MORE GEOMETRY!!!!!!!! >:3

[low junco]

Me want beam slopes avaliable in other gradients.
Yk how you have the green buttons that open to extra blocks for instance CJE intakes opens the different kinds of intakes
Could you do the same where theres a 1m Beam Slope menu from 2-4m, a 2m beam slope menu from 2-4m, etc
so theres beam slopes with all the gradients, just crunched into smaller buttons :3

[velvet holly]

Have you tried pressing ctrl+x?

[mint socket]

here are the 2m, 3m, and 4m beamslopes

[lunar stump]

I think they may be referring to up to 4x4, which is too big for it to be balanced

[chrome osprey]

Also not smart to do building anyways. That 4x4 gets broken and yoy suddenly have a 4x4 hole In your armour

[mint socket]

thats not the issue, the issue is that having a single structural block with that much HP is a huge nerf to pierce weapons

it would be very smart building actually to use the blocks with the highest hp

thats why we use 4m beams

a 4x4 beamslope would have as much health as two beams, making your armor scheme out of them would effectively double its resistance to pierce weapons while halving the cost (cause you're replacing beams with slopes)

if you want a 4m slope 4 times, just place the block 4 times

[mint socket]

or use decos yea

[low junco]

me want physical slopes, not some deco

[mint socket]

^

[earnest nest]

larger building blocks are better in every single way

there is a reason shit like ducts has a massive health nerf

the width of a hole doesnt matter

the depth of a hole matters

a wide hole is extremely good for you because that means more of your armor is used

a deep hole is extremely bad for you because that means damage is a lot closer to your internals and less of your armor was used

[subtle bear]

There’s a reason it’s called decope. It allows you to make shapes not in the game.

[mint socket]

no its called decope because i use it to cope with my inability to shape anything

[lunar stump]

Oh, you know what would be cool? 2-4m wide beam wedges. Give them the same treatment as the beam slopes

[still oxide]

If you really want more slopes and such, look up the megaslopes pack v2

[lunar stump]

A lot of the stuff in that is ridiculously unbalanced, due to the sheer amount of health they can have from their size

[mild bobcat]

I think more shape options are completely fine as long as they all hold to having no more total volume (and hitpoints) than a 4m beam. Like an 8m slope or wedge would be okay since it'd be equivalent to a 4m beam in volume and hp, but a 10m one would be out.

[lunar stump]

Well, no, an 8m slope would have more hp than a 4m beam, because of the health buff that longer blocks get

[mild bobcat]

Longer blocks are supposed to get health buffs based on volume, not absolute length, aren't they?

[lunar stump]

No, it's based on length

[mild bobcat]

Then it should be changed to volume because length makes no sense

you shouldn't get more hp by taking the same amount of material and making it into a long skinny pole instead of a brick

[lunar stump]

It's to encourage using more larger blocks than fewer smaller blocks with the same volume, for the sake of performance

[mild bobcat]

I know. But my point is that the block's volume AIUI along with its material is supposed to determine its HP total

[lunar stump]

And the 4m beam is still the strongest block anyway

Even though the longest transition slope is 1m longer, which has half the health a 5m beam would have

[mild bobcat]

Because it has the maximum volume allowed and we generally agree that's the cap

[lunar stump]

Exactly

It's still balanced

What you suggest would nerf anything that isn't a solid block

Because volume already directly correlates with health, before the length buff

[mild bobcat]

But still, basing block hitpoints simply on the volume of the block x material factor x the small bonus factor for being large so everything's consistent seems like a way better approach than anything else, it's mathematically smooth and always does what's expected

[lunar stump]

That's, uh, exactly how it works already…

[mild bobcat]

I'm just saying the "length buff" shouldn't correspond only to length but as a multiplicative factor to volume and this would be more consistent

so that way a 4m beam and 8m lengthwise slope would have exactly the same hp, and a 2m beam and 4m sideways or lengthwise slope would all have the same hp

[earnest nest]

A 4m beamslope having less than half the hp of a 4m beam would be more confusing

[mild bobcat]

because they have the same volume

[lunar stump]

Volume is already multiplicative, and so is the health buff

[mild bobcat]

Then i'm confused what we're arguing about

[lunar stump]

And now you're instead suggesting there should be no buff for larger blocks

[mild bobcat]

and I don't feel like opening up the game and carefully comparing hitpoints of various block shapes right now

[lunar stump]

Despite advocating for it right here

[mild bobcat]

I am apparently disagreeing on what "larger" means and that's all

[lunar stump]

Larger means taking up more voxels

[earnest nest]

It’s already perfectly consistent

[lunar stump]

Otherwise, it's already covered by volume

[earnest nest]

The buff depends on the amount of grid squares the block takes up

Blocks that take up more grid squares are less computationally expensive and thus are encouraged by the game design

[marble ocean]

The lengh buff is about game performance and standardizing that type of beam

it's not about any volume whatever

(I can't be arsed to read the rest of the comments)