When did Small SV thruster became as useless as the big ones?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by nottrox ¯\ (ツ) /¯, Oct 7, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. nottrox ¯\ (ツ) /¯

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2018
    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    136
    So haven't played for a couple of month and now i have to notice that several SVs i have used before are useless now. I was already annoyed by the bigger SV thrusters as these haven't been more effectice than the smaller ones considering their size. I mean it really s****d with V/m on but you learned to survive and to accept that SVs are just usefull for person transports and fighting.

    Now it seems a SV has to be build half out of thrusters if you want it to even move! Even without V/m there are plenty ships that can't move anymore.

    Now i searched the Forum and i can't find the matching Changelog note to that (In Alpha 10 or end of 9).
    Neither can i find any thread about this. For me it seems kinda weird i am the only one who dislikes this here.
    Or did i hit the "wrong server" twice?
     
    #1
  2. Kassonnade

    Kassonnade Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 13, 2017
    Messages:
    3,118
    Likes Received:
    4,188
    I mentioned exactly all this recently in the "What did you do in Empyrion today" regarding SVs. I mostly build SVs as attack/ scout ships, so they don't have any device unrelated to these tasks.

    One thing I noticed about a great number of BPs in the workshop is the poor performances of many vessels. They are not built to play an "economic" game as they vampirize fuel, they have lots of armor, large empty spaces with extra seats, deco blocks, etc. Players publish pictures to show the aesthetics, but most of the time they don't show the ship's stats - and when they do it's mostly full power going forward, and weak in all other directions. In fact for SVs to survive in fights they need high mobility in all directions, especially when thinking of high gravity planets.

    So players make ships like they are jet fighters relying on forward speed, which in fact is very limited, and they don't have auto-targetting drop bombs of sophisticated weapon delivery systems like actual fighter jets have. I never wasted much time building "transport ships" with SVs because of these reasons: they need to be agile and easy to repair, and able to sustain high power usage for long enough to damage structures and retreat for refuel/ repairs.

    I remember having used a "prefab SV" that shipped with the game once: I was carefully exploring when suddenly I started falling to the ground from a good altitude. I had been hit by rockets in the aft part and lost my fuel tanks (splash damage probably) without even hearing the explosion because the ship was massive and long. That was the only instance where I used a prefab ; now I build all my ships with combat and nimbleness in mind.

    We still need the T2 rcs for SV though. As for thrusters, we can always adjust values in the config files. I don't really care what they do to the "vanilla" game as I know it is often made to cather to multiplayer/ PvP, with the negative impact of restricting player's options and eventually driving them away from servers, unless the owners make adjustments themselves.
     
    #2
  3. Combat Wombat

    Combat Wombat Commander

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2017
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    131
    That is more of bad design choices by the devs that don't give SVs weapons that can be used flying as speed forcing them to hover when attacking making then no different than HVs, worse in fact since they don't even get turrets.
     
    #3
  4. Kassonnade

    Kassonnade Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 13, 2017
    Messages:
    3,118
    Likes Received:
    4,188
    Speed alone is meaningless in this game. To avoid homing rockets the players have no choice than strafing and trying to "fool" the game's turrets "predictive targetting". So even with "intelligent weapons" players would still be required to strafe to avoid getting hit. Ranges also favor BA > CV > SV/HV, so small vehicles have to enter the "danger zone" quite a bit to make damage.

    Auto-targetting weapons (turrets, and especially homing rockets) take away all the fun for me and other players that want combat to rely on skill rather than static DPS flying tables.
     
    #4
  5. ravien_ff

    ravien_ff Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2017
    Messages:
    3,816
    Likes Received:
    7,882
    I haven't had too much trouble myself. The small thrusters work fine but they're only really going to be good for personal transport or light cargo runs. You'll want at least the 1x3x1 jet thrusters for any heavy lifting, and make sure you salvage instead of "pick up blocks" for heavy items. If you want to grab whole blocks and devices, use a cargo HV or a CV, or transfer them into the factory.

    My Comet MK3 mining shuttle can carry a full load of the heaviest ore (promethium) in about 1.4G. My combat fighter can only carry ammo but has great performance. If you want an all-in-one SV that is both highly agile, armored, and has heavy lifting capability, you're going to have a harder time designing it with mass/volume enabled and that's kind of the point. Small SV thrusters work fine for personal transport, though there's always room for better balancing between thrusters of course.

    Or disable mass/volume and then you can carry a full drone base's worth of loot in a couple of cargo boxes. :D
     
    #5
    Vermillion likes this.
  6. Kassonnade

    Kassonnade Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 13, 2017
    Messages:
    3,118
    Likes Received:
    4,188
    That's not the topic of the OP : it's about a recent nerf of SV thrusters that wasn't mentioned in the release notes. I understand you propose solutions, but that is not addressing the fact that there was no need to do this "balancing act" at this point in time, unless some PvP whiners begged for it as usual.

    As for the bigger SV thrusters, they are designed for "forward" acceleration mostly, as trying to fit them vertically or sideways unduly inflates the build (easier to hit), requiring insane amounts of RCS to retain minimal agility... unless making some kind of huge thruster cross with a cockpit in the middle. At the size required to house the 3 x 13 x 3 SV thrusters, players are MUCH better with a small CV. You saw my ugly CVs, did you ?
     
    #6
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2019
    nottrox ¯\ (ツ) /¯ likes this.
  7. Combat Wombat

    Combat Wombat Commander

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2017
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    131
    lol theres no skill in the way things are now it just comes down to whos the best at hovering behind the rock while you shoot out the turrets on the POI. Which like I said is the issue there is literally no effective way to move and fire. Homing missile and turrets aren't any good for that either, just slightly less bad. The biggest issue is the weapon ranges are so bad by the time you can fire the distance is so close you've flown past the target before you can do anything.
     
    #7
    nottrox ¯\ (ツ) /¯ likes this.
  8. Hummel-o-War

    Hummel-o-War Administrator
    Staff Member Community Manager

    • Developer
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2015
    Messages:
    9,630
    Likes Received:
    14,135
    There have been no changes made in terms of performance of thrusters in any „recent“ updates.
     
    #8
  9. Kassonnade

    Kassonnade Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 13, 2017
    Messages:
    3,118
    Likes Received:
    4,188
    Blueprints of a ship made in v8 or v9 had higher stats than the same ship in v10, without any changes done. How could that be ?

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

    Here's a comparison of a small CV with Thrusters M and SV using the 3 x 13 x 3 thrusters. They both have 6 thrusters of the same type (SV has XXL, CV has M), 2 small gens for the SV/ one big T1 for the CV, 1 cockpit, 1 rcs T1, 1 fuel tank T2 for CV/ 2 for the SV, thats it.

    CV-SV-compare.png

    I made the SV as "compact" as possible and the CV is just a "normal" built with thrusters each side of the core. It's clear that there is no advantage to build a SV with these thrusters while a CV can have way more devices, turrets, docking capacity, and much tougher armor / blocks (not mentioning the T2 RCS).

    Adding more devices to the SV will see its performances drop drastically, while the CV will be able to grow without the same impact on performances. At that point I could have made the CV even smaller with small directional thrusters only, a small generator and T1 fueltank.

    --------------------
    Edit : it seems like the only way to find the reason for the SV performance drop will be to install an older version of Empyrion to see any differences.
     
    #9
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2019
    nottrox ¯\ (ツ) /¯ likes this.
  10. ravien_ff

    ravien_ff Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2017
    Messages:
    3,816
    Likes Received:
    7,882
    I use 1x3x1 thrusters on my mining shuttle for down thrusters, but again it's not a cargo hauler, it's more meant to mine out the ore deposits needed to build your first CV. The 3x13x3 thrusters would be way overkill in most cases and yeah you're better off with a CV in that case unless you specifically need a SV for some reason.

    I'm just not sure why people would try to use a SV for super heavy hauling jobs. If you're hauling that much cargo, you probably have the resources to build a CV anyway. If the planet restricts CVs, then make multiple trips in a SV if you have to. If you're worried about the fuel cost of a CV, they really only use fuel while flying on a planet.

    Fuel in fuel tanks now has weight.
     
    #10
    jmtc and Fractalite like this.
  11. nottrox ¯\ (ツ) /¯

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2018
    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    136
    You are a little bit aside from the discussion here. As 1st i am currently not playing with V/m on i just pointed out that if it would be horrible right now. 2nd nobody was talking about super heavy hauling SVs. In fact what brought me to this post was an empty 3 seated SV that wasn't able to lift of even after i added 6 thrusters for lift.
    But most important is 3rd It's not about that you can work around the low power of thrusters its about that it is no fun as it gets annoying!
    Of course i shouldn't be able to build a single SV suited nearly perfectly for every situation. But when my SV needs to consist to 90% out of thrusters Generators and RCS to be quick it turning i cannot fight with it anymore, actually i don't see the point it weaker thruster. In the contrary i would have love to see the thrusters bigger than "jet s" to be more powerful as they just were/are more efficient in PU/N but considering the size of them they just made the SV bulky as i could reach more thrust when filling the same space with "jet s" thrusters.


    That's my question.

    Adjusting the config files should rather be the exception not the standart. Or to be more clear, the standart config should be a good base from where on you can make small adjustments without the need of "half rework".


    Glad you are taking part in this thread. I want to believe you but right now we are at least 3 Players who have experienced this. Do you may have any idea what other changes may cause our troubles?
     
    #11
  12. ravien_ff

    ravien_ff Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2017
    Messages:
    3,816
    Likes Received:
    7,882
    There's something going on here then, because without mass/volume it's actually extremely easy to get enough thrust to lift off a 1G planet. Without sharing the blueprint here though and knowing the gravity of the planet you're trying to fly on, we couldn't know. Are you using a custom config that changes thruster output? Are you trying to lift a very large hardened steel hull SV with only 6 small thrusters?

    Even with mass/volume, my mining shuttle MK1 only needs like 12 small thrusters to take off and it's a 5 seater shuttle with an enclosed interior to launch your drone from, warp drive, steel hull, etc. It's certainly not "90% thrusters and RCS". I have not experienced the issues you describe.
     
    #12
    nottrox ¯\ (ツ) /¯ likes this.
  13. Vermillion

    Vermillion Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2018
    Messages:
    1,757
    Likes Received:
    5,040
    Without seeing this ship, there's no way to determine the scale of the problem.
    But i've been using the same SV since A8 and i've noticed no difference in performance.
     
    #13
    nottrox ¯\ (ツ) /¯ likes this.
  14. krazzykid2006

    krazzykid2006 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,104
    Likes Received:
    1,070
    There have been no changes to thrusters in any recent patches. As @ravien_ff said, fuel now has weight though, which means you will see lower acceleration numbers than you saw before.

    A quick look at the config file also confirms that thrusters haven't been changed.
     
    #14
  15. StyleBBQ

    StyleBBQ Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2016
    Messages:
    713
    Likes Received:
    940
    Along with fuel adding mass now, weren't all the Armor Block masses worked over when they added the 'smarts' so the engine automatically calc'd the HPs & Mass of the various shapes?

    And if I recall correctly, things like the thin 'Wall' went up in Mass since they upped the HPs on the thin blocks so folks could still get some decent protection from them, right?
     
    #15
  16. nottrox ¯\ (ツ) /¯

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2018
    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    136
    Okay this is kinda embarassing:D. I checked it again. And turns out V/m is turned on on this server BUT the capacity of suits and boxes have been changed so i didn't notice first:oops:. Sawing this i checked again if my ship was empty and it wasn't. My mate put several thousand building blocks in one of the containers. :rolleyes:

    So yeah i am building a CV now to leave the starter planet.

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    Thanks to everyone of you helping me to solve this riddle.
    I will ask my friend on the other server as he has probably the same issue.
    @Kassonnade you should check this out too as V/m is turned on by standart.


    PS: I still stick with this part:
    But that's rather a different thread so:

    /thread
     
    #16
    ravien_ff and StyleBBQ like this.
  17. ravien_ff

    ravien_ff Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2017
    Messages:
    3,816
    Likes Received:
    7,882
    Hah! Glad you got it figured out! You should find a way to get your friend back for that. :D:D:D
     
    #17
  18. Kassonnade

    Kassonnade Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 13, 2017
    Messages:
    3,118
    Likes Received:
    4,188
    Since when ?
     
    #18
  19. ravien_ff

    ravien_ff Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2017
    Messages:
    3,816
    Likes Received:
    7,882
    Alpha 10-ish. Not sure on the exact update.
     
    #19
  20. Kassonnade

    Kassonnade Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 13, 2017
    Messages:
    3,118
    Likes Received:
    4,188
    I doubt it. I just checked v8, v9 and v10, and there is a mass discrepancy between v8 and v9 that can't be explained by "blocks" only, except for the cockpit I used which lost 100kg since v8 (legacy cockpit #5).

    Here is a small ship I made for the test:

    test-v8.png

    6 thrusters 1x3x1, core, 1 fuel tank, 1 gen, 1 rcs that I forgot to put when taking the stats screenshot but if its mass didn't change it's easy to calculate - and the legacy cockpit #5. Here are the stats for v8 :

    Test-v8-stats.png
    Forgot the rcs so if I add it to the total (4,25t + 250kg) it gets to 4,5 tons. Forget about the stats since the rcs mass is not there, but regarding the "fuel mass" the tank is full. Here is what I have in v9, same ship but with rcs:

    test-v9-stats.png
    4,77 tons... and exactly the same in v10. So difference between 8 and 10
    v8 = 4.25 tons + 250kg rcs = 4.5t
    v9 = 4.77 (-100 kg for cockpit = should be 4.67)
    v10 = 4.77 (idem)

    So the change must have happened somewhere between v8 and v9.

    When I reinstalled v10 it wouldn't accept my keybinds, and at some point the game started 2 instances of itself... Too much for tonight.
     
    #20
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2019 at 3:12 AM
    nottrox ¯\ (ツ) /¯ likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page