The flaw in Empyrion (and similar games) ship building

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by TrashMan, Jul 9, 2018.

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

    Arrclyde Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2015
    Messages:
    1,736
    Likes Received:
    2,370
    For me fun is if physics are very basic, and the realism part is cut down to a minimum. Also i played way more hours in creative building ships and bases than i spend in survival, so i can clearly say ship building is a huge fun part of the game for me. My opinion isn't better than yours, but neither is yours compared to mine.

    The flaw you might see, isn't a flaw in other peoples eyes (in this case mine). The conveyor part in Space engineers made building nice looking ships way more complicated, or they where lacking basic features. It is more fiddling around with a flawed game mechanic than actual fun. So i actually hope those "realism" and engineering things stay out of the game or at least be a switch/toggle in the games options to turn off. And looking at a lot of examples... i am not sure if it is worth the amount of effort to create those realistic mechanics, if it only attracts a very small group of players.

    But looking at the way you descripe what ship creation means to you, i wonder if it is the right game you picked.
     
    #21
    Xorg78 and TK85 like this.
  2. TrashMan

    TrashMan Commander

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2018
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    130
    You don't technically need a conveyor if the magazine is right next to the gun. Having these requirements also have another positive effects - prevents players for just spammign every single gun on a vessel, because now guns actually come with a cost and a downside.

    What is stopping someone right now from gluing a max number of turrets on a tiny HV? nothing. And it will STILL have great armor and a single ammo box would be enough to feed it.

    There's a reason aircraft don't have 20 guns on them - most fighter planes only carry enough amo for a few bursts. OF course, this IS the future so we can assume more efficient engines/fuel so ti's safe to say empyrion vessels could probably carry more, but there still should be natural limits. Ammo has to have weight/significance.

    Natural balance is best balance, because it is pure common sense.
     
    #22
    Sofianinho likes this.
  3. TrashMan

    TrashMan Commander

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2018
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    130
    Ship building by definition is not a game.
    Or would you consider painting miniature models a "game". Fun activity maybe. But I digress.
    Simply cosmetic Building is pointless. It feels unrewardning when you have 20000 different ships, that all perform pretty much the same.

    I proposed a simpler mechanic than in SE. I dont' want full 100% realism either, I just want more sensible interplay between parts and consequences. Games areabout overcoming a challenge. Creating a good design within limiations IS a challenge. Simply cosmetic designs is not.

    I have no idea why would you call a sensible mechanic flawed, other than the fact that you don't like it. Perhaps thinking games are not for you.
     
    #23
    Sofianinho likes this.
  4. TrashMan

    TrashMan Commander

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2018
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    130
    That doesn't simulate anything...
     
    #24
  5. Arrclyde

    Arrclyde Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2015
    Messages:
    1,736
    Likes Received:
    2,370
    I am on your side that ships should come with trade offs. But building can actually be a game, as there are building games. So this part is not personal opinion. Since building games are a genre of their own you are pretty wrong.

    First of all there is no such things such as "the challenge". Second different people find different things challenging and interesting. I dare to say that most people play for relaxing fun. Third, if you are looking for an "engineering type of challenge".... somebody told me to tell people saying that "SE is that way ===>". After all this is Empyrion, galactic survival, not galactic engineering or engineering survival. The game suggest that you should survive in a galaxy, so if we talking challenges they should first and for most come from the environment, the galaxy, and that you master those challenges by surviving them.
    I always find it funny when people try to make their view (games are about challenges) the ultimate truth about something. Who says that THAT is what all games are about? And how come that games that offer at least to set the challenge to the absolut minimum are the most successful in the games market? Sure, because the games with the hardest challenges are the most successful...... not easy mode games like WoW or minecraft.

    Is that your way to end discussions? Trying to make you look smarter than others? Good luck with that...... ;-)
     
    #25
    Sephrajin, Xorg78, TK85 and 2 others like this.
  6. ravien_ff

    ravien_ff Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2017
    Messages:
    8,581
    Likes Received:
    15,970
    Empyrion IS a building game. It's also a survival game.

    You should add your feedback to the other thread on this subject here: https://empyriononline.com/threads/automatization-physcial-or-gui-based.35794/

    It seems the majority do not want physical connectors. Having to run conveyors between ammo boxes and all turrets means making your floors or walls 3 blocks thick due to texture and HP issues. If you do not need to run a conveyor connection from the ammo box to the turret and instead you need to add a "ammo feed block" next to the turret, then why not just assume the turret and hull has that built in already? Making people place a separate block next to each turret doesn't seem like it adds anything to the design or gameplay. They'll just hide the feed block under the turret anyway where it won't be destroyed, or otherwise cover it with armor plating.

    Conveyors in SE function similar and most people hide them from outside view, under the outer hull or armor.

    I fully support a combat overhaul which includes changing up the way turrets and weapon systems in general work. I hate the way the current limits are set up but I think it will be changed and balanced further along in development. I hope they don't go the way of making you have to engineer ships with clunky physical conveyors as that will kill *every* workshop design. Most blueprints can be easily adapted to pretty much any other changes the devs may have in mind, but blueprints can not be adapted to physical conveyors, that requires a complete redesign of every single base and vessel on the workshop and we seriously have to ask if the benefits outweigh the costs.

    It isn't that your idea is a bad idea, it's that I don't believe your idea fits well with the intended playstyle of this game.

    I have to stress again though that I fully support and am hopeful that we get more mechanics for ship and base design and gameplay elements, such as perhaps heat or cpu mechanics to limit turret placement instead of the current limits, shields or energized armor plating, different roles and strengths/weaknesses for weapons, better turret control, etc.

    It's a balancing act between complexity and realism or simplicity and gameplay.
     
    #26
    Sasquatch, TK85 and WolfEyes like this.
  7. StyxAnnihilator

    StyxAnnihilator Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2017
    Messages:
    936
    Likes Received:
    745
    This game have almost nothing that are really "real" physics. It just looks "realistic". Also take a look at all the mechanics in the game, where several of them are based on teleport technology. Having pipes and conveyors and such makes little sense when have teleportation.
    Transfer of materials from the personal drone (F5) to the inventory. Mats to and from the Blueprint Factory. And so on.
     
    #27
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
  8. stimdealer0001

    stimdealer0001 Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    647
    Likes Received:
    700
    Oh man, let's not get started on the blueprint factory. Why design ships in a survival game when you can just godmode and fly around in creative to build your work of art, then log back onto your survival server, collect the thousands of ore from your auto-miners and 'cook' the ship so it will appear out of thin air 30min later.
     
    #28
    Sofianinho likes this.
  9. dichebach

    dichebach Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2016
    Messages:
    838
    Likes Received:
    875
    I don't think anyone here is out to trash your comment or your view Trashman! As I said, my natural inclination is to AGREE with you. If I made a game that followed my natural inclinations, then the space ship would have to have X number or rolls of toilet paper, and the number of squares on each roll would be counted and the mass for each square would be added to the total mass for the ship and the serial numbers on all the rolls would be there! :eek:

    LOGISTICS is how most large scale operations succeed or fail and logistics is about lists and massive processes, but also about thousands of tiny little details and getting each one of them perfectly correct. War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition is one of my favorite games ever.

    WiTPAE supposedly sold ~> 1 million copies, so maybe it is possible to have your excruciatingly detailed simulation AND eat your profits too. But this has been known to "Not work" so it is understandable that most game designers don't push it that far.
     
    #29
  10. Arrclyde

    Arrclyde Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2015
    Messages:
    1,736
    Likes Received:
    2,370
    Well i am on the other end there too. I love the possibility to create in creative for the use in survival. The way it is implemented could be different though. But if that possibility wouldn't have been there (at least planned) from the start i probably wouldn't have bought the game. Simply because i don't have too much time on my hand. And building a ship in survival alone is taking 3 up to 10 times longer than in creative. And still have to see an appealing ship design that is made purely in survival. To me appealing of course, not to others. I can only speak for myself.
     
    #30
  11. Damocles

    Damocles Captain

    Joined:
    May 3, 2018
    Messages:
    508
    Likes Received:
    559
    When you design a "space vehicle building game" you have tree independent mechanics:

    1-visual design freedom (player can create any visual look he wants)
    2-game balancing (how game vehicle designs fair against others, not letting one design always be the best solution)
    3-realism (plausible mechanics)

    You might be able to optimize two of them, but not all tree.

    Kerbal space program is targeting 2 and 3 for example.
    Empyrion is targeting 1 (and somehow trying 2).

    If mechanics have to be plausible, it would limit the freedom to have the same mechanics to make a ship look like an X-Wing, a Normandy, a Star-Trek shuttle or a coffee-mug.
     
    #31
    dichebach, Undead Rufus and TK85 like this.
  12. Captain Jack II

    Captain Jack II Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2016
    Messages:
    2,515
    Likes Received:
    3,742
    I share the OP's desire for more ship building depth, as do many, but Empyrion simply isn't that type of game (not yet). It's not a space ship building simulator. It's more like a big pile of Legos. Just about anyone can build a flying machine in this game, so it has an accessibility to it that KSP and SE don't. Some people just don't care about simulated reality when they are playing, pretending, and creating.
     
    #32
  13. Arrclyde

    Arrclyde Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2015
    Messages:
    1,736
    Likes Received:
    2,370
    That is always the point where i wonder: what is many to some people? I hope in this case you are not talking about the handful on this forum that constantly ask for features to make the game more complicated and scientific accurate. That is far far far far far away from being "many" in any kind, shape and/or form. That is a loud minority at best.
    To be fair: some of the ideas have a very good point behind them. Their are just "unluckily" wrapped up and not really thought out well. Most things belong into calculations for Space/Moon/Mars missions and not in a game, but the intend behind them is really good (immersion, balance). It is just the way they are executed (theoretically) is, for a game, pretty poor and will not really help the game itself. It will probably rather hurt the games success in the long run. To be honest, a games success is not depending on a hand full of hardcore fans that blindly accept design flaws to just play their favorite game, like not at all. Or if a hand full of people liking the game because it is so realistic and complicated and time consuming.
    The last one leads me to another company who makes in survival games too, and the rumors among hardcore fans already spread wide that they will make a second part of the game (with dinosaurs).... and i wonder if they really believe what they say about part two after part ones real bad design decisions (PvP, PvE, performance, general gameplay mechanics that take way to much time). And do they really have the delusional strong believe that it will sell well anyway near the first part.

    People on any forum are never a good indicator of what "many" want. Only what parts of the small group of more interested and dedicated players want.
     
    #33
    TK85 and WolfEyes like this.
  14. Tina Pedersen

    Tina Pedersen Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2015
    Messages:
    396
    Likes Received:
    547
    ONE important factor you all forget....

    Loads of you, scream for "conveyors are needed to transport stuff from A to B" ... saying, things are "Not realistic"... Well, here comes a small heads up, with the weight of any given imaginary sledgehammer;

    Empyrion, is a fantasy game.... there's nothing real in it, as per say.
    Ever seen a device, that remotely grants you stuff by pressing a button ?
    Ever fallen out of the atmosphere in a broken rescue pod ?
    Ever seen resources curled up like little willing pools of happyness waiting to be plucked ?

    No.... well, ok... but, those things are neat, no ?
    As i see it, you either;
    A: Accept the game, and the mechanis, as they are, and are intended. OR;
    B: Go ahead, and recreate the whole thing from scratch, and give it a new name, as you wont be sitting with Empyrion any longer.

    I really do get annoyed, when people scream, that this and that isnt realistic in any way, shape or form, because, things arent meant to be realistic at all. theyre meant to be fun, entertaining, and naturally, challenging.
    Yeah, the game is easy to play... for now. They havent even finished the base game mechanics yet, so how the binkies do you expect them to work on content, meant to impact game difficulty harder than it allready does ?

    "But, a shell weighs as much as a sedan!" .... Maybe... maybe not.... maybe, the bloody shell, never actually materializes before the matter reaches the dang chamber of X gun ? .... REALLY....... this game's biggest, and toughest challenge, is for it's players to accept the things that are hard to accept.... Precisely as back when 99% of the worlds population thought the world was flat.

    This is NOT me telling you, that the game doesent need new ideas. sure it does, and a LOT of them aswell, but whimpering over one minor thing, which the dev team actually allready spoke about a long time ago, is just silly.
    (Yep, dev's DID actually say, that any and all blocks were part of the internal power and transportation system of the game.)

    "BUT BUT BUT!!... Disconnected blocks still get their stuff, even though their broken!!"
    Yeah, and, Nicola Tesla, also invented a way to harness energy out of the air, AND... created a system to distribute said energy... in REAL LIFE!.... SO, deducting everything is matter untill it reaches destination, we can simply transport it via air when needed..... imagination, fantasy, dreaming.... NOT, rules set in stone about physics, mechanics and their workings, in a world we can never imagine being real. simply silly and awkward to think that is even remotely logical :-/

    ... oh, and yeah... i yap a lot at times.... mostly, when i get annoyed... sometimes, i actually have something meaningfull to say, like now. BUT!, im sooooo binkies at telling things because my head overflows... i should stop myself here ^-^

    Have funs ^.^
     
    #34
  15. Arrclyde

    Arrclyde Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2015
    Messages:
    1,736
    Likes Received:
    2,370
    What i can agree with is that in terms of "what the game needs" is some way to transfer loads of different items from one entity to another (ship to ship, ship to base) and a way to control where which items go (O2 to O2 tanks, fuelcells to fuel tanks). But i am not really sold on the idea that it needs to be a physical system in order to be fun. I am actually on the opposite of that idea that it actually prevents fun from happening when it gets to clumbsy, to complicated and to realistic. Same with weight. Can be good for balancing but actually has way to many chances of actually harming the whole game system more than it brings in the good and fun parts.
     
    #35
  16. WolfEyes

    WolfEyes Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2018
    Messages:
    992
    Likes Received:
    1,275
    Lately I've been dinking around in PN while waiting for a more stable Empyrion release. It (PN) has a conveyor system that works quite well. Now that I've had a chance to work with it, I do like the idea of a conveyor system in Empyrion, IF it is done right. There aren't any mountable weapons in PN (which is a bit disappointing) yet so I don't have any idea how that would work. Heck, I can't even fill the huge hole in my front yard because the PN devs (PN is Unity) don't think it can be done. :rolleyes:

    I keep wishing the devs from both games would get together and help each other. :eek::D

    Seriously though, I can see where both games would benefit immensely from a "meeting of minds". :)
     
    #36
    68plex and TK85 like this.
  17. MidasGunhazard

    MidasGunhazard Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2017
    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    846
    You're not totally wrong, but I'm not sure ammo conveyors solve any of those problems. Lots of systems have been proposed to solve these sorts of problems - if indeed they truly are problems.

    This could potentially be rolled into the Automization issue as well, since whatever system is used for that should also reasonably apply to conveying ammo across the ship.
     
    #37
  18. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    6,291
    Likes Received:
    9,098
    As far as ammo supply is concerned, there are three general questions to consider:
    • How much does the system store?
    • How fast can the system supply it?
    • How expensive is it to supply per unit?
    Right now, the answers are: far more than can physically fit in the storage volume at solid density, infinitely fast, none. The answers I'd like a new ammo supply system to have would be: close-to-realistic at solid density, per-container limit, energy charge per unit mass and unit distance traveled.

    Yes; the same three questions I posed above apply to any general system that will move items around within a structure. And I'd argue that my preferred answers to them solve most of the current problems with ammo supply and moving things between inventories within a structure.
     
    #38
  19. Aetrion

    Aetrion Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    63
    To some people the engineering is the fun part, and having it simplified to the point where it's basically irrelevant what you build as long as it has all its guns point in a single direction and can turn on a dime doesn't really leave an outlet for clever engineering.
     
    #39
    Sofianinho likes this.
  20. MidasGunhazard

    MidasGunhazard Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2017
    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    846
    But it's not the focus of the game. Its part of the game as it currently exists, but it's obviously not what the devs aimed for the game to revolve around, otherwise Empyrion would look way more like Space Engineers.
     
    #40
    Sephrajin and Captain Jack II like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page