Jump to content

Analysis of Element Stacking Popularity and Potential Methods of Alleviation


EpicPhail
 Share

Recommended Posts

In wake of the removal of Element Stacking, I feel it is necessary to discuss the impediments placed on builders by the current design of the element and voxel systems.

Specifically, I would like to pinpoint the why it is that players so heavily used and depended on this bug, and the repercussions of its removal.
At the end, I will discuss a few potential options for alleviating these symptoms. Feel free to post your own if you have any ideas. :)

This can also stand as a response to:

Whereby Deckard has posited the possibility of buffing engine output. However, my response is a little on the long side, so I decided it should get it's own thread.

 

Why stack elements?

The reason is obviously based around performance. It allowed essentially for a smaller surface-area on the rear of the construct, to provide a larger amount of thrust.

The issue, is slightly more complex than it seems on the surface. Let's think about what this means. I have provided a few poorly-drawn visuals to aid the discussion-point.
 

In the attached image, the blue box is the core space, the black represents the voxel of the construct, and the orange boxes represent areas where elements can be placed.

Assume each core has the same x and y cross sections. Core 1 is a cube, and Core 2 is a tall box, longer on only the z axis.

 

Note that Core 1 and 2 are diagrams of the current possible areas where elements could be placed, in a given core space, under the current mechanics.

This is due to the obstruction mechanics in combination with the limited ability of engines, and lack of engine customization, specifically when it comes to form-factor.

Because of obstruction, maximum thrust, is currently proportional to the amount of flat surface area at the rear of the construct, and because the cross section is simply a box, there's no reason not to use the extra space you have already taken a huge performance penalty for.

This is why haulers and anything that flies in-atmosphere, is usually flat and rectangular, or box-shaped. Anything else is really quite wasteful under current mechanics.

 

Core 1, is the current meta for an atmospheric hauler. (borg cube is back)

Core 2, is a perfect example of a ship that is at a severe disadvantage performance-wise, under current mechanics. If you wanted the ship to fly nose-first, as in toward the upper part of the image, there is minimal space in the rear for the placement of engines. In case that wasnt bad enough, you still need to sacrifice some of that space to wings, as they cannot be placed in the upper portion of the craft due to being obstructed by the engines at the rear.

 

So, what can be done about this? (opinion time)

 

Let's say we were given a way to use more volume of space towards the center of the craft, to produce thrust or fight-control. Let the maximum volume of this new "thrust space" be inversely proportional to the surface area of the face at the thrust angle. (the bottom face, on Core 3 and 4)

 

Core 3 is what the current meta would look like, post this change.

Core 4 is what the disadvantaged "rocket" like ship, would look like after this change.

 

The performance looks a lot better for the slimmer Core 4, and it is now able to compete with and easily out-maneuver Core 3, as should be the case. Because of the additional space used by the engines to achieve this, there is less space to be used for cargo and a cockpit. This might cause the hauler, to consider what they are hauling - large, wide constructs might be better at moving lots of really light things, while ships with a "rocket"-like profile, would be better equipped for hauling small quantities of really heavy things.

 

Overall, I think this would go a long way toward eliminating the cube-meta and making ship builds more varied, allowing for more creativity and uniqueness between build styles.

 

Another option, could be to further refine the "cross-section" metric and the related aerodynamics calculations for constructs. I believe this option would have a similar effect to the above on builds, depending upon how it was done. I do not know the systems complexity so I fail to have an idea of what could be done to improve it.  Perhaps simply having it be higher resolution than a simple box.

What do you think? Did I ramble? I'd love to hear what you all think of the current atmospheric hauler meta and the nuances to ship design.

I'd especially love to hear from you if you're a ship builder. What do you think about the current mechanics? Do you feel yourself being forced towards building a cube? Let me know! :)

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, FerroSC said:

*Elements Stacking is a bug, there’s no way around it. As a bug, especially one generating a lot of gameplay imbalance, it has to disappear at some point. *

NQ Dev announcement, 20 Sept 2021

Yeah, do you have a point?
This thread is about why stacking was used by players, and ways of alleviating those reasons.
This thread is not about stacking itself or any discussion related to keeping it around.

Take your personal gripes and whines elsewhere, not in my constructed feedback thread. This is the last time I will warn you, every further post you make here will be reported.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the challenge of designing around the limitations is part of ship building.  I think your description of the existing systems as limited only speaks to the limits of the builder's creativity.  A true craftsman can make excellent work with only simple tools.  It is the novice who needs a special tool, or an exception to every rule, to make a quality product.  This is why the ship creators are popular, because they used the existing tools to make great ships.  At a time,  jancko elements was one of the tools that was used.   To argue that a ship can not be built to the same quality without that tool is a reasonable position to take, but it's both subjective and irrelevant since the tool has been removed.   Many of my favorite ships in the game have zero "unbalanced" elements (see also, janko/clipped) and those ships perform outstanding and look terrific.  I think we should challenge ourselves with the tools we have. 

 

The game is young and this will definitely not be the final form of ship building.  Maybe NQ finds a way to combine elements in a more sophisticated way?  Perhaps linking engines or stacking brakes as multi-element kits that are more aesthetically pleasing.  There are lots of cool things that could happen, but to say that you can't make good ships without this particular tool is untrue.  To play a physics based game and insist on physics breaking tools is just counter intuitive.  Of course there are form factors that are the most efficient.  Of course there are physical limitations to the different sized cores.  The things you say are obstructing creation are many of the same things that are fueling innovation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NQ-Pann said:

The forums are for everyone. 

For everyone, sure, but this thread has a purpose and a specific topic at hand. This person's replies make it evident that they have not even read the original post, since his replies pertain to a completely different topic, one that was not and is not being discussed here. (Stacking being an exploit and that he thinks it should be removed immediately with no grace period)

 

So I can just post in random threads that have specific topics, about my cats or start bringing up topics that have nothing to do with the discussion?

If that is the case this is a useless discussion medium as there is no way to keep things productive, and I don't think I'll be using it any further.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with FerroSC
 

With the proper shipbuilding skill and creativity, it is possible to create good design and balanced performance even without stacks. The stack of elements was an exploit that sooner or later had to leave the game. Why was it used? Yes, everything is simply not in the construction restrictions, but in the arms race, if the enemy uses exploit to be stronger and faster, then sooner or later you will start, because you will perish if you don’t do it. And so the race of the one who makes the stacking more and more compact started. And it's not about beauty. But think, because of such things, then malfunctions occur and the servers do not cope with the calculation of data - from which complaints pour in, and why we get "misses", "crashes", etc. Precisely because a person uses a mistake and abuses more and more .. And the server is simply not able to calculate and calculate adequately the damage of 100,500 killotons of voxels at speeds and accelerations that were not provided by the game and the engine in theory. Remember this too.
 

If you give people more powerful engines, they will not install them less, for the most part they simply replace 50-100 current engines with 50-100 more powerful engines in order to drive more and this is a fact. If there is no framework, people always want more and more .. But there are limitations, both technical and balance.
 

And the fact that you have to install wings and donate space is reasonable, this is the balance .. look for a combination of equipment that suits your goals and objectives as much as possible, taking into account the engineering design of the hull for this.

About forma factor core grid.. devs long time ago already say and promise us make not only cube form grid.. we waiting it. But form build grid and stack  - no any conections

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's your problem guys.

You decide on the amount of engines and put them at rear. One near another as close to the border of box as possible.

Put the rest of crap in front of the engines, you have space until the box ends.

When fighting, point the sausage nose towards the enemy.

 

This flying bunch of elements is the most efficient design so why bother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Feriniya said:

I totally agree with FerroSC


Yet another person that does not seem to have actually read my initial post in its entirety. You gave it a partial skim, at best.

 

Quote

With the proper shipbuilding skill and creativity, it is possible to create good design and balanced performance even without stacks. The stack of elements was an exploit that sooner or later had to leave the game.


For the fifth time this thread is NOT a debate about whether stacking should have been kept, or anything related to the dev's current decision on stacking, whatsoever. What's done is done and I am not looking to debate the decision that was made. I am only looking to provide clarity as to why the exploit itself was used so commonly throughout the universe.

 

I agree with you that its currently possible to make decent designs that have good performance. My gripe, is that its still cube meta. And cube meta has its own gameplay problems that have been explored many times in the past, for PvP. Do note specifically that most of this thread is about atmospheric craft only as virtually none of the restrictive mechanics that would cause you to build a cube apply to space-only craft.

 

Quote

And so the race of the one who makes the stacking more and more compact started. And it's not about beauty.

 

This is correct and I'm pretty sure you're agreeing with my actual initial point, you're just speaking it differently. As I stated, stacking allowed for a smaller surface area to generate larger thrust metrics. This helps to reduce cross-section, and increase maneuver/accel/decel. So while yes there were uses for stacking in PvP, I am currently ignoring that as a specific topic because it will attract degenerates in here to shitpost. Regardless, their reasons for using stacking still amount to the exact same thing that someone would use it in say, an atmospheric hauler for. Better performance from a smaller rear surface area of the ship.

What I am positing is that your ships performance shouldn't be directly tied to the rear surface area of the ship. Rather it should be based on how much space in the craft as a whole, you have dedicated to your engines and performance elements.

But as demonstrated, in a rocket-type design, it's impossible to utilize any meaningful space inside the craft, since you only get about the bottom 6 to 8 metres to place elements in. Everything above it will be obstructed. It's fairly limiting on creativity.

 

Quote

If you give people more powerful engines, they will not install them less, for the most part they simply replace 50-100 current engines with 50-100 more powerful engines in order to drive more and this is a fact. If there is no framework, people always want more and more .. But there are limitations, both technical and balance.

 

Yes, and I agree with you which is why in the very first suggestion I specifically state:
"Let's say we were given a way to use more volume of space towards the center of the craft, to produce thrust or fight-control. Let the maximum volume of this new "thrust space" be inversely proportional to the surface area of the face at the thrust angle."
This is a logical limiter and in case you don't understand what that means judging by your response, it means that the more surface area at the back of the craft that you use, the less area toward the center you get. Sort of like a cube where you can change its aspect ratio but never its total volume.

 

This is not "making engines more powerful", it's just allowing you to get similar performance from a ship that would be shaped like a rocket, as to what you could expect from a wide flat hauler or a cube. The difference being that you sacrifice a larger amount of the space you could use for anything else.

 

Quote

And the fact that you have to install wings and donate space is reasonable, this is the balance .. look for a combination of equipment that suits your goals and objectives as much as possible, taking into account the engineering design of the hull for this.

 

This is just proof that you didnt read my OP. I never mentioned anything about changing wings or it being "unfair" that we need to use them? The only mention I made of wings was specifically in the context of a rocket-shaped ship, where your potential options for placement are very far and few between. Again an example of the current mechanics being limiting on creativity.

 

My first suggestion itself actually stands to increase overall balancing between all craft designs of virtually all types, since having the total amount of thrust you can produce being tied to volume instead of surface area with an upper maximal limit - allows for craft with smaller surface areas to more adequately compete with large craft with higher surface areas, but in different ways. See my example about haulers considering the type of cargo they are hauling compared to how their ship is built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chalk another mark on the "people who replied without reading the OP" tally

Stacking is gone/going away and this is NOT About keeping it around. It is over, done with. At no point have I advocated for stacked ships to be kept, here or anywhere else. If you disagree that something needs to be done to allow for more space inside a ship to be usable for performance that is one thing but that's not even something you voiced here. Your comment is completely unproductive to the discussion point.

Do you consider a non-stacked atmospheric cube hauler ship, to be one of these "OP ships" you are talking about? These can be built currently without the use of any exploits and no other designs come close in efficiency or power. It is the current meta.

What I am proposing is to allow more, varied form-factors of ship with the appropriate volume, to potentially reach the same level of power - by making appropriate sacrifices of space. All this does is make cubes unnecessary. It's not bringing back an exploit or "making engines more powerful" - it's just changing a distribution of where thrust is provided from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, EpicPhail said:

Chalk another mark on the "people who replied without reading the OP" tally

Stacking is gone/going away and this is NOT About keeping it around. It is over, done with. At no point have I advocated for stacked ships to be kept, here or anywhere else. If you disagree that something needs to be done to allow for more space inside a ship to be usable for performance that is one thing but that's not even something you voiced here. Your comment is completely unproductive to the discussion point.

Do you consider a non-stacked atmospheric cube hauler ship, to be one of these "OP ships" you are talking about? These can be built currently without the use of any exploits and no other designs come close in efficiency or power. It is the current meta.

What I am proposing is to allow more, varied form-factors of ship with the appropriate volume, to potentially reach the same level of power - by making appropriate sacrifices of space. All this does is make cubes unnecessary. It's not bringing back an exploit or "making engines more powerful" - it's just changing a distribution of where thrust is provided from.


 

buddy, I wouldn't comment on your post if I didn't read it. And I would not have entered here in order to spend my time, which means your post interested me and I read it from head to toe. But what you propose makes sense in changing the form factor of the core grid, but I'm also waiting for them to make different grid of the core (build mode grid).
 

For the rest, I left MY comment on your opinion / suggestion .. you came here for this? So that people would "listen" to you and appreciate your idea .. So they did not appreciate it, but you start to get angry and slander other people that "this next" "did not read" How do you even know what I have read and what not? .. There is no need to negative on everyone ..
 

People entered, took their time to read YOUR post, expressed disagreement - and more than one person, perhaps there is a reason. And you get angry because people don't agree with your opinion. And yes, this is a forum, here people come to express their thoughts and ideas, both from the side of the starter's topic and those who will read his proposal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never got angry with anyone for disagreeing with my opinion - in fact I came here to get the opinions of others. As my last line in my OP would suggest, that is what I am looking for. For the record, I actually agreed with a number of the points you made.

I think you may have misconstrued my reply to Archageo as being towards yourself. I quoted you in a reply above, that was the one intended for you - Not the one directly following Arch's post which was directed at him, not yourself. You do seem to have read the post although there seem to have been some key points you have missed. Which I discussed in my reply that was actually to you. The one where I quoted you several times.

Someone who clicks on the thread, and only reads the title, then resorts to diatribe like "stacking was an exploit, it had to be removed eventually" is not productive to this topic since I am not discussing element stacking's removal, only why it was used. People like Arch or FerroSC make it obvious they didnt even make it past the title before spewing out a predetermined opinion that has nothing to do with the actual suggestion at hand here in this thread.

I do have a tendency to use formatting like bolds and underlines to emphasize points but that is far from anger, quite the opposite really, and its not up to me how you or anyone else interprets that - if you interpret it as anger that is your problem not mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, EpicPhail said:

People like Arch or FerroSC make it obvious they didnt even make it past the title before spewing out a predetermined opinion that has nothing to do with the actual suggestion at hand here in this thread.

I read all of it.  I had to read some of it a few times because the ideas weren't very well organized.  You are arguing against the "cube meta" .  We get it.  Meta means "most effective tactic available".   Would you prefer a cylinder meta?  Perhaps a spherical meta?   Your post here basically says "if things were different we could do different things".   Then you made some poorly argued descriptions of what "different" would be, but you never really land on anything you are trying to endorse.  You simply don't like the cube meta and think everyone around you is stupid because "they just don't get it"...  cylinders, cones, rings..  all shapes could be meta if conditions were different.  Well, if "if" was a fifth we would all be drinking.  If dont mean shit.   Maybe in another universe those can happen, but in this universe we are worried about 3 planes.  X, Y, Z.  It JUST so happens that a cube is perfect for min/maxing a ships ability to maneuver efficiently in these directions.  You don't like cubes.  So you made some drawings to prove what we all know:  cubes are meta.  Then you made some long winded reasons about why people used and exploit and then you made an attempt to rationalize being able to keep the exploit based on some hypothetical metrics that could exist in the game but don't.  Them you closed it with "did I ramble?" Which indicates you are unsure of your own ideas and you realize they are poorly presented.  Then you came and threatened to report people who disagree with you, then you claim no one read your post.  And now we are here.  Thus ends my book report on your post.  I'll look forward to reading the next one.  Have a great day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you notice that this post is not in the suggestions board?

I tried to refrain from suggesting any one single course of action because I am not here to fix this problem, that is NQ's job if they decide this is something that needs fixing, which they clearly already have. (See linked external thread)

 

Quote

all shapes could be meta if conditions were different

 

This is actually exactly my point, there are some simple changes that could be made to the game that would allow nearly all shapes of ship to be near-meta simultaneously.
From a balancing perspective I fail to see how that is an undesirable thing for anyone. Unless you are a ship creator who profits from making cube haulers.

 

Quote

If dont mean shit.

 

You are quite a cynical being, this is a forum where feedback is regularly reviewed and looked over by NQ. On a topic that NQ has asked for opinions on. If actually means quite a lot in this scenario because changes are incoming, whether you like it or not.

 

Quote

and then you made an attempt to rationalize being able to keep the exploit based on some hypothetical metrics that could exist in the game but don't

 

Jesus christ, you're still on the same useless trope as the first time you posted. You claim you read the post but yet you probably understood less than 5% of it.
At what point did I ever advocate for stacking to be kept? Never once. Lol if you think you can I would like to see you quote the exact place where I say "stacking should be kept". I'd love to see it bud.
Stacking is already gone, it's over with, done. Get over it.

 

Quote

Then you came and threatened to report people who disagree with you

 

But that's the thing, you weren't (and still really arent) disagreeing with my idea, because you don't even understand it in the first place. You've made this much clear.
You're just posting useless tropes of your predetermined opinion on stacking which you have every right to have - but your opinion on stacking has no relevance here. This is about shaking up a meta not a thread about whether you liked stacking or not.

 

Same as I said to Arch - If you disagree that this meta needs changing that is one thing - but that isn't something you've even intelligently voiced here. Instead you came in here whining about "Exploit x is an exploit!" No duh, pretty sure everyone knows that already.

 

To allude to a simplistic metaphor that someone with even your limited attention span should grasp:
Your reaction here is the same as if I asked the question "How would one go about breeding a new color of tiger" and you come in and reply with "But tigers are orange and black"....

Yes, we all know this, that wasn't the question that was asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, EpicPhail said:

Your reaction here is the same as if I asked the question "How would one go about breeding a new color of tiger" and you come in and reply with "But tigers are orange and black"....

But tigers ARE Orange and black.  Fun fact:  a tiger is orange because its primary prey are color blind.  To those animals, tigers blend right into the jungle because green=orange to the colorblind animals.  Mammals lack the ability to produce the color green in basically all cases, so evolution adjusted to this limitation and created the ultimate jungle killing machine. 

 

So now you know why we don't need another color of tiger because outside of curiosity and spectacle, it is inferior to the black and orange tiger.. because black and Orange, in this scenario is the meta..  just like cubes are the meta.  If the animals were color blind on a different spectrum the tiger would have evolved to be another color.  Another "if" that is irrelevant because the meta is the meta which is based on reality, not on hypothetical MS Paint squares and poorly constructed paragraphs.  So you and I agree, in another universe things would be different.  

 

You're trying to explain something everyone understand already:  why stacking was used.  Problem is, your reason is wrong.  You're giving the builders this creative license that everything they did with this exploit was for creative/artistic reasons and if only the game was "better" then this exploit would have never even been used.  You're saying "if we had more tools, people wouldn't have used the exploit" which is just a ridiculous point to make because 1. There is no way to prove what would have happened so it's a pure hypothetical argument (see also, not a constructive criticism or anything else that is useful aside from a conversation starter)  and; 2. People will always use exploits regardless of the tools they have available.  There are no ethical cheaters.   There are ships that are currently exploiting the bug for many, many different reasons and the "preservation of artwork" IS a valid reason not to delete the constructs but it's hardly the reason the exploit was so widely exploited.  All these "unbalanced" ships are for players to game the system and gain an unfair advantage.  Aside from like The Nautilus and some other flagship creations(which are all very very impressive and should be preserved) , there isnt a jancko ship in the game that was build "just because I didnt like how a wall of engines looked".  They were made to min-max the physics engine in the game and for nothing else.   Cheaters gonna cheat, regardless of how many excuses you make for WHY they cheated... cheating is cheating.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the perspective of a ship builder, @EpicPhail is right.  A lot of people were using element stacking to build ships that looked good, but could still haul the most weight possible.

 

There were other reasons people were using element stacking too.  But all you have to do is read the OP to see that isn't the topic.

 

So in my opinion the first thing NQ needs to do is decide how much thrust, lift, brakes ect they want each core size to be able to handle.  Then they need to make the elements powerful enough that you only need one or two of each type of element to reach that level.  Because having a thousand elements is bad for performance and it looks like crap.

 

Then they need a new way of limiting the number of functional elements that we can put on a ship.

 

Something like a power management system that makes you choose where you want to use power, instead of simply deciding how much power you want to pile on.

 

Hopefully NQ is already working on it.  And if they aren't, hopefully this whole element stacking thing makes them realize that we need it.

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/23/2021 at 7:02 PM, FerroSC said:

But tigers ARE Orange and black.

Says everything that needs to be said right here.
You don't understand the thread or the idea being posited here, nor have you made any attempt to do so.

I will not be conversing with you any further. I could have a more productive conversation with a brick wall, an insect outside, or the bottom of my shoe.

 

9 hours ago, Atmosph3rik said:

So in my opinion the first thing NQ needs to do is decide how much thrust, lift, brakes ect they want each core size to be able to handle.  Then they need to make the elements powerful enough that you only need one or two of each type of element to reach that level.  Because having a thousand elements is bad for performance and it looks like crap.

 

Then they need a new way of limiting the number of functional elements that we can put on a ship.

 

I am uncertain that having any hardcoded maximums or limits to the number of elements would be the right way to go here. It certainly would address the problem, but also create a few of it's own - remember that we are looking for ways to maximize creativity and uniqueness between ships while also eliminating the cubemeta. This shouldn't be something where we just instantly place all ships on the upper limit of performance. There needs to be trade-offs and a wide variety of ways a ship can end up performing.

Having one or two engines max per ship, would make the ship-builder life quite drab and boring, since you almost never would be required to put any real thought into how you're designing your ship.

I'll hark back to my example of having ships with high-thrust yield but low cargo space, versus ships with moderate thrust yield and moderate cargo space. If you only needed two engines you're not sacrificing anything to reach max performance. And to reach maximum performance for a given core size you should definitely be required to give something up, be it cargo, warping capability, pvp capacity, or something else. (all of the above?)

 

In discord it was mentioned that this might create a few issues when it comes to docking, and after some discussion, we landed on a few potential options for mitigating those issues.

Namely the diminishing returns for significantly larger cross sections might need to be amplified or adjusted in some way. Hopefully in a way that would prevent you from making two craft (one that is max performance, and one that is max cargo space) and docking them together to easily circumvent the thrust limitation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP, I'm sorry if I derailed your post.  I'm sure you have put every bit as much time into this game as I have, if not more.   I disagree with your assessment of exploit usage and I used way too many words to say that.  The ideas of  buffing elements is a good start.  Realistically, new elements are part of the fix here.  Why does the thrust end of an engine and the power generating end of an engine have to be the same element?  Combustion chamber and burner, linked somehow maybe?  Who knows.  I think more complex systems and additional tools would be a great discussion without the caveats of the exploit usage.   In my opinion the rationalization of the exploit usage detracts from the constructive discussion of "where do we go from here".  Again, sorry for derailing.  Hope our next exchange goes better.  I'll try harder next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, EpicPhail said:

Having one or two engines max per ship, would make the ship-builder life quite drab and boring, since you almost never would be required to put any real thought into how you're designing your ship.

 

 

One or two engines wouldn't be the max though, it would be the middle, or balanced.

 

I'm over simplifying how this would work hopefully, but imagine each type of element needed one unit of power to function, and you had something like 14 units available on your core.  two for atmo engines, two for space engines, lift, brakes, shields, storage and weapons.  So if you don't need weapons, you've got two more points to spend somewhere else.

 

That would still allow you to totally ignore PVP, or hauling, or build a ship that's space or atmo only, and dedicate all that power somewhere else.  

 

Hopefully it would be a lot more interesting then that, with different tiers of elements requiring different amounts of power, higher tier cores with higher power output maybe.

 

But the goal would be that if you want your ship to be above average in one area, you have to give something up in another area, like you said.

 

The docking thing could be a problem.  But i don't think docking was really intended to be used to tow another ship that's the same size/mass.  Maybe docking should disengage if the docked ship weighs too much compared to the parent ship, or something like that.

 

Although that's the only way people are able to build larger ships right now, so if they changed that hopefully they give us XL cores too. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, FerroSC said:

OP, I'm sorry if I derailed your post.  I'm sure you have put every bit as much time into this game as I have, if not more.   I disagree with your assessment of exploit usage and I used way too many words to say that.  The ideas of  buffing elements is a good start.  Realistically, new elements are part of the fix here.  Why does the thrust end of an engine and the power generating end of an engine have to be the same element?  Combustion chamber and burner, linked somehow maybe?  Who knows.  I think more complex systems and additional tools would be a great discussion without the caveats of the exploit usage.   In my opinion the rationalization of the exploit usage detracts from the constructive discussion of "where do we go from here".  Again, sorry for derailing.  Hope our next exchange goes better.  I'll try harder next time.

Now, this is a discourse I'm willing to engage with.
All is forgiven, and for what it might be worth I apologize if I came across as hostile to you at any point, I usually try to steer away from that.

I think you hit home with the separation of the engine "combustion chamber" and the thrust nozzle - separating thrust generation into two halves which can be independently invested in, is quite close to, certainly on par with, the first suggestion in the OP. +1 for wording it that way, which is something I neglected to do.

I understand you have a very strong position on stacking - and as I said previously you've every right to feel that way. As stated, my point in making this post was to talk about the "why" - specifically when people abuse exploits in games, yes they do it to push the boundaries, but that is not always the case - especially when something such as stacking is so widely used. In this case, with the game being a Beta, I felt that the usage of stacking was more leaning toward a compensation of sorts. It felt to me like people were simply accommodating for something the game ought to allow them to do - even though the way they went about it was "wrong".

 

Untactful as it may be - understanding this "why" I felt was unfortunately integral to making the decision about where to go, from here.. So it had to be done. I'm just trying to throw my own opinion out there and get people talking. Its pretty difficult to openly discuss something that has such a strong negative connotation and get a useful result - But someone has to have that nitty-gritty discussion for NQ, cause they can't really do it in and amongst themselves. There isn't enough of them, I'm not sure they all play the game as much as we do, and besides.. That's what they "hired" us for 😀
 

5 hours ago, Bobbie said:

The irony is that it may not be possible for NQ at this late stage to implement a satisfactory power system that does all the balancing that we need it to do, without it becoming the next 0.23-gate. Nobody will be able to do all the same things that they're used to doing, and everything becomes more complicated and tedious. Even if it's what the game needs, how many players really want it.

 

Personally, I hope that NQ simply buckles down and does whatever needs to be done. I will be here to support the game regardless of how many 0.23's we end up having. I want to see the game flourish and become what it promises to eventually be.

I agree, that ramping up complexity in the ship-design arena could be quite offputting to a number of players. I disagree, however, that it would have the same kind of mass exodus that 0.23 came along with. For the simple fact that the schema change genuinely disenfranchised a lot of people, specifically nearly every solo player - and the reason is because before then, they were thinking they'd be able to simply mine stuff, and craft what they need. With 0.23, that was largely no longer the case without huge up-front investment that solo players are generally not capable of making. It also put casuals at a fairly severe disadvantage, too, 'cause mining is a pretty solid timesink and missions turned out to be garbage for anyone but chinese alt-farmers.

Personally I am lucky in that I hit the ground running - even as a solo player I didn't skip a beat when 0.23 came out, it affected me very little, and I still manage to produce what I need/want, and buy the rest. Not everyone was that lucky.

This change I feel would have significantly less of that sort of impact. Everyone will need to make or buy new ships more than likely - I doubt many designs will live through this change and remain optimally functional. However I also doubt these ships would run the kind of pricetag the schemas run - it would be quite easy for any solo player to pick up where they left off, by comparison. If anything most solo players could even reuse components from the now-broken ships they have, simply buy a power generator (whatever element ends up generating power) and make a new ship of their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, EpicPhail said:

I think you hit home with the separation of the engine "combustion chamber" and the thrust nozzle - separating thrust generation into two halves which can be independently invested in, is quite close to, certainly on par with, the first suggestion in the OP. +1 for wording it that way, which is something I neglected to do.

 

This is something we have been asking for since day one of play testing (2017).

 

The idea being that you have separated engine and nozzle elements for more flexibility, and fuel tank voxels where volume of connected voxels become volume of tank.

This would solve MANY of the creative freedom vs cube meta problems in DU. But NQ has never even acknowledged this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...