An idea for replacing the F2 factory with a concrete system for producing structures from blueprints The F2 factory is long overdue for a replacement, and I have an idea what to replace it with. The crux of it is to expand the ship repair template mechanic into a blueprint construction system. The key features are two new capabilities for cores; A) the ability to select repair templates at will from a player's blueprints, and B) the ability to project that template as unbuilt "phantom" blocks. Instead of dumping ingots and blocks into a mystery hole and receiving a completed ship some time later, player would use their own multitools, multiturrets, and repair pads to build ships from blueprints using blocks produced by their own constructors. This would require players to produce ships and infrastructure specifically for ship and base production, and turn construction into a skill-based activity rather than time-based. This idea requires changing several devices and adding a few new systems, but requires zero new blocks. In practice, a player will drop a starter block as normal to create the new structure. In said structure's control panel, the actual blueprint is then selected from the player's portfolio and placed in close proximity to the core, similar in fashion to spawning from blueprints currently. This allows for precise placement, avoids collision issues, and respects the "Blueprint Spawn Limit" difficulty setting. Instead of creating a completed structure, however, the strucure is built with all its blocks (besides the core) in an semi-tangible "projected" state. Blocks in this state are intangible to players an ships, but still have collision with terrain. These blocks must be upgraded/repaired using multitools, multiturrets, repair pads, or even just the right block from their toolbar (in the last case, the projected block's orientation is used) to actually build the structure. These tools would pull the required blocks from a connected cargo container. To accommodate bases with cores located away from terrain, structural integrity will have to be suspended while in template projection mode. Rebuilding a ship from one blueprint to another could be done using this system as well. When the new blueprint is projected, any conflicting blocks would be highlighted in red until removed, making room for the the new block in a projected state. When using a repair pad, conflicting blocks would be removed to its assigned cargo container. As always, there are snags to be worked out. To prevent multitool construction resulting in unreachable gaps, only projected blocks adjacent to already built ones would be buildable (starting with those around the core). To prevent exploits, a structure could not have template projection active and be powered simultaneously. Any damage to the structure would deactivate template projection immediately. Spawning a new starter next to a POI offering repair services could allow players to buy ships almost entirely with credits, but this is probably a desirable feature. The projection mode could probably also be used to move structures around very short distances. I'm not entirely sure if it could be exploited, but I am fairly sure it would be a great QoL for correcting placement mistakes (an SV stuck inside a hangar, for instance). A short cooldown between projection activations may be in order. For space construction, enabling small multiturrets for SVs would be a fine thing as well. Explaining dense ideas like this is always a challenge, so I've probably left something out without realizing it. Speak up if I have.
This sounds a little like my Nanoframes suggestion, combined with the build system from Space Engineers. I like the nanoframe suggestion more, but this is also interesting. One problem I foresee is that in builds of any significant size would be problematic to hand build block-by-block, because its somewhat easy to leave out a block and build fully around it, and not even realise. For manual builds in SE you have to build very carefully to avoid this. The repair pad method is certainly one way around this, though hopefully they would fix the repair pad's incredible janky-ness for this purpose. It wouldn't help for large BAs however. If I understand the idea correctly, I think they would be incredibly tricky and frustrating to build in this system.
Well like I said, construction would finally be an actual game skill. Correcting a gap would be a lot easier in Empyrion than it is in SE, though, since you can just retrieve an obstructing block right back into the connected cargo container. To retain the automated production functionality for BAs, it would probably be enough to have CV repair pads work on them. In an advanced game, you'd lay down a blueprint and your construction CV's horizontally-mounted repair pad at it.
I agree with Average. It would be a pain to build by mulitool, and build pads are still kinda janky. However I could see it working if there were player owned drones who would work the blocks instead. Simply assign them to a resource container, tell them what template to use, have them auto-place a core at a location of your choosing, and then watch them auto-assemble the base or ship you want.
I'm assuming anything larger than an SV is going to just NEED a repair pad to build in a reasonable amount of time. Hand building an entire ship would be something you do early on to make a starter ships. Perhaps the tier one repair pad would be rejiggered to provide full functionality only on small block craft, and tier twos would work on anything. You could also knock the tier one pad down to only needing cobalt, letting players get useful ship production going earlier. Losing an SV to space drones is less of a pain when you can get another going in just a few minutes.
I'm interested to hear more about the building skill you mentioned. It would be nice to have some more factors involved for blueprints. But for the building system itself, what would be the advantage over a nanoframe system, which in comparison allows cooperative building, requires very little changes to the UI/HUD, would be less tedious for hand building, and wouldn't risk hidden incomplete blocks in hand builds?
Mainly I'm hoping to create gameplay using as few changes and additions as possible. As you know, blueprint production doesn't have any gameplay. It's just boring on its own, especially if you don't design your own structures. One of the odder results of this void I've seen is a lot of players just swear blueprints off entirely, instead making up designs on the spot in survival. They seem to have a good time of it, too. So, I figure a system that mimics this experience by making blueprint production a paint-by-numbers affair would be a good way to turn it from a boring bit of paperwork into a source of creative gameplay. I mostly see said gameplay revolving around planning out construction methods and designing ships and bases to do it. On the low end, a player would take parts from a portable constructor and use them to fill out the blueprint for a starter HV. On the high end, a pvp clan may have a production chain of orbital stations around their claimed system churning out parts for the fighters and warships they'll need for the next fight. In between you might have a few co-op players multitooling together a large mining HV in their garage. A larger group's fortress may begin by laying out the foundation first, then having one player complete the walls with a multiturret HV from the outside while others place the interior devices and fixtures by hand. I'm looking to existing systems for the paradigm here. For example, operating a farm is very simple in concept. Grow plots, plants, and grow lights have very mundane mechanics. In execution, however, each person has their own methodologies, preferences, requirements, and best practices for farming. The problem itself is simple. It's only a challenge because you have so many interesting correct choices to answer it with. The fun comes from trying them all out. Two thoughts are kind of guiding this idea in my head. First, as little new complexity should be added to gain as much new depth as possible. We already know about repair templates. The only new additions are the ability to see and use those templates manually, and the ability to swap them out. Hopefully this means players would need to assimilate very little new information to use this system. You've seen how much trouble people had adapting to mass & volume, CPU limits, and the A11 flight mechanics. Contrast that to A12's galaxy map, which had almost no new skills to learn, but vastly expanded upon what could be done with the skills players already knew. While those previous additions were subject to degrees of controversy, A12's galaxy map was universally heralded as a triumph. This brings me to my second thought. I'm kinda hoping the experience of making prefab ships block by block will serve as a stealth tutorial on design for players that might be too unsure of their skills to try designing for themselves. The more people are able to comfortably express themselves though Empyrion's building mechanics, the more they'll enjoy the game.
for reference here, I would like to throw the opinion of a player who almost exclusively uses the current blueprint system into the ring. In my honest opinion, we should look at block naming conventions before we start forcing players to build things manually, even if following a template. Corner A1 isn't very descriptive and does nothing at all to help a player visualize how it fits together in the grand scheme of things. I make this distinction because there may be others like myself who find it difficult to find the blocks they're looking for within the sea of poorly named choices. For myself at least, this is due to a vision related disability, but others may have different issues with the naming conventions/their own challenges with visualization. I use the blueprint system because I don't know which blocks can fit where. This brings me to my second point. If we start changing up the way blueprints work as a whole, we eliminate the ability of a player to quickly get back on their way after a devastating setback. I know there are many players who throw a bunch of extra resources into the factory in order to recover from the catastrophic loss of being shot down while exploring a new planet in their SV and are left stranded, unable to return to their CV waiting patiently for them in orbit. I understand the wishes of some to bring gameplay to the factory, however there must be a way to do this while still preserving the ability to store completed blueprints somewhere that can be easily summoned to ease the suffering of the stranded traveler. Prior planning in the form of filling out the factory beforehand, or having quick build ship blueprints on hand is a part of the game just as much as hand building every craft block by block. I personally don't find it boring to use the current factory, I only find the wait for completion to be the sticking point. I think a nice middle ground would be requiring players to put the exact blocks and devices in, not just raw ingots. This would insure they know exactly what goes into each build, and would drastically reduce the time spent waiting after everything is ready. It also insures players have unlocked all related technologies to ease repairs before spawning anything. This would also stop players from just throwing everything at the factory, using it as a storage system as you would apply each submission to a template directly rather than to a general collection of materials. This would also allow players to work on multiple blueprint preparations at the same time as you are sending completed products to fill each blueprint rather than just raw mats.
I kind of feel a nanoframe system would do this much better. You select and place the nanoframes using the existing factory interface, then you add to them using the multitool. It's very intuitive and there isn't too much mucking around with blocks. In the nanoframe thread, several people thought I was proposing the SE system with per-block building, and they really didn't like it. I'm not sure most people would want a blueprint system that worked on a per-block basis like in SE. This is an interesting thought. I would say that I think most players will resent being railroaded into that though, so I'm a little uncertain that's a good move for the game given the current audience. Perhaps if was an optional addition? Please feel free to critique the nanoframe suggestion if you like, I'm just not seeing the advantage of this system over a nanoframe style one as yet, although I'm willing to change my mind.
Aside from contributing very little to gameplay, the F2 factory is also extremely easy to exploit. Assets stored in it are untouchable. Players commonly use it to carry quantities of loot and resources in perfect safety aboard ships totally incapable of carrying as much themselves. Though it may be useful to keep a spare shuttle in your back pocket for when you've been shot down (something you're supposed to recover from by respawning at home base and building a new ship), pvpers also use this function to spawn instant siege fortresses outside other players' bases. In making blueprint manufacturing a block-by-block process, I'm hoping to imbue it with the same granularity as freehand building, allowing the two methods to blend together. Structures aren't black boxes, after all. They can be and are modified constantly as soon as their first blocks are laid down. I believe constructing from a blueprint should afford the same creative freedom. If a player sees a change they wish to make in the middle of construction, all they would have to do is turn off the blueprint for a second and make it. This method is meant to be very close to making such changes as one would in freehand design or on an existing structure. Like I said, players need to be asking very sparingly to learn new information. Their own creativity will be a much better teacher, anyway.
I agree you on the current factory. It breaks immersion and cheapens the feel of construction. I theoretically agree with your idea about granularity and creativity of block-by-block building, but think it would be too tedious in practice especially for BAs (based on my experience with Space Engineers which has something similar to what you propose). So I think I follow your arguments but I still feel a Nanoframe system would achieve most of this better. You don't seem to want to engage with the nanoframe idea, but this is your thread so that's fair enough. Thanks for the discussion.
Tedium is a risk that I think can be mitigated. If you've ever done a mass upgrade to the outer armor of a ship while connected to a large box of supplies, that's about how it should work to install finished blocks with a multitool/turret. It should take about as much time and effort as mining. Very large structures will require a repair pad to practicably construct. It's only early on when you have few resources and are building very small vessels that you'd have to install blocks by hand, and you're probably doing that anyway to either freehand build or modify a starter HV.
