Jump to content
OmnipotentVoid

Multi block system/weaponry

Recommended Posts

The biggest disappointment in space engineers was the fact that there was no actual engineering. Building in the game (to me) feels more like an exercise in esthetics, slapping on functional parts as necessary. The fact that the capabilities of a ship in space engineers is defined more by what and how many functional parts were on a ship, than the actual design is extremely disappointing.

In From the Depths, on the other hand, design has a meaning. In FTD most functional parts of a ship are multi block structures. The way these are built effect the performance of the ship drastically. This means compromises must be made. Summarized into a triangle, a design of any component must balance between size, power and efficiency.

For example: there is a very efficient 7x7x2n engine design (2n means it is tile able, but one tile must be 2 blocks thick) however, of the 98 blocks per tile, only 4 are the power generating cylinders. The rest increase power output per cylinder and efficiency, or are pipes and dead space. Thus I cannot use the design on small ships or ships that need a lot of power in a small space.

This gets a lot more complex for some systems, like the advanced projectile system.

So I would really like to see a multi block systems mechanic added to this game. It would significantly increase depth and variety, while being avoidable by those who do not want to go so in depth. It adds on to player interaction as well (pro/con list below).

 

Of course, some people are not interested in designing stuff. In FTD, you get around this by either copying someone's design or using prefabs, which are like blueprints that place parts of or even entire multi block assemblies. This way, if you don't want to spend a long time designing a system, you don't have to.

 

Also of note: the capabilities of a system don't have to depend solely on the design, just as you could have multiple/upgraded parts, components of a system could have upgraded or specialized version, that require certain resources, research or infrastructure to produce. This also adds cost/ effectiveness to the design considerations.

 

Single block components would also still be relevant. They should be cheaper (as the are prefabricated) and smaller, but less specialized and not a scalable. They would be used to quickly produce small, inexpensive objects (drone, turrets, mines, etc.).

 

Pros:

-more depth

-better customization

-more individual designs

-no optimal design/better specialization

-more balancing factores/more subtle balancing allows for better over all balance ( if done properly)

-adds an appealing side to design other than esthetics

-expands perfectly on the build your own universe idea

-avoidable if you're not interested

-adds another specialization possibility for players (engine designer, weapon designer, etc.)

-adds another trade good (blueprints, possibly the prefaced system)

-adds more weapon/system variety for all players, not only those who would use the system design mechanic

 

Cons:

-longer (but not steeper) learning curve (that can be avoided)

-takes longer/may be harde to balance

-may take more processing power (server side)

 

Note: I mainly imagine thes multi block structures for larger ships, not for something as smal as a fighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree this would be nice to see, it could be an upgrade to the mesh components the devs are creating. I think one reason they seem to be shying away from it is it becomes resource intensive. It isn't just one component producing x power, it has to check all the interactions constantly and adjust its value based on what it sees. And if a block of it is destroyed or damaged it begins recalculating.

 

Would be nice to have an alternate method of power over 'just put 20 more on'. I always liked MC FTB that had multiblovk system you could do that with. Maybe in 5 years when the tech is more developed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree this would be nice to see, it could be an upgrade to the mesh components the devs are creating. I think one reason they seem to be shying away from it is it becomes resource intensive. It isn't just one component producing x power, it has to check all the interactions constantly and adjust its value based on what it sees. And if a block of it is destroyed or damaged it begins recalculating.

Would be nice to have an alternate method of power over 'just put 20 more on'. I always liked MC FTB that had multiblovk system you could do that with. Maybe in 5 years when the tech is more developed.

Interestingly enough, the fact that everything constantly updates the multi block structure doesn't take that much power in FTD. This is because each MBS (multi block structure) has a central controller that basically checks how many functioning blocks are attached to it and calculates everything based on that.

In FTD ship size and entity count (all projectiles are entities) are the main cause of performance decrease. Also, calculations would be done server side, which means there would probably be plenty of processer power available, considering voxel based games usually have more problems with RAM rather than processor power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason the entity count matters is because of the calculations for each one. And an entity that is heavily reliant on neighboring blocks tends to check more and use more CPU. I always have this problem in MC FTB. My base is densely packed with equipment and begins to cause lag.

 

You have to remember the size of the game, it's not a 20 player server, it's an every player server. While I like the idea and would love to see it implemented, I understand why the devs are shying away from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason the entity count matters is because of the calculations for each one. And an entity that is heavily reliant on neighboring blocks tends to check more and use more CPU. I always have this problem in MC FTB. My base is densely packed with equipment and begins to cause lag.

You have to remember the size of the game, it's not a 20 player server, it's an every player server. While I like the idea and would love to see it implemented, I understand why the devs are shying away from it.

What I mean by entities is literally bullet spam to the point of ludicrousness in FTD. I have made a capital ship with 8 CWIS systems firing 3000rpm. Plus 20 secondary batteries and 12 main battery guns, this results in roughly 25000 entities. Plus the 200000 blocks of the ship. This tanks my frame rate from (capped) 60fps to 15fps. The 12 engines (spread across multiple sections for redundancy and space efficiency) plus 45 multi block weapons systems and the multi block laser anti missile system totalling roughly 75000 blocks don't cause a notable performance loss.

This is because each system is built around a central (programming wise, not positioning wise) control block, witch calculates what the system does based on the attached blocks. The blocks themselves just check wether they are functioning (not destroyed, attached to the right thing, etc.) and if they are connected to a control block. This way, of the 75000 blocks in the MBSs, only 58 are doing any significantly taxing calculations. The rest are just doing health checks and attachment checks like all blocks on the craft. In FTB all of the blocks are doing taxing calculations. So you may only have 200 blocks of machines, but all of them are doing calculations, rather than the 58 on my 200000 block ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I mean by entities is literally bullet spam to the point of ludicrousness in FTD. I have made a capital ship with 8 CWIS systems firing 3000rpm. Plus 20 secondary batteries and 12 main battery guns, this results in roughly 25000 entities. Plus the 200000 blocks of the ship. This tanks my frame rate from (capped) 60fps to 15fps. The 12 engines (spread across multiple sections for redundancy and space efficiency) plus 45 multi block weapons systems and the multi block laser anti missile system totalling roughly 75000 blocks don't cause a notable performance loss.

This is because each system is built around a central (programming wise, not positioning wise) control block, witch calculates what the system does based on the attached blocks. The blocks themselves just check wether they are functioning (not destroyed, attached to the right thing, etc.) and if they are connected to a control block. This way, of the 75000 blocks in the MBSs, only 58 are doing any significantly taxing calculations. The rest are just doing health checks and attachment checks like all blocks on the craft. In FTB all of the blocks are doing taxing calculations. So you may only have 200 blocks of machines, but all of them are doing calculations, rather than the 58 on my 200000 block ship.

200 machines in FTB is nothing. My friends dubbed my operation scale 'Devis sized' My scrap processing had more than that. Our temporary ore processing ran 32/32 fully upgraded pulverizers and induction smelters. We were doubling it for the permanent setup to handle the throughput. One server I had 24 fully upgraded quarry pluss running, and yes they were always fully powered. And this was a 4 man team.

 

So your 58 systems is nothing as to what DU can expect. I haven't played FTD, but will look it up later. It seems like the systems operate similar to starmade. The geometry of the power system mattered, each weapon had a control computer but could have hundreds of individual weapon groups tied to it, firing at once. You could have dozens of hundreds of turrets on a ship. The server I last played had a 500k mass (~5mil block) limit. My second day I had the resources for my 130k mass companion cube. My miners typically were over 100k with half being miner modules. Hundreds firing at once. I'd regurally drop 2 500k mass Borg cubes on people's base for fun. Every one had hundreds of systems it had to run calculations for, and when the missiles hit it had to calculate what was destroyed and recalculate the system, every time.

 

I don't expect things to be quite soeasy to come by in DU, more empyrion or FTB style but it will still be a lot. Even small increases in CPU consumption will add up. Remember it's one big server. So I won't be the only one doing this. While id love a starmade style modular system, I understand why DU is going for the Empyrion/Planet explorers style system. Maybe in 5-10 years when computer tech increases they can impliment an update that allows it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this feature is at all possible I'd love to see it. Perhaps a simplified version would be making the entire system precalculate it's stats, become one object with said stats, and scale them down with the total damage taken regardless of which component was hit. Basically dumbing it down to the point of least performance loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a way to work around the performance loss due to multi-block-structures, could be an entity editor in wich you could build and test your multi-block creations. if you then hit the finish button it would convert your creation into a single entity with fixed stats. So you have the best of both worlds, the customizability of FTD and Starmade and the less performance hungry single entity strategie from SE and Empyrion. And with such an editor you could not only build weapons and reactors, complex mechanical cotraptions would be possibly too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a way to work around the performance loss due to multi-block-structures, could be an entity editor in wich you could build and test your multi-block creations. if you then hit the finish button it would convert your creation into a single entity with fixed stats. So you have the best of both worlds, the customizability of FTD and Starmade and the less performance hungry single entity strategie from SE and Empyrion. And with such an editor you could not only build weapons and reactors, complex mechanical cotraptions would be possibly too.

only Down side is you can't get the muti block damage dynamics. Example if you shoot off half the barrel you lose projectile speed and or accuracy. But I guess that is not really a big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest disappointment in space engineers was the fact that there was no actual engineering. Building in the game (to me) feels more like an exercise in esthetics, slapping on functional parts as necessary. The fact that the capabilities of a ship in space engineers is defined more by what and how many functional parts were on a ship, than the actual design is extremely disappointing.

 

I'm a big fan of Space Engineers, so I am undoubtedly biased.  And I'm not entirely sure how to respond to this but I feel the need to after reading the first part of your post.  

I have seen many people who play the game simply tacking things on together or making ships that are simply functional or aesthetically pleasing.  And then I have seen real artists.  Those who put together sensors systems, engines, and drills in a manner that defies any simple explanation to make automated drones that mine asteroids and bring back the cargo and then do it again all at the push of a button.  I have seen people design jump capable satellite systems with solar arrays that unpack themselves from a stable flight mode and unfold like a lotus flower to follow the sun creating an outpost over their next planetary conquest.  I have seen vessels that have rotary cannons, player made torpedo systems that will deactivate their own warheads if a friendly target is about to be hit minimizing the accidental damage.  I have seen rolling automated scouts.  Rovers that are so well crafted that the can traverse any terrain in front of them.  The list goes on and on.  The point is anyone can tack parts together and make something that works in Space Engineers.  But it takes a true Engineer to actually make something that works well and beyond the simple summation of its parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a big fan of Space Engineers, so I am undoubtedly biased.  And I'm not entirely sure how to respond to this but I feel the need to after reading the first part of your post.  

I have seen many people who play the game simply tacking things on together or making ships that are simply functional or aesthetically pleasing.  And then I have seen real artists.  Those who put together sensors systems, engines, and drills in a manner that defies any simple explanation to make automated drones that mine asteroids and bring back the cargo and then do it again all at the push of a button.  I have seen people design jump capable satellite systems with solar arrays that unpack themselves from a stable flight mode and unfold like a lotus flower to follow the sun creating an outpost over their next planetary conquest.  I have seen vessels that have rotary cannons, player made torpedo systems that will deactivate their own warheads if a friendly target is about to be hit minimizing the accidental damage.  I have seen rolling automated scouts.  Rovers that are so well crafted that the can traverse any terrain in front of them.  The list goes on and on.  The point is anyone can tack parts together and make something that works in Space Engineers.  But it takes a true Engineer to actually make something that works well and beyond the simple summation of its parts.

There have been some amazing things done in space engineers, however, a lot of what has been done has to do with programming. Either directly or indirectly through sensors and timers. There is some design science behind something like missiles and armoring. However this is harshly limited by the fact that how much damage a missile can do is limited by how many warheads you stick on. Basically a weapons system in SE is either a single block structure with set capabilities (so you always fit on as many as possible) or hologram/mergeblock missile. The reality of space engineers is that a block with guns is the most effective design, because you can plaster the entire surface with active components and have a decent internal volume for reactors/storage and piping is easier.

More over, complex mechanisms do not work well in SE. Using multiple moving parts attached to each other generally cause wobble, making precise mechanisms impossible. It is also imposible to make things sit flush because the game will freak out if things move next to each other while a ship is moving. Because of these facts custom turrets are impossible in SE. Even if they were possible, the would still be a pain, because you have to man them (unless you want to spend hours developing your own AI using sensors). And even if you go through all the trouble of doing this, what your turret does is still defined by what weapon you stick on it, making it almost the same as a single block turret.

 

Doing any of these amazing things also takes a ridiculously long time. Setting up a sensor system can take hours to get the thing working properly. For the more complex things that require programming skills, they take even longer (and exclude a large portion of players who don't have those skills). And you have to design around what you want to make, meaning any design really only does one thing really well.

 

In FTD, you engineer systems to fit your design. You don't have to worry about havin to fit a minigum in, because you can design a minimum that will fit. You don't even need to use a minigun, you can build a 500mm derp gun that will fit in a 3x3x1 space, or 3x2x2 if you want. Also, the design process doesn't take as long. You can design an effective system in minutes, or optimize it for hours if you want. You don't need to worry about havin enough reactors for your thrusters, because you can design an engine to get you exactly enough power.

What's more, scaling up the design in SE basically means putting more of the same blocks on it (adding more thrusters/reactors/gattlings). In FTD you can use the extra space to put your weapon on a turret or upgrade its fire rate or damage. Or you could upgrade the engine and add shields or more thrusters.

 

However, I'm not trying to say SE is a bad game. I have spent hours in SE fiddling with mechanisms and sensors to build doors and probes and so on. However, space engineers lacks on the engineering side of things in. As far as an exploration/building space game SE is amazing, especially due to the programming/atomization (sensors etc.) side of things. FTD is by far the superior ship design game, because it has far more depth and ease of use as far as ship design goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In S.E.

  • Just because someone accomplishes something with programming and timers doesn't invalidate it.  So what point are you trying to make here?
  • I've designed missiles that guide themselves, penetrate a ship and then open up to expose gun systems that shoot the ship inside out.  Also, ones that release active thrusters to burn up components. (hilarity ensues if the target uses a gravity drive)  No warheads required.
  • Complex systems work just fine.   (Example here)
  • Sitting Flush? (Example here)
  • People design gravity mass drivers that shoot scrap steel, stones.  (Link here)
  • Other player made weapons that aren't missiles. (here and here)
  • Custom turrets ARE possible manned or automated. (Link here, and here respectively)
  • Stating it's a pain is rather presumptuous.  I don't find it a pain and I'm sure there are others who feel the same.
  • People make turrets with weapons that have variable capabilities all the time.  So it's not the same as a single block turret.
  • DU plans to have LUA programming and DPU's.  Which will allow you to do amazing things that can take ridiculously long time to set up.....  If you're not particularly skilled at it.  Or they can be largely ignored for those that like simpler designs.  So I think this issue is already a moot point.
  • Even if it weren't a moot point.  Stating it takes a "ridiculously long time" as a negative connotation is a personal gripe, not an actual issue.
  • Requiring programming skills doesn't exclude anyone.  (And once again difficulty and the time it takes varies from person to person )  They can either learn LUA, a very simple programming language or get a script from someone who does know LUA.
  • Ships designed around doing more than one thing really well? (Link here)

 

Telling me scaling up a design means more of the same blocks also means little.  For FTD you mention an in-game system upgrade that takes up the extra space so I can place my weapon on a turret  Or upgrade its fire rate and damage, or upgrade the engine or more thrusters.  How is that any different from me taking up more block space internally or externally to place MY weapon on a turret,  Or upgrading the weapon for a better fire rate or damage (Clearly from the above links I'm not limited to simple weapon blocks) Or upgrading my gravity drive for more power, better handling or more acceleration.  Adding thrusters?  "click done" 

 

So while I may concede that FTD maybe easier to use, I find your statement that it contains more depth, is a superior ship design game and that S.E. is lacking in the engineering side a somewhat "lacking" assertion in and of itself.   

 

Oh and I don't think you are putting S.E. down, But from my above links clearly you can do all the things you say that S.E. can't.  

 

Also from the above links, you can clearly accomplish without multi blocks all the things you want them for with a simple block system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, how do i increase any weapon stat in space engineers? I add another gun.

Want more damage? Extra gun

Want more fire rate? Extra gun

Etc

 

With ftd i can have one core gun and tinker around with the subcomponents to archieve what i want.

If i want a bigger boom per shot i put a gauge increase component on it.

If i want higher fire rate i put another loader on there.

if i want it to have higher precision i elongate the barrel.

Etc.

With the volume and cost being partially dependent on the skill of the builder, on him being able to cram the most parts into the least volume with the least wastage.

i havent played it in a while, so im not sure if thats still valid, but also adjaciency of different components mattered.

So if you knew what you did you could "reuse" some components multiple times to increase the use you get out of every single component.

Theres quite a bit of skill, knowledge and design in a gun in ftd.

Whereas in SE every gatling cannon is exactly the same, and increasing cannon firepower is to add more.

 

Scrap and warhead launchers are no single component weapons because they consist out of multiple components which are arranged in very specific ways.

So they are a very strong arguments for multi component weapons.

 

And when multi component weapons are in i'd rather have them be first-class game objects that they can have better performance, better AI support and better interfaces to design and build them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, how do i increase any weapon stat in space engineers? I add another gun.

Want more damage? Extra gun

Want more fire rate? Extra gun

Etc

 

With ftd i can have one core gun and tinker around with the subcomponents to archieve what i want.

If i want a bigger boom per shot i put a gauge increase component on it.

If i want higher fire rate i put another loader on there.

if i want it to have higher precision i elongate the barrel.

Etc.

With the volume and cost being partially dependent on the skill of the builder, on him being able to cram the most parts into the least volume with the least wastage.

i havent played it in a while, so im not sure if thats still valid, but also adjaciency of different components mattered.

So if you knew what you did you could "reuse" some components multiple times to increase the use you get out of every single component.

Theres quite a bit of skill, knowledge and design in a gun in ftd.

Whereas in SE every gatling cannon is exactly the same, and increasing cannon firepower is to add more.

 

Scrap and warhead launchers are no single component weapons because they consist out of multiple components which are arranged in very specific ways.

So they are a very strong arguments for multi component weapons.

 

And when multi component weapons are in i'd rather have them be first-class game objects that they can have better performance, better AI support and better interfaces to design and build them.

Clearly, you didn't read all of my previous post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very aptly put reply to what i wrote.

Wow, very eloquence, much arguments, wow.

 

Just refusing to acknowledge anything the other writes with "you havent read what i wrote" is surely convenient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very aptly put reply to what i wrote.

Wow, very eloquence, much arguments, wow.

 

Just refusing to acknowledge anything the other writes with "you havent read what i wrote" is surely convenient.

Are you trying to bait me?  ~sigh~  Okay.  I don't think you read the post in question because if you had you would have realized you were echoing OmnipotentVoid's exact same sentiments and I had already provided a counter argument.  With examples no less.  Do you really want me to have a debate with you over the EXACT same things he said?  Maybe you do.  I certainly WON'T.  Hence the "Clearly, you didn't read all of my previous post." comment.   And if you're going to quote me actually quote me.  Otherwise, you're misrepresenting what I wrote.   Now if you would like to debate any other reasons in which the DU might benefit from a multiblock system over a single block system.  By all means, fire away and we can debate til the sky falls down.  Otherwise, I'm not going to repeat myself if all you are doing is parroting someone else.  Because that would be two parrots and that's just silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that you can make awesome things in SE, but that is not the point, the point is that you in vanilla SE aren't able to build your own custom thruster or a minigun where you can change freely the firerate and shell size, such things are only possible with mods.

 

On the other hand with FTD you can change this parts almost without limitations, but there are no prescripted single block elements that would be worth it to build them, so if you don't want to spend your time on building such elements yourself, you must also go to the workshop.

 

So we have here to extremes, why not find a middle way? For example we could have prescripted single block elements and a buildsystem for multiblock elements, the prescripted elements would be in their size and properties about equal to a balanced (with this i mean that it is optimal balanced for all properties) similar sized build one, but with the build one you would have the ability to change the properties to your liking.

 

With balance i mean the balance between the positive and negative properties of the element, for example with a thruster you would have to balance the thrust and the power/fuel intake, so if you want a small thruster with much boom you must live with the fact that it drains your tanks within minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im actually only parroting myself and just agreeing with the other guy.

 

SE has some equipment engineering possibilities, yes, but for the most part it simply /is/ "slap on more of it".

 

SE has no variation of FTD's motors/generators which you can taylor for your specific needs within the bounds of the game, practicality and player skill.

 

In space engineers its always 950kwh/kg uranium regardless of how you build your ship or reactor (as far as i can tell).

No choice to build a less efficient setup or more efficient setup to statisfy your power needs, no thinking beyond "slap on more of them"

 

In FTD you can have a large efficient, small powerful, large powerful, or anything inbetween in terms of generators.

And the extrema of either need some skills on the side of the builder to be pulled off.

 

There simply is less thinking involved in space engineers to do anything.

Yes there are cases wheres a lot of thinking involved, like with some of the missle scripts, im not denying that.

 

But for it to be any good for the community at large and general gameplay it has to be simple to do at least something somewhat useful out of a bit of effort.

Programming in general is nothing simple or low effort for most of the populace.

 

Placing blocks and designing machines in doing so is easy and available to everyone.

core mechanics only being interesting for people who invest a ton of time is a bad idea for a game that wants to have a large player base

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im actually only parroting myself and just agreeing with the other guy.

 

SE has some equipment engineering possibilities, yes, but for the most part it simply /is/ "slap on more of it".

 

SE has no variation of FTD's motors/generators which you can taylor for your specific needs within the bounds of the game, practicality and player skill.

 

In space engineers its always 950kwh/kg uranium regardless of how you build your ship or reactor (as far as i can tell).

No choice to build a less efficient setup or more efficient setup to statisfy your power needs, no thinking beyond "slap on more of them"

 

In FTD you can have a large efficient, small powerful, large powerful, or anything inbetween in terms of generators.

And the extrema of either need some skills on the side of the builder to be pulled off.

 

There simply is less thinking involved in space engineers to do anything.

Yes there are cases wheres a lot of thinking involved, like with some of the missle scripts, im not denying that.

 

But for it to be any good for the community at large and general gameplay it has to be simple to do at least something somewhat useful out of a bit of effort.

Programming in general is nothing simple or low effort for most of the populace.

 

Placing blocks and designing machines in doing so is easy and available to everyone.

core mechanics only being interesting for people who invest a ton of time is a bad idea for a game that wants to have a large player base

 

Your points are well stated, speak of experience, of both yourself and others, and make no assumptions about what is or is not true or possible.  I congratulate you, Cornflakes. This is exactly what I look for in debates.

 

  • I concede that most people do play S.E. just slapping components on.  Few people make the jump to actually engineering things.  
  • I see where the disconnect in our views are now by your second and third statements.  You are equating a reactor with an engine.  Though technically this is true it is much harder to make it an equivalent example, due to the relation between power sources and thruster types in Space Engineers.  For instance, If I used batteries on atmospheric thrusters most wouldn't think to draw a parallel at all.  If I use Hydrogen thrusters I don't have an engine at all, just a source of fuel and a throttleable output (which almost no one uses  :angry:) to thrusters.  If I make a gravity drive once again it becomes another fuel source.  The ability to draw parallels is muddled even further when designing mixed systems.
  • The gravity drive is probably the closest you could come when drawing comparisons to FTD's engine design stage.  It has the same balancing act when it comes to efficiency, power, and size.  (I do concede most people design only with acceleration in mind)
  • Your fifth point leaves me wondering, though.  Your statement pretty much contradicts itself.  I would say to accomplish what you want in Space Engineers requires as much thinking as you NEED.  (This was my general gripe about OmnipotentVoids blanket statements.)  The people who make great, complicated, machines that work in Space Engineers are the artisans that fit on one end of a spectrum of skill, and their work deserves more than just being labeled as an exceptional "case".
  • Your last two points make for an interesting argument.  On the one hand, there is nothing wrong with making a game simpler and more accessible to a larger player base.  On the other, If the goal is to make a certain kind of game and then you change it to something that MIGHT be more popular?  Er.  I think this might create more problems than it resolves.  Is it the multiblock system easier?  Certainly.  Will it work for what the game devs WANT you to be able to do in DU?  Hmmm...   ~shake, shake, shake~
  •  magic-8-ball.png
  • The simple truth is we don't know enough about what the devs want to answer that question yet.  It could turn out that a multiblock system is exactly what's needed for this game.  Or every pro about a multiblock system might turn into a con because the of direction the game goes.  We are kinda in the wind right now.  What I do know is that a well done single block system can do everything a multiblock system one can.  It might require skill sets not found in your average player but it can be done.  And I say this with the full knowledge that even single blocks systems like Space Engineers don't always cover the things you want them to.  But that's what updates are for.....  And modding.  Definitely modding. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To avoid making more blanket statements: the thing that FTD has, that SE lacks in my opinion, is depth in design. That is not to say I don't believe that SE is a good game. The fact is that in FTD you design on multiple levels: the ship, systems on the ship and if aplicable the sub parts of those systems. SE only has a single layer of design on top of which is super imposed the design of control stuctures (sensors or code) that give the design aditional function.

Further more, the fact that FTD has regular turnements, where designs are matched against eachother, while space engineers does not, clearly shows that designing things is more fundemental to FTD than SE. In contrast, the fact that ships in FTD are basically combat ships or support ships, while ships in SE can have many and multiple functions shows that SE focuses more on what a particular ship (or stucture) can do, rather than the intricacies of the design of each component.

 

The real point I am trying to make is this: the way space engineers handles functionality is very difficult to deal with. It requires a lot of work and in many cases knowledge of programming in a fairly difficult (for begginers) language. While amazing things can be done, they are only done by a small portion of the community. In FTD, designing is the focus. While the only thing ships do is combat, every player can and does to some extent take a different approach. There are multiple ways to achieve any goal, and due to the modularity of the systems, that goal can be exactly achieved with little waste. Additionally, through the use of prefabs and saved subsystems, the design phase of subcomponents can be completely skipped.

On the flip side: there isn't anything to do in FTD besides pitting ships or fleets against eachother in combat. The campaign allieviates some of that monotony by restricting and localizing resources, but the main principle remains the same. In SE many things must be done: resources gather and infrastructure built. You need to explore and survive and build. While design matters much less in SE there are many more things to design a ship to do.

 

However, the two sides of the argument need not remain seperated. If this game could merge the depth of design from FTD with the more complex gameplay of SE, this game would be far supirior to both even without having massive servers. This is especially true, because both the exploration/survival or the designing can be avoided in game. If you don't want to explore for resource and build infrastructure, pay somebody to use theirs. If you don't want to spend your time designing, pay somebody to design stuff for you, or buy designs off the market or just plain copy them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read most of the posts and comments here. And I must say, I'm severely disappointed that From The Depths was only spoken of twice. It's amazing when it comes to multi block structures! Basically everything in the game is a multi block structure. Sure it doesn't take place in space, but it does everything perfectly! Almost... It's still pretty laggy... STILL! In its earlier days, it only had missile systems, torpedo systems, laser systems, shield systems, and it's "Custom Cannons". However the cannons were removed and replaced with "Cram Cannons", a less bulky, smarter version of the old cannons. And in the latest update they added multi block engines, rail guns, particle cannons and even warp drives. I really think that if the DU devs were to seriously add multi block systems, then they should definitely take a page from From The Depths

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that you can make awesome things in SE, but that is not the point, the point is that you in vanilla SE aren't able to build your own custom thruster or a minigun where you can change freely the firerate and shell size, such things are only possible with mods.

 

On the other hand with FTD you can change this parts almost without limitations, but there are no prescripted single block elements that would be worth it to build them, so if you don't want to spend your time on building such elements yourself, you must also go to the workshop.

 

So we have here to extremes, why not find a middle way? For example we could have prescripted single block elements and a buildsystem for multiblock elements, the prescripted elements would be in their size and properties about equal to a balanced (with this i mean that it is optimal balanced for all properties) similar sized build one, but with the build one you would have the ability to change the properties to your liking.

 

With balance i mean the balance between the positive and negative properties of the element, for example with a thruster you would have to balance the thrust and the power/fuel intake, so if you want a small thruster with much boom you must live with the fact that it drains your tanks within minutes.

Who's ignoring you?  Point them out, I will entomb them within a prison I Voxelmance from my mind.  

 

Oh, and in response to your post I present for your entertainment these two new video links.  Vanilla made chainguns in Space Engineers!  (Link here and here)  Both can have alternate payloads and firing speeds.

 

I'm sorry no matter how many times I read your second paragraph I couldn't stop my brain from having a seizure.  :D   What exactly were you trying to convey?  Because I didn't get it.

 

For the thruster, You are correct!  But pointing out every single component I can't alter cuts both ways.  Can you customize your boat props in FTD for instance?  (And no, size doesn't count I have different size thrusters as well)  Pretty sure they're both fulfilling the same basic function too.  All that shows is in both cases the game developers saw no need to include such sophistication. (yet)

 

Finding a middle ground?  This intrigues me.  It is an interesting idea.  You could have them be the BOG standard parts you initially have access to.  Do you have any ideas how you would incorporate it into the skill system?  

 

As to your fourth paragraph.  No more needs to be said by me.  I think I've made my opinions known on this in previous posts.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To avoid making more blanket statements: the thing that FTD has, that SE lacks in my opinion, is depth in design. That is not to say I don't believe that SE is a good game. The fact is that in FTD you design on multiple levels: the ship, systems on the ship and if aplicable the sub parts of those systems. SE only has a single layer of design on top of which is super imposed the design of control stuctures (sensors or code) that give the design aditional function. Further more, the fact that FTD has regular turnements, where designs are matched against eachother, while space engineers does not, clearly shows that designing things is more fundemental to FTD than SE. In contrast, the fact that ships in FTD are basically combat ships or support ships, while ships in SE can have many and multiple functions shows that SE focuses more on what a particular ship (or stucture) can do, rather than the intricacies of the design of each component. The real point I am trying to make is this: the way space engineers handles functionality is very difficult to deal with. It requires a lot of work and in many cases knowledge of programming in a fairly difficult (for begginers) language. While amazing things can be done, they are only done by a small portion of the community. In FTD, designing is the focus. While the only thing ships do is combat, every player can and does to some extent take a different approach. There are multiple ways to achieve any goal, and due to the modularity of the systems, that goal can be exactly achieved with little waste. Additionally, through the use of prefabs and saved subsystems, the design phase of subcomponents can be completely skipped. On the flip side: there isn't anything to do in FTD besides pitting ships or fleets against eachother in combat. The campaign allieviates some of that monotony by restricting and localizing resources, but the main principle remains the same. In SE many things must be done: resources gather and infrastructure built. You need to explore and survive and build. While design matters much less in SE there are many more things to design a ship to do. However, the two sides of the argument need not remain seperated. If this game could merge the depth of design from FTD with the more complex gameplay of SE, this game would be far supirior to both even without having massive servers. This is especially true, because both the exploration/survival or the designing can be avoided in game. If you don't want to explore for resource and build infrastructure, pay somebody to use theirs. If you don't want to spend your time designing, pay somebody to design stuff for you, or buy designs off the market or just plain copy them.

 

FTD design focused?  Couldn't agree more.  Ease of use?  Dead on.  Thank you for making it clear that is what you were trying to convey.  Until now it felt as if you were making the claim that you can't engineer anything well with a single block style system and a multiblock system was the only solution.  And since you were using Space Engineers (a game I know for a fact you can engineer the $#!+ out of) as an example.  I felt hard pressed not voicing my opinion otherwise.

 

So with that out of the way.  More to discuss later then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...