Thrusters inside the vessel

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by R4z0rbee, Jun 20, 2017.

  1. LeVentNoir

    LeVentNoir Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2017
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    94
    Sorry, I cannot in any way believe you're halfway serious about this.

    1. Thrusters, aesthetically are ugly. (beacuse you use the big ones, because they're the only ones that are functional, and as such, two to four provide all the thrust you need) As such, for aesthetics of design, they're placed internally to avoid looking at them.
    2. Thrusters have annoying shapes, and can only be placed in certain spots in the correct orientation, and that may be a collection of internal thrusters.
    3. Thrusters are crimainally weak. 500 hp for a 2x2 larger thruster, that gets targeted by players and ai?! No. that's getting some combat armour slapped over it, just for single player. Now there's 8000hp of blocks instead of 500 in that area.

    Look at my creation, where are the thrusters? They're in the rear pods, tucked away, and the ship has lovely clean profiles, and no 2x2x4 thrusters cluttering up the main hull or generating mismatched and ugly holes in the pods. Yes, there are 12 large thrusters internal to those two pods. Sure, I have the rear thrusters uncovered, but that's because the aesthetics of that area are easy. This isn't even a PVP ship, this is purely what is needed to survive SP.

    Look at most designs on the workshop, they're planar or rotationally symmetrical, and thrusters make maintaining this hard. Especially when people want to use the most effective thrusters.

    If you force us to use external thrusters, you need to rework thrust / power ratios, so that more smaller thrusters are more efficent than larger ones, and so we can have both reasonable 20m/s+ accelerations without resorting to a ball of thrusters or singular points of failure. Asthetically, thrusters are best when they're small, easy to place, and there are enough of them to place in nice locations. That's why the Polaris looks good, despite having absolutely trash performance.

    If this change goes through, I'm going to have to build a core of a ship first, then provide exhaust ports and weak channels, and then the actual shape of the ship instead of the much nicer building of a general frame and adding in devices as part two.
     
    #521
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2017
    Pyston, rucky and Neal like this.
  2. Neal

    Neal Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2016
    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    1,127
    Agreed. Thrusters, just like Turrets, are best when they are hidden away, mostly because their looks just kill every flowing line and are just not very aesthetic to look at in general.
     
    #522
  3. Malekh

    Malekh Commander

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2016
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    139
    I'm in a mixed bag regarding thrusters. I certainly don't like the look of them, and they are a combat liabilty (especially with homing missiles these days and the ability to target specific systems). However, i do agree one a practical level with the concept that they should be exterior and obeying the laws of physics as we know theml. I don't know, it leaves me in a big grey area. I build my ships around them being exposed, but at the same time i can see why they shouldn't be. When you watch star trek, although i'm informed that they have specific maneuvering thrusters, it's not what you see. And the star trek ships look very clean and elegant because they're not exposed. I'll roll with however the game ends up implementing them, but for me it's a decidedly grey area. I do think it would kill a lot of creativity though, if it became fixed that way.
     
    #523
    Neal likes this.
  4. SilvRav

    SilvRav Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2017
    Messages:
    436
    Likes Received:
    369
    smirk...laugh...hahahah! shame. I would love for you to go stand behind a jet engine and see what happens
     
    #524
    oojimaflip and geostar1024 like this.
  5. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,412
    Likes Received:
    1,753
    1. Models can be changed (that's the easy part); getting the mechanics right is much more important at this stage. Physically, it makes sense that larger thrusters are more efficient (plus it's good from a game mechanics perspective; if they didn't have some advantages, why would you ever upgrade?).

    2. Shapes can get altered with new models too; but the point is that thrusters are somewhat bulky, so either design for that or accept the performance you get from an array of smaller thrusters.

    3. Armored thrusters that are substantially more massive (2x-5x depending on how easy you want to make things) might be a good solution; you basically are trading TWR for HP.
     
    #525
    oojimaflip likes this.
  6. jharyl

    jharyl Ensign

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2017
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    9
    Indeed i think that thruster should be visible (as this is more "real") but their should also be a drive that could be used internal. I like to build spherical ships and visible thruster would be a no go. F.e. BorgShips or a Cylon Basestar have no visible drives. So, let there be another drive that could be used internal. Make it a bit less powerful (as we can stack more of them) and call it gravitational drive.
     
    #526
  7. _Vyrus_

    _Vyrus_ Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2017
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    38
    1 - Aesthetically pleasing is a subjective matter and pure opinion. You don't like the color green, so everything green should be repainted red.
    Uh, no. Get over yourself.

    2 - Same as number 1

    3 - Sure, buffs to thruster HP are cool. Why not.

    Thrusters don't make this hard. Design better. Plan your design better. Get some graph paper and plot it all out before you build. Again, you're putting forth your subjective opinion about aesthetics as if they're facts that should be adhered to, but they're not.

    This is just ridiculous. The larger thrusters SHOULD be more efficient. This makes sense. Otherwise there's absolutely no reason to ever unlock anything other than the 1x1 thrusters. It's a silly idea. A resounding NO from me. This just seems like whining because you only want to design ships in one specific way.

    You must not play pvp, because that's what you SHOULD be doing anyways. Armored core with layers of empty space between armor blocks for splash damage AND skipshot protection, maintenance ports to crawl through to repair your ship, combat hull with another empty layer, then another layer of combat armor, repeat 2-4 times. Redundant systems, chambered systems to prevent explosion chains, etc. If you're building basic, expect basic performance. Frankly I disagree with your entire premise here and hope none of it comes to pass because it would make designing effective ships simplistic and without any design challenge or effort required.

    Gaming needs to stop constantly ez-moding and simplifying it's products in order to appease people who just want to faceroll the keyboard and succeed instead of learning, adapting and improving in order to play the game more efficiently and skillfully. It's one of the worst trends in gaming over the last decade. Stop it.
     
    #527
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2017
  8. JDaremo Fireheart

    JDaremo Fireheart Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2016
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    97
    It's something we're going to have to adapt to.
    I have many builds with hidden thrusters, including my Venom series and my HC-61 HVs. I seriously hope that when they introduce the new thruster rules, they bring in more aesthetically pleasing thrusters.
    No sense in losing your heads over it. We will adapt as we always have.
     
    #528
  9. oojimaflip

    oojimaflip Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Messages:
    681
    Likes Received:
    1,289
    My current rules for thrusters:

    In front I leave the same number of blocks free as the length of the thruster...
    Small= 1 block
    Medium= 2 blocks
    Large= 4 blocks
    XL= 6 blocks

    I don't really care if people want to hide their thrusters, I just want thruster damage applied from something that looks like it should cause damage.
     
    #529
    vicomt, geostar1024 and rainyday like this.
  10. LeVentNoir

    LeVentNoir Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2017
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    94
    You're right, I don't play PVP, and I'm getting quite frustrated with the elitist and damaging attitudes you are bringing into this game.

    "Yeah, you should be building super hardcore ships, and we want the devs bow down to us and our design philosophies."

    (As a side note, I see you've got nothing on the workshop, care publishing some of your designs so we can all see the quality and styling of them?)

    I bought this game because of one premise: I can build sweet looking space ships and fly them around. And know what? I can do that. I have my designs on the workshop and I think they're pretty cool. Not rated for pvp, but that's never been anything I've done in any voxel game. I'm not saying that you shouldn't play pvp, that's fine, but don't ruin single player, or casual pve gameplay with requirements for how 'the game should be played'.

    It's ok for the game to be easy. Don't act like it's a bad trend just because gaming is reaching out to more and more people, and quite a lot of them might just want to relax and only spend a bit of time on the game.

    I built my ship using the following premise: I wanted two decks, a hanger, hv hanger pods, then fuel / warp / main engines at the back. That was cool. I tucked my other thrusters behind some armour because the AI have stupid hitscan weapons, and it wasn't possible to get the thrusters to line up on the hull in a pleasing design. I know it's not 'graph paper skipshot proof multi armour layer pvp compliant', but thats not the game I'm playing. I'm playing this game for an hour or two just to build cool stuff and fly it around.

    Exposed thrusters without any changes to power / area / thrust ratios just make building cool stuff significantly more annoying as you have to go much bigger than you actually need to arrange things so that the exterior has the asthetics you want. If thrusters can be hidden, then they can just be shoved in any old how, and the ship can be smaller with good exterior aesthetics.

    Exposed thrusters without any changes to AI hitscan weapons or thruster HP just makes playing SP more of a chore, as you have to get shot up more and more and more, and that's not what you signed up for, remember, pve or sp is valid way to play.

    If you really want exposed thrusters for some reason, thats all good, but I'm not really seeing any possible improvements to the sp or pve experience, and that should be the baseline for changes.

    I'd even accept an option 'asthetic ship performance', which lets you build ships as we currently do, and that could be turned off if you want weak points exposed to space. I don't want such weak points, because I'm not interested in combat in the game. I'm here to build and explore, and that's thedraw of this game for me.

    For combat I have other games, most recently Killing Floor 2. For deep involved systems learning and planning, Path of Exile scratches that itch. For hardcore hard to handle survival in a PVP enviroment, I play 7 Days to Die.

    But Empyrion is first and foremost, for me, a game about building cool looking science fiction spaceships and space bases, and currently, the game is significantly more attractive if thrusters can be protected. You may disagree, that's fine, but you're not playing the same game for the same reasons, and all I ask is that your hardcore pvp design stance not ruin or run rampant of what is primarily a creative building and exploration game.
     
    #530
    Pyston and SylenThunder like this.
  11. Frankyln

    Frankyln Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2015
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    1,444
    I'm so tired of PvP this. PvE that.
    This game currently is designed as one game.

    What affects one affects the other.

    Both sides are being elitist.

    First I assume if they move thrusters to the out side that it not going to just be a check. There will be balance updates like hp/armor.

    I assume there will be texture option to make thrusters visually appealing.

    If all you care about is hiding the thruster one layer of armor is sufficient.
    I could see them offering a selection of thruster caps like we currently use the vent block. Somthing like light blocks, grates, Automatic thruster doors, etc. These could disable the thrusters default visual exhaust trail but not the damage. Caps would have little to no hp and be visually distinct from armor so it can be targeted manually.

    In the end there needs to be a solution that can acomidate all.
     
    #531
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2017
    geostar1024 and Mortlath like this.
  12. Rathnaga

    Rathnaga Ensign

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    13
    One side wants to restrict thruster placement to fit their own ideal vision, the other side wants freedom to build how they prefer. There isn't really a middle ground there.

    Personally, I don't think creating thruster placement restrictions is ever going to work. Many people don't want to have tons of blue flares coming out of their ship all over the place, and clustering them up isn't very smart for a combat design. This game isn't just a ship building simulator, it is about survival, combat, and expressing yourself through the freedom of creation. I have seen people make ships with interior furnaces and other neat effects created by having interior thrusters.

    The aesthetics argument is in favor of freedom.
    The tactical argument is in favor of freedom.

    The only reason someone would want to force thrusters to be outside of the ship is if they care more about an irrelevant issue of physics than the actual prosperity of the game - an issue that I DO care about.
     
    #532
  13. _Vyrus_

    _Vyrus_ Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2017
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    38
    Considering that SP can be modded and console commanded nigh-limitlessly on our own end, the issues you bring up only hurt MP needlessly.
    I play SP as well, and you can do whatever you want there. Hell you can just sit in creative and spawn crap, fly around, have limitless freedom. If there's any dev change to the game you can mod it out if you don't like it or add your own gameplay features.
    "Elitist and damaging attitudes" Oh stop being such a sensitive flower. Good lord.

    No, I just don't think the game should be dumbed down constantly to account for people wanting to put forth as little thought and effort as possible.

    You can see my designs if you meet me in pvp space, otherwise, no.

    Making designs require some kind of thought, planning and effort is "ruining single player"? Ugh, I think I threw up a little.

    No. I disagree, vehemently. There's billions of "casual/mainstream" games. It's infested the entire industry and any time a game comes out with ANY degree of complexity or challenge to appeal to actual gamers, old school actually plays games for challenge and to improve through practice and effort competitive gamers, the casual crowd has to infect that game too like a cancer, gutting all of the good elements out of the game, destroying any of the depth and complexity, before getting bored and abandoning it to go back to the established casual gamer titles leaving the industry constantly developing forgettable and disappointing products, scamming as much pre-order/dlc cash as possible and running leaving 1000's of terrible titles half-completed with nothing but negative reviews and sour memories.

    So no, I don't think it's ok for yet ANOTHER promising game to be dumbed down and made into another casual ez-mode pile, when it has the potential for greatness to fill the void that mainstream gaming has left in it's wake.

    We're going to disagree here, indefinitely, and that's fine. As long as the game is moddable on our end to set up servers and undo any damage done to the game to ez-mode it down then I suppose it really doesn't matter other than the principle of the matter.
     
    #533
  14. oojimaflip

    oojimaflip Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Messages:
    681
    Likes Received:
    1,289
    Truth. Seen it.
     
    #534
  15. Pyston

    Pyston Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2016
    Messages:
    396
    Likes Received:
    689
    Expose thrusters for "realism" and "pvp balance"
    at the same time
    100% Conceal fuel tanks, oxygen tanks, ammunition crates, cargo containers, completely negating realism and allowing cheese pvp ships to still be built.

    The fact is thrusters will still get buried (just make sure the plume does not hit a block and is "exposed to space"), the only difference between now and the future is that ships will look worse in the future with less creative freedom.

    Note: I actually have no issues with exposes thrusters, what I have issues with is the need to have a dozen thrusters on any given side to make a largish ship move descently. Graphics and player builds is what sells your game, lots of thrusters planted on the side of a ship does not look cool...AND NO this is not subjective, in fact this is proven mathematically through the Fibonacci number and the golden ratio.

    Note#2: Everyone talking about how games are too easy today, all seem to champion the PDA. The PDA is the worst thing to hit empyrion. We should not be fueling by opening the PDA, we should be refueling at fuel station created on bases, even in its simplest form to work like the repair block. Fuel should be stored in special containers that are Base only for CV's. BA and CV only for SV/HV. The PDA speeds the game up, you should be implementing mechanics that slow the game down.

    Same argument for ammunition.
    Same argument for oxygen (should take place in the same place as the fuel station)
    Cargo should only be able to be accessed by clicking on the container.

    The amount of hypocrisy in this thread is astonishing.
     
    #535
    Frankyln likes this.
  16. Tina Pedersen

    Tina Pedersen Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2015
    Messages:
    387
    Likes Received:
    520
    ... dun like it... design around it -,-
     
    #536
    _Vyrus_ likes this.
  17. Frankyln

    Frankyln Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2015
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    1,444
    Looks can be changed.
    You may have a row of thruster but why do they need to look like thrusters.
    The could be something like light panels, grates, Automatic thruster doors, etc for all I care.
    The visual Thruster trail could be enabled or disable, the thruster damage id say no.
    Just so long as there on the outside of the ship and don't look like armor blocks.
    It is up to the player shooting at me to figure out what my thruster look like or use the all magical Turret Targeting system:mad:.
     
    #537
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2017
  18. _Vyrus_

    _Vyrus_ Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2017
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    38
    Still one of the lamest moves ever in a game with player vs player as an option. Boooo to all auto-aiming crap in pvp.
     
    #538
    Frankyln likes this.
  19. Frankyln

    Frankyln Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2015
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    1,444
    I hear you any form of target locking system be it turret or missile. It should require a player to manual lock the target first. Skill not magic.
    I digress

    The threads about Thruster on the outside/inside.
    Now you can continue your Fight... I mean Debate.
     
    #539
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2017
    _Vyrus_ likes this.
  20. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,412
    Likes Received:
    1,753
    Actually, I'd argue it's pretty realistic to armor all of one's containers and tanks. What is tricky/impossible to armor are one's propulsion, weapon, and thermal exhaust systems.

    I'd be all for thrusters with higher thrust/volume ratios, as long as there were tradeoffs (lower thrust/mass and thrust/input power). We could also use thrusters with different shapes (thinner but longer), as well as thrusters with more HP (a more massive, maybe slightly less efficient version with more HP).

    I'd argue that what we need instead is much more along the lines of a virtual conveyor system, such as @Frankyln has proposed. Then those who want to can automate flows of resources within their ships, but it's something that would take some work, rather than just handed to the player. And I think that the control panel should be something the player has to gain access to via a suit module or similar if they want to use it when not sitting in a seat.

    But it really depends on how accurate the auto-aim algorithm is. With the appropriate amount of lag in response to enemy ship movements and a large enough spread in projectiles, auto-aim turrets could be made quite inferior to a player-aimed turret (just look at the POI plasma and laser turrets). Sure, you could stuff more of them into your ship to compensate, but if they require enough power and add enough mass, your ship might not fly very well.
     
    #540
    SylenThunder and _Vyrus_ like this.

Share This Page