuck "waiting for approval" for up to 24hrs - which would often lead to me not having time to be in-game for another five days, so I stop engaging with the subject.

    I used to think that this was because I was new - I was once you know - yet I seemed to go up the "Ranks" and even when reaching "Rear Admiral" with a post count in the thousands I was still met with the "waiting approval" message...which irked me lol.

    I've noticed recently that this restriction no longer seems to apply, and I can post things right away. Dunno when this happened, but I'm grateful for it!

    Anyway, I'm likely going to look silly posting this as perhaps things changed ages ago - I'd just not tried to post a new thread in several hundred posts lol.

    Scoob.
     
    #54
  15. CrazyZ

    CrazyZ Commander

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2018
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    135
    Is that a ramp block for SVs in the banner? :)
     
    #55
    Maverick241 likes this.
  16. Scoob

    Scoob Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,237
    Likes Received:
    5,777
    It sure looks like one to me!

    Scoob.
     
    #56
    CrazyZ and Germanicus like this.
  17. Germanicus

    Germanicus Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2018
    Messages:
    1,621
    Likes Received:
    2,846
    @Hummel-o-War will say "You imagine things";):D
     
    #57
    Maverick241 and CrazyZ like this.
  18. Scoob

    Scoob Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,237
    Likes Received:
    5,777
    Ha, can't fool me, I have no imagination :)

    Scoob.
     
    #58
    Germanicus and CrazyZ like this.
  19. StyleBBQ

    StyleBBQ Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2016
    Messages:
    557
    Likes Received:
    699
    On block HP vs. Mass vs. Material Cost;

    Although I don't much like the current trade off, unless/until each shapes' recipe accurately reflects material cost I have to fall on the side with @IronCartographer . Less than a full cube ~=~ lower HPs & Mass.
    --
    Had been thinking of blocks getting constructed from "plates", since recipes use 'Steel Plates', and that bugged me since that would likely make blocks like the Thin Wall actually have more HPs.
    > take all the plates used in a full cube and then fit them into a much smaller space = thicker plating = more HPs

    Then considered that the blocks might not be welded up 'plates' but rather foamed 'solids' from which the less-than-a-full-cube blocks are then carved. That eases my brain a bit, heh :p

    ------------

    @Thundercraft , most excellent post! And funny too since it's the general subject I'd intended to post about today & your post saved me some work! :)

    A few thoughts on Thrusters.

    Numero Uno: Please make Variable Power Draw for Thruster Output a Top Priority!
    Things like; once you reach top speed power draw should drop significantly.
    And say you're in a gravity well, have a ship hovering & you're looting/mining via Logistics, thus adding mass into the ship. The power usage should incrementally go up to maintain the hover.
    -
    We really need to get away from the design thought of using many small thrusters & then tweaking how many are 'On' to manage fuel consumption.
    However: that thought, if needed, -might- be a way to get around potential Unity limitations. Would need abstraction from the players but possibly, at the game engine level, instead of a "Thruster" being _one_, the game engines thinks it's _ten_ thrusters, and then simply calculates how many of the ten it needs to activate. (not a single 100W lightbulb but ten 10W bulbs in the same housing, so only ten light levels compared to a dimmers many)

    Number Two: while it may not yet be the time to go back to the foundations and firmly define that a chunk of Ore masses X, refines down to Y Ingot and Ingot makes Z number of Plates; and Z number of Plates can never mass more than the original Ore, and then all the way up the chain, well it's getting close yes?
    {though the early bits look to have been rationalized,
    5 Iron Ore masses 70 kg (14 kg each). Refines to 10 Iron Ingots, 50 kg total (5 kg each) which make 50 Steel Plates, 50 kg (1 kg each)
    items further along aren't consistent}

    Mass & Volume more readily expose things like a SV Steel Block taking 2 Steel Plates & then massing 8 kg (shouldn't be more than 2 kg) while a CV Steel Block uses only 10 plates (10 kg) yet masses 1000 kg (1 t).
    Hitpoints for a SV Steel Block are 50 while a CV Steel Block has 500 HPs. A 100x increase in mass only results in a 10x increase in HPs.

    For comparison let's say a SV Steel Block (1/2 meter cube) needed 6 Steel Plates (one for each face), and each Steel Plate was worth 10 HPs, you'd get;
    SV Steel Block massing 6 kg with 60 HPs.

    Applying to a CV Steel Block (2 meter cube) you'd use 64 Steel Plates (16 for each face) resulting in;
    CV Steel Block massing 64 kg with 640 HPs.

    Could reasonably say something like; "extra internal bracing is required for integrity of large blocks" and tweak things so that;
    a CV Steel Block required 100 Steel Plates, massed 100 kg yet only had 500 HPs. (just using round numbers as example here)

    So this would increase the CV Steel Block material cost by a factor of 10, maintain HPs, yet -decrease- the mass to one tenth.

    What this 'solves' is the head scratching difference between the Small & Large block Thrusters!

    @Thundercraft s "thrust/energy ratio"s show that CV Thrusters had to get around a 10x boost in thrust to energy, compared to SV thrusters, just to be viable, due to the arbitrary Mass of Large Blocks.

    Rationalizing Mass across the board will also allow 'reasonable' thruster outputs across Small & Large block ships. :cool:

    Building wise first glance of a 10x Block Material Cost seems like a WTH?!?, but it actually wouldn't be very impactful until late game. Reason being all the POI & ship wreck blocks would already have all those materials, so salvaging a Titan section to make your first CV would be basically the same.
    ----
    As to thruster efficiency: personally I'm of a mind that HV/SV thrusters without exotic materials could gain a bit of efficiency as they get larger, then, by the addition of exotic mats, there could be a noticible step up.
    For CV thrusters, adding Tier 2 variants with noticibly better efficiency would be most welcome (T1s being upgradable of course, heh).


    Number Three: Large Block Hover Vehicles, &/or CV Hover Engines.

    This ones pretty much a no-brainer right? :p

    Mass & Volume combined with the 64:1 Large to Small Block size ratio kind of forces exploiting the BP Factory or, somehow, making a bicycle haul the Mass & Volume of a train.

    Personally I'd greatly prefer just adding in CV Hover Engines, not a new 'type' of ship.
    Have the current CV Thrusters & Warp Drive be the gate between a star faring CV and a plant bound one (not the CV Cockpit, pleeese!).

    Add in CV Hover-Thrusters (with built in mini RCS), like the newish starter HV Hover Thrusters. And just like the ones for the HV, they wouldn't get you much past an ugly mule like 'small' (for a CV) hauler. Slow but wouldn't kill you fuel wise.

    For say some Cobalt(?) you could make actual CV Hover Engines to handle more Mass, but, until you salvaged/looted CV Thruster/RCSs you'd need to be careful of your momentum :eek:.

    If you consider their use, CV Hovers needn't be OP'd. Currently once you build a CV you can already choose to use it haul materials within a gravity well, or build a combat CV and take on planetary POIs. If you chose to take on POIs w a CV Hover Tank, well, cool, have at it; you're seriously gimping yourself by giving up flying (yet, for some reason, I -really want to build Bolos!).

    Think of the mayhem! Of the hidious contraptions! Oh the Glory!! :cool::p:D
     
    #59
  20. IronCartographer

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    1,238
    A solution would be for smaller blocks to use less material to build, as discussed here: https://empyriononline.com/threads/alpha-9-4-experimental-new-block-shapes.47597/#post-294693

    While I do find it rather odd that you basically have to pay more material cost for aesthetics (relative to health value) with the current situation, the actual cost doesn't phase me that much since it's trivial compared to the bulk of internal hull and devices.

    Well, unless you use lagshot armor extensively.
     
    #60
    StyleBBQ likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page