Modular Thruster Preview Feedback

[languid sand]

All of the ships I posted only use those thrusters?

[deft crow]

that would make the ships turn even faster

we're already stacking them vertically

this is my best setup

[marble mauve]

i mean doing it in a way where you need a truely lengthy line of it for a really good boost
right now im literally only seeing these as walls but the thrusters behind them are in a somewhat different shape, but still with the same placement style
there is still no benefit to making a long stack that goes across the middle of your ship, it seems to just replace the existing thrust methods with a better form instead of adding something new you should build around

[deft crow]

how is my prototype a wall

[marble mauve]

🧱 🧱

🚀

[deft crow]

yeah I know it doesnt have a nice shape, i just stacked bricks of front armor. Imagine something like this but with those new thrusters

[marble mauve]

still need to think about that...
though one thing i dont like is how this new engine is now generalized as one module that can be used everywhere

[brittle thorn]

they are more cost efficient which makes them better

they can't use extra power though

you'll have to spam mrs for them to be good

[deft crow]

i mean you can try to build a large reactor one but I found them extremely hard to sustain

[marble mauve]

would it really change the shape of this ship, though? i only see them just making it thinner from the sides, faster, and more maneuverable
its like an outright movement buff to anything big as of now :/

[brittle thorn]

100% agreed

[deft crow]

of course it will be a buff. If these thrusters were worse no one would use them. They need to be a tradeoff. And I find the current tradeoff very interesting: you can't sustain them using spare power from your reactors

[marble mauve]

ill have to try again
the main reason i dont like the current best useable setup is due to the lack of variation in it, its only a pattern as of now

[plucky thunder]

Hey, why do manoeuvrability ships use a mix of huges, large and standard ?

[deft crow]

you're free to try to build a better thruster setup, mine isnt perfect

[brittle thorn]

maneuverability ships (avoiders and static (i.e. not ht thrust) railfans) use larges and standards mostly, huges aren't good for those

[supple pagoda]

You're misremembering then, this pattern seems to be on all the fastest preview ships
At least it's more interesting than the old one i'll give you that

[deft crow]

develop a different thruster setup, we still don't know if that's optimal

[languid sand]

Guess you are right if you want to count 2 huge thrusters

[languid sand]

Mine definitely isnt lol

I just wanted to quickly build some ships

Didnt really optimise anything

[deft crow]

I'm guessing that one with a partially used large reactor would be optimal

[supple pagoda]

They do? Maybe I'm only seeing rammers then

Could be a meta thing

[languid sand]

They dont in pvp

Only avoiders use smaller thrusters

[deft crow]

in pvp almost everyone uses huge thrust because rampup is not very important

[supple pagoda]

I tried, they were all slower than Plaus' results

[deft crow]

yeah we know

[languid sand]

Then you didnt try very hard xD

[deft crow]

that's why we are using that for now

but not optimal at all

[brittle thorn]

listen it's hard to optimise new stuff

[supple pagoda]

Or maybe you got them skills, I haven't been making ships for very long

[brittle thorn]

i spent 2 hours to try to optimise a comparatively simple railsetup and i failed

[brittle thorn]

so i ended up wasting 2 hours of my life to confirm that regular setups are just as good

[plucky thunder]

Idea : Nozzle on both ends

[supple pagoda]

Yep that's what some of us have been saying, putting a huge power hog through your ship's interior (where reactors etc should be) should give better results than lining up the back with thrusters you can shield
Im gonna check if it also blocks crew movement, and if it does, it's worse

[deft crow]

that would be extremely op

[plucky thunder]

Yes ahah

But it's a beta

[deft crow]

no point testing it at all

[plucky thunder]

Some people at valve would put beta tester in an extra hard version of the game "just in case"

I'm looking at you hl2

[languid sand]

Why?

[deft crow]

using the extenders for both directions? it's op

[languid sand]

But why?

[deft crow]

you're getting double thrust for the same price

[languid sand]

What ship type would you use?

[supple pagoda]

i suppose Plaus isn't far

[languid sand]

But you need a lot of space

[plucky thunder]

Can't use all at the same time

[deft crow]

i can imagine an ion cruiser using them

[languid sand]

Like 200 less iirc

[plucky thunder]

Jet's IRL can have reverse thrust

[languid sand]

How? No front armor? And since when are ion cruisers usable

Would be amazing to see them work again

Or a ul ion cruiser?

[deft crow]

they have a deflector

[marble mauve]

if we had this the thrusters could be placed horizontally across a ship and strafe both ways

[supple pagoda]

Alright just tested : extenders don't block, that's a good thing
Fuel tanks do, and now I'm sure nobody will use them in their current state after some minimal experimentation

[plucky thunder]

shush

[languid sand]

I dont dislike the idea of 2 sided. Maybe the ramp up should be separate though

[marble mauve]

yeah it shouldnt be able to instantly go back and fourth

[deft crow]

fuel pods are like these wheels. They help newbies sustain their thrusters better at a cost. No one will use them in pvp, but career players will use them

they might also allow weirder modules

[plucky thunder]

I think I have some ennergy issues

[deft crow]

a medium can't sustain all of that

[languid sand]

Would be cool if they were more usable though

[marble mauve]

use fuel pods so you can fit large reactors in your thruster setup

[supple pagoda]

You know, i had no opinion at all on that topic until i realized that lets you make space trains, kind of...
So I say why not, but maybe as a separate piece since it would have to cost more for the convenience

[deft crow]

1.5k is reasonable

[languid sand]

You just said that no one will use them

[deft crow]

no one uses capacitors usually

unless weird stuff with rails

[languid sand]

Tb rail is weird?

And they are used a lot in dom

[deft crow]

yeah as a cheaper reactor to spam ships

[languid sand]

Yes

Its a very strong usecase even

[supple pagoda]

I think what they mean is it could cost 0, they wouldn't use it because it's not worth the space and pathing blocking it causes (for pvp)
in career money comes too easily anyway

[deft crow]

fuel pods can be used as emp armor btw 🤭

[languid sand]

I feel like pods will have no use at all which is sad

[languid sand]

If they costed 0 you would use them as armor

[deft crow]

i don't think they need a buff, they're reasonable but pvp players will always try to remove capacitors and fuel pods first

because they're not weapons or armor or producing anything. They're there to supplement bad logistics

[languid sand]

Yea Ill stop arguing while I dont even know how the part works

[deft crow]

stores 4 power

that's it

[languid sand]

I mean I have not tryed it yet

[deft crow]

and it gives the thruster the power when it needs it

[languid sand]

alpha thrusters

[deft crow]

honestly might work

[languid sand]

No way

[deft crow]

because you can use extenders as boosters if you have them turned off

[languid sand]

A right that trick

On alpha cg?

[deft crow]

mhm

you should try that, they might allow funny stuff

[languid sand]

I cant imagine that its good

[deft crow]

i totally can

[languid sand]

But yes very funny

[deft crow]

i can see a small reactor keeping nozzle ramped up and then fwoom

20 extenders turn on

[languid sand]

If that works Ill allow pods to exist

[marble mauve]

does this instantly bring the thruster to max thrust?

or does the extenders still add ramp up even when off?

[deft crow]

not max but close

[supple pagoda]

You're saying the thruster can ramp up to max, and then you activate all extenders and get full thrust immediately instead of having longer ramp-up based on number of extenders?

[marble mauve]

hmm

[deft crow]

not full but close

test it

[supple pagoda]

will do thanks

It's damn near instant, <1 second. Definitely looks faster to start with just thruster and enable the extenders when it's reached max thrust. That could be nice if you enjoy min-maxing that much, else it's just extra work you should be doing for any non-short trip...

[marble mauve]

that should definitely be fixed
last thing i want to see in mp is uber ultra micromanaging like that for an advantage

[deft crow]

it doesnt start at full rampup, but it's close to full

[supple pagoda]

waiiiiit a minute, your name is up there on the right with "champion" over it
You've been messing with me this whole time! and i fell for it 👏

[deft crow]

xd

[supple pagoda]

Yup nice find, hope someone told Walt

[deft crow]

i kinda like it, the alternative would make these setups extremely hard to sustain

maybe walt has a nice idea to avoid this "bug" and still make them easy to sustain

[supple pagoda]

Hopefully
As an "economy thrust" option it makes complete sense, just the ramp-up thing is whack

[languid sand]

I wasnt lying I swear xD. My ships are often sloppy with a lot of tiny flaws. I just assumed my thruster setup is similar. I put in no afford to optimise it.

[pseudo kelp]

where do i enter the pass

[languid sand]

Cosmoteer settings in steam. Under betas

[plucky thunder]

There's crew getting problems I think with the fuel pods

I think the crew doesn't consider the fuel pods

[pseudo kelp]

i only see Manage

[plucky thunder]

when supplying ER

[pseudo kelp]

im on the library page rn

[brittle thorn]

wait er doesn't supply pods???

[languid sand]

Just shut down my pc...

[languid sand]

Go the cosmoteer on steam library click the gear icon click properties click betas

[pseudo kelp]

ok found it

how do i play it though

[marble mauve]

you see the spot where you can enter beta keys?

put in previewpreview

[pseudo kelp]

i did

i think i opted in but im not sure

lemme check if it did anything

[supple pagoda]

If you say so! I can't find the flaws but maybe with with another few hundred hours of experience i will

[karmic hedge]

those two pods are upside down

[supple pagoda]

looks correct for the preview version, they're odd like that
I see very few doors, might be more the problem

[karmic hedge]

ah you're right

[pseudo kelp]

i love how comically large the deadzone is

[stark gorge]

intended

[pseudo kelp]

i think theres a module bug with the fuel tanks

not sure tho

[deft crow]

now that you're here, we can use extenders as "boosters" if we turn them off because the nozzle can hold the rampup (not sure if intended either)

[pseudo kelp]

the error that railguns have when theyre missing a vital part is showing up on the fuel tanks even though i think i have em attached right

i have em on the right side of the extenders and they show the signal anyway

[modern mountain]

Make sure the doors are facing away from the extender

[pseudo kelp]

OH im dumb

[stark gorge]

not intended, will fix

[frosty crane]

i imagine it has the 5% perpendicular thrust at the nozzle and it gets increased with extra parts?

[plucky thunder]

it does

But I think the crew doesn't "feel" the need to recharge the fuel pods via ER

[brittle thorn]

ah

[deft crow]

yes

[stark gorge]

@everyone New Rocket Thruster preview build is live!

• Fixed exploit where you could keep extenders powered off and then turn them on to instantly ramp up the Rocket Thruster to full force.
• Fuel Pods are now horizontally symmetrical, can be used on either side of a rocket without needing (or able) to be rotated, and now allow door access to the attached Extender/Nozzle as well as from above. (You'll need to fix any existing designs that use fuel pods on the right side of a rocket.)
• Reduced ramp-up recovery window from 2 seconds to 1.
• Experimental changes intended to disincentivize very short thrusters:
  • Reverted the Rocket Nozzle back to its original size and cost. (But not its original force/power/batteries.)
  • Rocket Nozzles now require 2 crew in order for the entire thruster to function.
  • Increased the Nozzle's command point usage from 10 to 16 and reduced the Extender's from 4 to 0.
• Modding: Added a 'BuffableValue' part component which provides a value that can be modified by a buff to other components.

[boreal violet]

The regret of making and painting two ships using beta features

time to get back to work!

[boreal swan]

0 cp?? massive rocket stick w/ single cr

[sullen merlin]

engine rooms require two crew, i dont think the thruster nozzles should require the same amount of crew, especially for career balence where the main limiting factor is crew

maybe max one crew per

[cerulean fiber]

I think there are other limits in career (rare materials)

but yeah, otherwise you can make very crew light/ cockpit light ships

[sturdy ice]

I am personally very much for this, it feels right

[marble mauve]

game crashed when i turned off a segment like this while the thruster was firing

[supple pagoda]

Crash aside that looks nice! 100% ER coverage and the fuel on the other side to avoid flickering i guess? Did it work?

[marble mauve]

made this almost always sustaining setup, aside from the engine rooms
the idea here was, to keep the engine rooms online, supply the thrusters from the outside and have some crew travel inside to supply the low power useage engine rooms
unfortunately, you cannot control how engine rooms lend power, so 90% of what the crew gave to the engine rooms were wasted and they couldnt sustain at all

if i could control if engine rooms gave power to neighboring thrusters or not, then this setup would function properly

the large reactors are being very well used, too

[supple pagoda]

This is strange, in the code for the ERs, it specifically says it should be feeding the thruster with the current lowest power. Meaning if sufficient energy comes in, no connected thruster should run out of juice. Seems to mostly work for Huges in release version of the game.

So in theory, this setup simply eats up too much power per second for these reactors. Have you tried adding some?

[boreal violet]

well that wasnt too bad

tho

crew needing to pilot the thruster doesnt

feel

great

[marble mauve]

the only time the reactors ran out of power was when the ER crew took a little too much from one side

anyways, i think this is what's happening:

the active thrusters use a lot of power before the crew dilvery batteries to the capacitors
the engine rooms get power and a lot of the energy is given to the thrusters, but not the capacitors

the crew deliver their power to the capacitors, but because the thrusters are full, a lot of the energy is wasted from them
the engine room, now having distributed 90% of its income, shuts off after 2 seconds

---

this will be solved if the fuel pods keeps the connected engines at full charge until the fuel pod its self ran out of power, which would prevent the engine rooms here from unessesarly distributing power to already powered engines

[supple pagoda]

Yeah... but when does it ever? It'll probably do its job of avoiding nozzle spam efficiently though

[supple pagoda]

Oh, yeah that sounds bad. A larger reserve might fix it? Not sure if buffing ERs is part of the scope of this update but i really want this new part to function properly

[boreal violet]

true. and I dont have an issue with it. the pruple one on the right works incredibly well with no issues. but something just does not feel great about having both engine rooms and thrusters take crew, ontop of the ammount of crew needed to supply all the engine rooms and or extenders/fuel pods at the same time

[marble mauve]

i feel like adding needed crew for the thruster doesnt really effect anything asides career
for mp its literally just 800 more cost, those crew arent moving anywhere and there is no need to optimize them because there isnt anything to optimize with them

[boreal violet]

i mean you're not wrong.

it takes 1 small crew bed (aka 2 crew) to power it. but my issue is with

the whole setup

as apposed to just purely the nozzle

[marble mauve]

I mean, making the fuel pods not let the engine segments go below full power as long as they are supplied will solve this without any changes to the engine rooms themselves

[supple pagoda]

the crew bed is an extra 2 tons unless you had free space, wouldn't say it's completely free of consequence even in MP

[marble mauve]

radical difference

then you have the ones that just split off the crew bunks with a charge...

[boreal violet]

2 tonns does get out thrusted for lack of a better word

[marble mauve]

at that point just increase the weight of the rocket nozzle lol

[boreal violet]

the benefit of the rocket thruster outweighs having 2 extra crew imo

[marble mauve]

some funny sort of nerf thing: if the rocket nozzle was 1 tile long, then you couldnt add a huge thruster if you placed it on the side of an engine room

[supple pagoda]

Also makes the ship a bigger target... i think it's gonna be worth it, at least i hope so
Just saying certain types of designs in particular will very much not wanna add 2 crew per nozzle and probably stick to Huges on an ER. I have no problem with that if both alternatives are viable

[boreal violet]

I'd like to point out. just incase some people arn't taking this into consideration. these thrusters in no way will be fitted onto every ship in career or pvp

they are very much situational in the state that they are

from what I've tested. spamming these in Engine clusters doesnt work as well as ive seen some people mention

(or hope for)

[marble mauve]

shouldnt this be trying to boost forwards?

that is a very small angle of difference between its self and the target

[boreal violet]

that is interesting

[supple pagoda]

oh you got that bug too? try manual control it should boost just fine

[marble mauve]

yeah its basicly not boosting

[marble mauve]

saved game for debugging

[supple pagoda]

I think beyond a certain length the AI can't wrap its neurons around the balance of power to thrust forward properly and gives up (i pulled that out of my hat though, i have no real idea)

What i mean is make it shorter and see if that doesn't fix it. And yes i know it defeats the point of long thrusters a bit but i trust Walt can fix it

[boreal violet]

Honestly i think your right?

I've had issues like it too

[karmic hedge]

while it is a bug, it also implies that tiny thrusters might be useful

[boreal violet]

^

i was just about to mention the ships with rocket thrusters AND other engine clusters dont have this issue

[marble mauve]

my rocket flies like an actual rocket in direct control

this is cool

i have it set to point in my mouse direction, just hold W and it keeps boosting no matter where you aim

unfortunately the RTS ai is incapable of such feat and completely fails to do any manuver and just stops moving most of the time

[boreal violet]

the rockets feel very nice currently to control

[marble mauve]

i could put railguns on the front of it and treat it as some sort of fighter plane

[boreal violet]

thats actually a good idea

with the turn speed of the rockets i imagine fanning railguns works rather well.

havnt tested it just yet

though youd have to fan whilest your full speed(or climbing to full speed)

[marble mauve]

this thing turns quite well so i could do "strafing" runs with it

[boreal violet]

mhm!

[marble mauve]

here's my rocket if you want to play with it

[boreal violet]

very interesting setup

[supple pagoda]

Ehhh, my long setup has 4 braking medium thrusters + 2 smalls braking and side, and AI still can't drive it

[boreal violet]

can you send a static image of your ship

as apposed to just a gif

i would like to see your setup a bit more

[supple pagoda]

sure here's current version

[boreal violet]

thank you very much

[supple pagoda]

Goes 168 m/s max right now, turns better than i expected, doesn't sustain, AI can't drive it

[boreal violet]

i mean

the only thing i can really say is that your using pretty much purely rocket thrusters, with very few other thrusters in the mix

my ships (the calabasas) that use rocket thrusters. also use other thrusters too (enough to actually turn the ship at a decent speed)

so im pretty sure you just need more thrust aside from just the rocket thrusters

ofc correct me if im wrong?

[supple pagoda]

Probably! Any thruster should be able to work on its own though, else it's really weird. I'm sure it's just a minor correction in the way the game calculates thrust, needing updated for this new possibility

[boreal violet]

I agree

though i highly doubt there will be any pure rocket thruster builds out there so idk how big of an issue it actually is

(now that is something id love to be proven wrong about)

[karmic hedge]

plaus already made a UL nuke with purely these engines, it's not the most recent patch of the preview but it's been done

wait nvm it had a couple huges mixed in

[boreal violet]

:)

nuke ships would work

wonders

with these though

[supple pagoda]

Oh i'm definitely making some fast pirate cargo ships you need to intercept out of this, whenever i get a chance

[boreal violet]

i-

didnt even think of freighters.

that might be their best ussage.

though

the crew demand for having an effective setup is

not the best

[supple pagoda]

So... it kinda works a little?... 0.5 m/s but it's moving now, progress! (this is x8 speed)

[boreal violet]

wooo!

progress!

(definetly want to consider proper ER clusters at some point for more efficiency)

[supple pagoda]

Yep
For now i have this new experiment where you can see the AI get it together when i turn some extenders Off. It's quite... puzzling. Also the number of extenders it can handle depends on whether or not the ship is already moving and probably other factors... It never handles the whole column though. Flying at 140 m/s I turn everything on, the ship immediately slows back down to 4m/s (before any power issues happen).

[boreal violet]

I've noticed that even with good crew setups the thrusters just dont work the best

something is wrong with how the crew prioritize engine rooms and fuel pods/extenders

ive manage to get around issues with just

better crew management

but theres only so much i can do and it was a good hour long headache fixing the calabasas during the last patch due to how janky the thrusters were...

[supple pagoda]

Maybe it's just not practically possible to sustain in current state, as in "by the time the parts request a battery refill, it has a high chance of being delivered too late to avoid flickering". Or we haven't figured out the exact functional puzzle yet. But should it be that restrictive?

[boreal violet]

I chalked it upto inexperience with a new feature. but the more i play with it the more i feel like its just a bug

[supple pagoda]

I wasn't there for preview versions of times past, maybe they had the same sort of issues and easily iron it out before release.

[brittle thorn]

i agree but then again i don't really like the idea of giving them railgun logistics

true

[golden mauve]

Plaus makes sure he makes the most amount of unoptimized doodoo before the update even releases just so he yoinks all the visionary bragging rights :agony:

[deft crow]

on the new update sustain is EXTREMELY important
fuel pods might be required now

[deft crow]

I had this idea and it's working

the ers are supplied with lower priority, I use the fuel pods to supply thrust

would be very very good for a tall wall

[brittle thorn]

is it better than the mr design?

more surface area for walls but to me atleast that looks like that's the only benefit

[deft crow]

it's reaching 180 with some extra weight

[deft crow]

i'm using large reactors too, they're way more efficient

[brittle thorn]

nice

[deft crow]

i'll see this in the spreadsheet but i think it's nice

[brittle thorn]

now i need to figure out whether i can power rails with extra power or not

ithink it's already way better for rails

[deft crow]

yep this module is the best one so far (if you use the large reactors for weapons at the front)

it's higher thrust/credit than the theoretical for huge thrust

the medium reactor module is now much weaker

walt was right, now longer thrusters are very good

not needed anymore, I actually love how it's balanced right now

[brittle thorn]

same

[deft crow]

this is perfect

absolutely perfectly balanced

left=better right=worse
i'm considering thrust+crew+infrastructure cost
perfect

forcing us to add crew to nozzles is a good option

[languid sand]

You mean I should get vis through fair means?

[deft crow]

finally this is viable

I think this was walts idea when he made these parts

[pure juniper]

are engines room really cost efficent

[deft crow]

extremely cost efficient

it's the most cost efficient part in there xd

[pure juniper]

look a little odd to not use engine room as a power transfer
but i love this usage!

[deft crow]

yep

just using them for the bonus

except the first one

i'll see how it is in the spreadsheet

a bit worse than the setup I posted earlier but much better than the rest

I love how they're balanced right now. My only concern is that ships will be even faster now. Do we want this? In 1.5M ships, avoider-like designs will perform worse compared to these new thrusters.

[deft crow]

If you want to prevent this (problem?) I would suggest a very slight nerf to thrust of both huges and nozzles. Maybe 7000 thrust? 7500?

[pure juniper]

do the reduced ramp-up recovery window from 2 seconds to 1 not enough

[brittle thorn]

probably won't be i don't think

[deft crow]

actually that's a good idea too, is this implemented on huge thrust too?

[deft crow]

I think it's enough to tip the balance

[brittle thorn]

fair enough

i just don't think it'll go far enough

[deft crow]

it would allow avoiders to use the lower rampup of huges/rockets

more effectively

[maiden shell]

Speed meta is a problem in general and it's pretty complicated imo, can't really fix it by slightly tweaking numbers

[brittle thorn]

tbh all we need to do is figure out a way to nerf uls

[pure juniper]

not. but it should hurt manouvrability alot

[brittle thorn]

but that is really hard otherwise it will also nerf non uls

[pure juniper]

agreed! it drag me out of the game @w@

[brittle thorn]

and sometimes affects generally fast ships that aren't uls

[deft crow]

I don't think it's a problem because fast ships are more fun to pilot. No one likes to be countered by a no skill brick

however, extreme ULs are getting common and these parts would allow them to be even faster

[brittle thorn]

extreme speed is the problem

[pure juniper]

direct control allow so much flexibility in thrust management

it's so hard to balance along RTS who don't have that flexibility

[brittle thorn]

tbh even removing dc wouldn't work

people would master using autofire

same result, different method

[deft crow]

anyway for now these are the 2 alternatives. Heavier but more thrust/credit or lighter but less thrust/credit

[brittle thorn]

not mentioning that alot of people would just stop playing

[deft crow]

I think medium reactor is better for ULs, and large reactor is better for heavier ships

[deft crow]

OH extenders are only 5k?

wait this changes things

ers are no longer worth it

I think extenders should be at least 6k to make ers viable

I'll test a very dumb setup

yeah this is better and I don't like it

[vagrant flume]

oh god what

[deft crow]

mhm

I'll try with a medium reactor

[vagrant flume]

i assume the 0.729344 is the cost-thrust efficacy?

[deft crow]

yes

[vagrant flume]

which number is the true cost tho?

[deft crow]

true cost is 351k

[vagrant flume]

i see

[deft crow]

i remove crs for the true cost

i could assume a parcial cost of a large cr but meh, it's not that much impact

[vagrant flume]

yea

[deft crow]

oh no this works

uh oh this will probably win

[vagrant flume]

what

how

how does that sustain?

[plucky thunder]

Idea : Let's do an optimisation contest on rockets

[vagrant flume]

i think luna already won

[maiden shell]

but shouldn't imo, so a few changes need to be made for designs to use ers and fuel capacitors (I forgor the name)

[deft crow]

OK

i'm so glad it's not good

[vagrant flume]

how do you even get more barebones than this

[maiden shell]

Oh good

[deft crow]

Ok, this is the best one so far

I think extenders should cost 7500

5000 makes these setups better

extenders should cost at least 6000

to break even with the 12k of the ers

[deft crow]

actually no, at least 6700 because ers need operators

[brittle thorn]

round it up to 7000

7500 is good number

[deft crow]

7500 is a good number for me

[vagrant flume]

hm

[deft crow]

the ers make rocket setups very interesting

[vagrant flume]

yea though i dislike that you cant practically have one ER power two rockets

except for the ErMr setup

[deft crow]

you canç

[vagrant flume]

the right one, ye

but the left one... that works?

[deft crow]

left one also has ers

yes

[vagrant flume]

suprising

[deft crow]

you use the ers for the buff

supply thrust with the fuel pods

so you only need to feed them 0.1/s

[vagrant flume]

the sheer amout of crew it uses though

[brittle thorn]

not much tbh

[deft crow]

It has more thrust than this

don't forget that

[vagrant flume]

jeasus lmao

[brittle thorn]

uses less crew too

2 less but still

[deft crow]

nah 8ers use less crew

[brittle thorn]

i probably missed a quarter or bunk then

[deft crow]

u did

[brittle thorn]

assuming the top quarter is for the cr and only the cr

it's 8 quarters and 2 bunks for the lr setup

[deft crow]

oh you're right

i forgot about that

[brittle thorn]

same crew usage huh

[maiden shell]

Doesn't really matter since the wide one is way easier to hit

[brittle thorn]

more crew efficient then

[deft crow]

also, I think the rocket setup might be a bit more crew efficient

[brittle thorn]

ye

[deft crow]

not completely sure thi

[deft crow]

left one has less torque

[maiden shell]

No I meant the wide huge engine setup

[vagrant flume]

the left one is more effient and the right one is way lighter

though seems like the right one is generally a better choice

[deft crow]

right is lighter, it moves faster on its own

has more twr

[vagrant flume]

yea

[deft crow]

better for uls

[vagrant flume]

seems better for most ships since its also very compact

[vagrant flume]

could you add 2 more rockets or can the Lr not support it?

[deft crow]

nah, most ships will use a variation of big reactor

[deft crow]

that's the power they consume

[vagrant flume]

i see

[deft crow]

wait just 9.6?

yeah oops

one sec then

[vagrant flume]

hmm i cant load your ship into my game

which perview version is it built in?

[deft crow]

beautiful

still not worth it

and if I add more it starts to flicker

a lot

it should be able to support more but crew wastes a lot of power

[vagrant flume]

btw how does the ER boost the extenders exactly?

do they increase the boost extenders give or boost thrust directly?

[deft crow]

even better

[deft crow]

boosts the extenders

ok finally it's close to the other ones

[plucky thunder]

This amount of crew next to reactor and er not supplying enough energy is weird

I think there's a bug

The crew doesn't try to supply the fuel pods

trough ER

[deft crow]

they don't yeah

the extender has to be touching the er with fuel pod

the fuel pod doesnt matter

[plucky thunder]

Nevermind

They do

But I still think there's a bug

They took quite a lot of time to do it

[deft crow]

ask walt, maybe it's not intended

[plucky thunder]

There may be a small bug where the crew considers only the extenders, until the extenders are full then the fuel pods

[vagrant flume]

the extenders are weird and very limited, makes using ERs with them unfavourable

[deft crow]

yeah currently ers are underpowered compared to extenders

[vagrant flume]

yea

[deft crow]

it will probably be fixed so expect 7.5k

[vagrant flume]

right version is 4 m/s slower but 100k saved lmao

[deft crow]

with 7.5k extenders, ers would only be worth the cost if they touch 4 nozzles/extenders/huge thrusters

these are the 2 options currently

pretty sure they're close to optimal

[plucky thunder]

This module only draws 2 or 3 crewmembers, wich is 6 energy when it has a capacity of 8 (not including ER)

[deft crow]

yeah but it only consumes 1.6 power

[plucky thunder]

It's so weird it flickers

[vagrant flume]

two of the extenders only have 2 batteries each

[deft crow]

yep

flickers because they don't supply

[plucky thunder]

2 batteries make them super finnicky to supply

[vagrant flume]

yea, rn they need fuel pods to prevent flicker

[deft crow]

use fuel pods, they make them easier to supply

[deft crow]

or just copy my designs

[vagrant flume]

even if they are next to a reactor you cant get em to stop flickering

ive tried for too long lmao

[deft crow]

i mean you can

but logistics are tight as hell yes

[vagrant flume]

can you? i can never get them to fully sustain

[marble mauve]

i had to use capacitors along mine

[deft crow]

that's very expensive :(

[plucky thunder]

There is literally one meter between crew, er and reactor and it STILL FLICKERS AHHHH

[deft crow]

some flicker is fine tbh

[plucky thunder]

Absolutly not

My ocd said that

[deft crow]

as long as the flicker is from the reactor overloading

and not from bad logistics

i allow some flicker in my designs

[plucky thunder]

I hate it

why does it flicker

The worst is, that the fuel pods flicker, not the extenders

THEY HAVE 4 E INSTEAD OF 2

HOWWW

[deft crow]

that's completely fine????

[vagrant flume]

the flicker is pretty bad

[marble mauve]

the thrusters the fuel pod is connected to literally gets no supplied power

[plucky thunder]

YES whyyyy

If the fuel pods flicker I lose engine power

[marble mauve]

fuel pods should just deliver all the power they get to the thruster till its full

[plucky thunder]

Yes

[marble mauve]

this would solve both your and my problem

[deft crow]

mine have flicker too

[plucky thunder]

Is there a reason why the fuel pods are less supplied than the extenders, despite the extenders being boosted in E consumtion by the ER ?

It literally makes no sense

If anything, the connected extenders should flicker, not the fuelpod connected one

[marble mauve]

i wonder how yours supplies so well when fuel pods up to 8 tiles away from my large reactor flicker too much

i had to put 6 capacitors so that wouldnt happen

[boreal violet]

I’ve mentioned this before but there’s definetly an issue with how the crew prioritize resupplying batteries to the rocket thruster parts

[vagrant flume]

huh, cosmoteer crashed

just as i finished NON v2...

[deft crow]

the extender not touching the er isn't boosting the thrust

even if it has the fuel pod

it's not getting supplied

[marble mauve]

i find it weird that the fuel pod doesnt supply the connected extender directly

[deft crow]

I would recommend this module

[deft crow]

fine i'll ask walt

[vagrant flume]

uh, i dont know why but this ship has crashed my game 3 times in the span of 2 minutes so far

[deft crow]

@stark gorge

• the fuel pod is touching the extender and it gets supplied by the engine room, but the extender doesn't have power. Is this intended? (image 1)
• The extenders are too cheap right now, so I believe these are the best setups you can make (thrust/cost). (image 2) I think we should go back to 7.5k to make engine rooms viable again. They would allow interesting setups like these ones (image 3)
• I think extenders should cost at least 1 control point, but your call
• I love the crew requirement for the nozzles and the rest feels perfect as it is. The average speed of meta ships will go up with these rockets, is this ok?

[plucky thunder]

I'm so bad at this game

[boreal violet]

Oh

[boreal violet]

Attaching fuel pods to extenders or nozzles removes their power sprite

I was having that issue before too

[deft crow]

i don't understand what you mean by this, could you show a screenshot?

[vagrant flume]

fuel pods dont transfer power or provide an access point to power extenders/nozzles

[boreal violet]

I’m not on rn but what your having happened to me too just with the thruster nozzles as well as the extenders

[vagrant flume]

so the fuel pod could have power and power the extender while the extender itself doesnt have power

[boreal violet]

I’m well aware

[vagrant flume]

so not that, i see

[marble mauve]

this is the most brick shaped brick ive seen!

[boreal violet]

I’m not completely apposed to this being the issue btw it’s just weird that it’s incredibly consistent with all of my designs

Doesn’t make the most sense to me

[vagrant flume]

yea i dislike it, makes it annoyingly difficult to supply both the extender and pod

[boreal violet]

Crew definitely have a struggle with prioritization when pods are involved which makes it harder to test stuff….

[supple pagoda]

longer also means more exposed especially the nozzle, isn't that a fair trade? nozzles out means sitting duck

[vagrant flume]

would be nice if the pod acts as one with the extender/nozzle but im not sure if that conflicts with what walt wants

[deft crow]

not really tbh

[boreal violet]

Honestly I wish the pods auto slotted energy into the extenders as apposed to being just an extend separate storage for them

[vagrant flume]

exactly what i said

[boreal violet]

I guess I misunderstood

[supple pagoda]

so, double-sided works then?

[plucky thunder]

No, It's huge thrusters

on the back

Rockets on the front

[supple pagoda]

okay
Just for context, is most of what you say directly aimed at the Elimination game mode? The costs analysis and such

[supple pagoda]

my bad

How fast in reverse?

[deft crow]

yes

also applies to arena i guess

[plucky thunder]

Only 95

[vagrant flume]

yea, thats usually what we focus on when it comes to balance

[plucky thunder]

I think it could use a buff lmao only 95 for that kind of prop

[deft crow]

dom ships will probably never use these thrusters

[vagrant flume]

exactly

[vagrant flume]

a buff

[plucky thunder]

:3

[vagrant flume]

i think my UL going 180 normally is pretty good already

flickers tho D:<

[brittle thorn]

plaus managed to go at like 200 an update ago

[deft crow]

I'm building a better one

[supple pagoda]

Ehh, railguns ARE really heavy, i'm sure you hit much better speeds if you shrink the rail width

looks reasonable overall

[vagrant flume]

hes the specialist when it comes to UL

[brittle thorn]

and it was very unoptimised, i didn't mention that (luna made a better one so quickly)

[supple pagoda]

I'm not saying i like that they are btw.

[brittle thorn]

not really width moreso length since more rails is always lighter than a few longer ones

[supple pagoda]

because loaders are lighter i guess?
I don't like width much, rails on the sides can't hit enemies too close nearby that aren't wide like walls
I can't imagine a wider railfan having a good time against the new rocket UL nukers we see here

[brittle thorn]

i can because they are better

[deft crow]

it's not better but i don't have time to optimize it

[brittle thorn]

longer rails are way too weak

[vagrant flume]

so much flicker

i can never escape them

[deft crow]

that's fine as i said earlier

[supple pagoda]

I'll try wide ones out and find out i guess

[vagrant flume]

makes it quite hard to do precise movements

[supple pagoda]

I don't really agree, dozens of peeps assigned to One thruster can't even pull it off? unprofessional

[vagrant flume]

though i guess you cant effectively get better than that without pods... damn

[brittle thorn]

btw keep in mind that all wide is way worse than long rail, you'll have to use atleast 2-3 accels on all rails to make it usable

[vagrant flume]

lol what?

[deft crow]

it won't flicker mid battle because you have to turn

[brittle thorn]

having different rail lengths might help with giving a bigger aoe but i'd say avoid it since that is not beneficial most of the time

[maiden shell]

funny railkite concept (not optimised or anything because concept)

[vagrant flume]

hmm, maybe so. ill have to test it in battle to be sure

are MP servers active during the test patches?

[maiden shell]

oh just noticed the nozzles actually have operators

makes sense I guess

[vagrant flume]

if so id like someone to join me for a quick test

[deft crow]

walt added them to make the nozzles more expensive

[maiden shell]

reverse thrust is 99,8 m/s btw

[compact marlin]

Yes they are

[pure juniper]

current grapics are too funny

[maiden shell]

not the best but kites with the thruster in the middle seem interesting

[deft crow]

cosmoteer doesn't have servers

[supple pagoda]

i refuse to use any railguns that doesn't have 8 accels for max range anyway
Why would i use the sniper rifle at ion ranges i mean

[brittle thorn]

strike damage

rails can drill through alot of defenses and oneshot some ships without being dodgable and slow like nukes

[vagrant flume]

right, is MP active during beta patches?

[brittle thorn]

mostly

not many people playing but that's it

[supple pagoda]

but their shots are flakkable (i hate that ever since i met Bulwark and co. in career)
so i'd rather be as far as i can from these things

[brittle thorn]

gl flakking like 12 rail shots moving very quickly

at best 3-4 shots get shot down, not enough to prevent the damage imo

[compact marlin]

yes

[supple pagoda]

i was shooting 3, had to kite the thing for a few minutes in x8 speed 🕰️

[deft crow]

if the enemy has enough rails, you'll spend more money on flak than them on rails

[brittle thorn]

long rails are weaker against flak than shorter ones

[supple pagoda]

Oh, i was right under the required number of rails then
I'll try at least 5 from now on

[deft crow]

I would recommend 6/8

[brittle thorn]

i'd argue 4 long rails is enough to deal with almost all of built in flakkers but 6 and above is pretty good, would guarantee battles are finished quickly and efficiently

[supple pagoda]

Alright then
Now let's get back to the thrusters before we get a warning

[vagrant flume]

lol

seems like no one is avalable, darn

also, seems like 2 or more ships using rocket thrusters at the same time crashes the game

had 2-4 of my ULs move to a spot far away, game crashed when the thrusters ramped up

[maiden shell]

reverse thrust for this is around 112

[supple pagoda]

yesterday i had no crash making test ships race each other, must be something else since there hasn't been a new patch since yet EDIT : INCORRECT, see message below

[plucky thunder]

nice

[vagrant flume]

How many rockets did each of those ships have?

And how long were they

Both of mine had 6 each, a couple seconds after I ordered them to move the game crashed

[supple pagoda]

Never mind! I just launched the game to make you a quick verification gif, and sent all 4 test ships on random journeys. This time it crashed! A total of 5 rocket thrusters.

2 of them being at least 30 extenders

[plucky thunder]

I made the onager on drugs

100m/s

[supple pagoda]

You should tell Walt

[vagrant flume]

Do I just ping him?

Or post it in #1019741923893858305

[supple pagoda]

apparently, that's what others have been doing (pinging). We're in a beta test channel after all

[brittle thorn]

ping with the crash log

and what caused the isseu

[vagrant flume]

Alr

[deft crow]

I'm cooking

[vagrant flume]

in scared

[deft crow]

this is so cool wow

i wonder how much thrust this will be

[plucky thunder]

Small bug

[deft crow]

yeah, i noticed that too

[deft crow]

this might be too much power dedicated to thrust

[vagrant flume]

@stark gorge Bug report: seems like if two or more ships ramp up their rocket thrusters at the same time, it crashes the game, i have provided a clip of the bug happening and the following Log

update: seems like a single ship with rocket thrusters crashes the game if ramped up and controlled using RTS

[deft crow]

i'm considering adding a 5th reactor xd

5 reactor ions

[maiden shell]

If it's not called "gas gas gas" I'm very disappointed

[vagrant flume]

my dream of restablishing avoiders as a meta is in shatters

[plucky thunder]

I love it...

[vagrant flume]

lmao

[plucky thunder]

It's so nice and relaxing ahah

At least when discord compression is not ass

[pure juniper]

how much is it

[deft crow]

add 100k of armor and I think 30k of crew

[deft crow]

so 1.37M

I have 130k for nukes

thrust is a bit less than fion

not much less

i still haven't tested speed and stuff

[pure juniper]

that 250 pieces of armor right
pretty decent, curious about rampup tho

[deft crow]

i'm curious too
yes 250

[pure juniper]

my foggy brain can still do math ☕

[deft crow]

assume a similar thing

:O

[vagrant flume]

hmm

[vagrant flume]

oh god

top speed?

dont use rts to check, it crashes your game

[deft crow]

it sustains a bit less, around 130

[vagrant flume]

130 with that much armor, nice

[deft crow]

it's using less energy and budget than fion on thrust and going faster

[vagrant flume]

yea lmao

[deft crow]

it also has more torque

a lot more

[vagrant flume]

and some say it needs a buff

[vagrant flume]

what do you think about that?

balanced or probably needs a nerf?

[deft crow]

Im Ok with it

you pay with worse rampup and a much much weaker system

it's so weak to damage omg

[vagrant flume]

yea true, if the nozzle gets destroyed it all becomes useless

[deft crow]

and an extender in the middle

and the supply line

[vagrant flume]

extender in the middle?

[marble mauve]

somethings not right about it being cheaper and faster and turning faster at all
there should be some traidoff here

[deft crow]

ye

[deft crow]

scroll down I talked about the disadvantages

weaker to damage and worse rampup

[vagrant flume]

ah you just mean the extenders

[deft crow]

also it's super expensive, only big ships can afford this

[vagrant flume]

im great at english :D

[marble mauve]

i heard a lot that rampup doesnt really matter, though the damage thing is.. im not sure
would it be worth adding a single shield to the nozzle?

[deft crow]

also, if extenders are 7.5k again, it won't be much cheaper

[vagrant flume]

you can negate the downsides of rampup with skill but its still somewhat important

[deft crow]

that would be an extra 70k

which is a lot closer to fion and would only give me budget for a pair of nukes

[deft crow]

i'm not worried about the nozzle

i'm worried about the entire thruster array

if you break anything there, it stops working

anything

[vagrant flume]

yea

since its tall its much easier to break

[deft crow]

the extenders, the nozzles, the ers, the supply lines

not because it's tall

because a lot of it will stop getting power

[vagrant flume]

thats still a factor, also the supply lines being on the outside ofc

[marble mauve]

uno corridor worth of damage
entire ship fails

[deft crow]

exactl

you lose that tile and lose 1/6 of the thrust

and that tile isn't very protected, a railfan could break it

[vagrant flume]

you could have an internal walkway design without ERs but that would really only help against missiles

[deft crow]

literally no room

[vagrant flume]

?

[marble mauve]

just redesign the whole ship!

[deft crow]

i'm not going to get rid of ers because i believe they'll work in a future update

[vagrant flume]

i know, just saying its a possibility if you are willing to sacrifice some efficacy

[marble mauve]

i still kinda wish these thrusters were in the direction of additionally high speeds with lower maneuverability (as in turning, too) as a result
that idea of additional added force per extender would be neat for funny single super extended rocket ships

[sullen merlin]

how fast does Fion go?

[deft crow]

122

[deft crow]

not possible, a powerful thruster will allow you to turn fast

[vagrant flume]

simple internal walkway design

[marble mauve]

it is possible, the main issue is the lack of any rampdown
you cant just instantly turn with them when they're off, but when they're on then you can instantly turn them off
though walt said rampdown would be too difficult for the ship movement ai so im not sure how that would be solved
the only idea i have is majorly dampening the goal thrust of them early depending on how close the ship is to reaching its goal

[marble mauve]

quite neat

this could be extended easily

[deft crow]

i know it's because we have instant rampdown. That won't change.

[sullen merlin]

tbh for me I don't think this will change the way I design a lot of stuff, I might try to make somethings work

[deft crow]

these new thrusters are very interesting, orbital thrust is extremely boring in comparison. You just multiply 1.9 or 1.7 by number of ers to get the power consumption, assign crew and done. Here we have a lot of flexibility

[vagrant flume]

Yea, there’s a lot of designs and it effectively works with both LRs and MRs

[pseudo kelp]

what do avoiders even do

[vagrant flume]

Avoid

Omni thrust, quick acceleration and consistent damage makes them fun

[sullen merlin]

true, I'll try to figure something out

[deft crow]

they use their lower rampup to move around ships like these ones

[sullen merlin]

unfortunately with the size of the exclusion zone I can't do anything with morbiters

[deft crow]

hmmm i disagree

[vagrant flume]

You won’t need two layers of them

[pseudo kelp]

what about orbiters

[sullen merlin]

an exclusion zone that changed size depending on max thrust would be neat

[sullen merlin]

elaborate?

[deft crow]

nah i like that it forces you to place them at the back

[deft crow]

you only need 2 nozzles on each side

that's not a lot wider

maybe even 1 nozzle on each side

[sullen merlin]

proof of concept cause I'm not able to picture it rn

[vagrant flume]

UL orbiters are going to be significantly more compact now… they might become far more powerful

Though I’ve yet to see other archetypes adapt to the new thrust so I can’t be sure

[marble mauve]

speed meta goes painfully brrrrr

[brittle thorn]

hd rails wouldn't change but railorbiters and previously ht railfans will adapt

[vagrant flume]

Speed meta is fun though maneuverability meta is dead :(

[pseudo kelp]

thats what i thought rocket thrusters did

[sullen merlin]

nope

[marble mauve]

no more maneuverability meta when going fast already makes you dumb maneuverable due to a variety of things

[vagrant flume]

I believe all archetypes (except avoiders) will adapt

[marble mauve]

my rocket could turn around and change direction really fast, changing direction that fast is mostly thanks to the exponential drag

[vagrant flume]

Though I can’t say all of them would be inherently better

[pseudo kelp]

but nope, just an exclusion zone that makes the boost thrusters seem microscopic in comparison

[vagrant flume]

I ment Omni thrust kind of maneuverability

Specifically avoiders

[brittle thorn]

static fans and hd fans can't though

[vagrant flume]

static fans?

You mean spinners?

[brittle thorn]

static fans is railfans with manevrablity to accurately fan and hd fans are just high damage fans

i call them static because they're not really good at moving

they're slow and bulky but can accurately snipe and fan

[deft crow]

this almost sustains lmao

[vagrant flume]

You mean just, railfan but with more rails and less thrust..?

[vagrant flume]

This is my one complaint with the new thrust… you can’t get 100% sustain but with flicker you can do some funky stuff

[brittle thorn]

nop, just regular railfans

[vagrant flume]

[brittle thorn]

i've decided to start splitting up the definitions to be more accurate

[vagrant flume]

I feel like railfans could adapt, with two modules it’s cheaper and allows them to be faster

[brittle thorn]

some can some can't

[vagrant flume]

I don’t really see any that can’t tbh

Got some examples?

[brittle thorn]

i need to show a regular railfan for context, but for now it's just the railfan in the ship pack by nick and kine

[deft crow]

this is what I suggest

it's not enough thrust tho, maybe 2 large reactors on each side and longer thrusters

idk, I think it's viable

[brittle thorn]

they wouldn't be good at their job if they only had forward thrust

[vagrant flume]

Oh, cruisers

Yea that makes sense

[brittle thorn]

idk they're closer to avoiders than to cruisers imo

cruisers are bidirectional thrust, this is omni for turning

[noble matrix]

If I may make a name suggestion for these, how does linear thruster sound

[sullen merlin]

maybe, less dps though

[vagrant flume]

This is not omnithrust, it has thrusters on all sides but it can’t move omnidirectionally

[deft crow]

experiment with it idk, i think it's viable

[compact marlin]

Speed? Is that 1.5mil?

[brittle thorn]

as i said omni for turning

[vagrant flume]

It effectively moves forward and backwards so I consider it a cruiser

[deft crow]

far from 1.5 but a bit slow

[brittle thorn]

doesn't have to use the omni for dodging

[sullen merlin]

what's the speed Luna!

[vagrant flume]

Though I see what you mean, rocket thrusters won’t do well with them

[noble matrix]

Question, how does this affect maneuverability builds? I hear some people saying that the avoider meta is dead and I don't get how

[brittle thorn]

also considering they don't really pilot like crusiers that's something too, anyways whether crusiers or not i will refer to them as static railfans anyways because they're just that

i probably will be the only one that does that but it's clearer to me atleast

[vagrant flume]

Since monothrust builds will be significantly faster now, builds that utilise maneuverability to dodge them wouldn’t work as well anymore

Also the avoider meta died long ago…it’s just even more dead now :(

[deft crow]

it holds a 68 but you have budget for more thrust

[noble matrix]

But why?

[vagrant flume]

I just explained why?

[noble matrix]

Yes, but I don't understand the causal relationship between faster monothrusters and lesser capability of dodging

[sullen merlin]

interesting

[vagrant flume]

Faster means they would be able to ram or catch up quicker

[brittle thorn]

everything will be faster so they can put their shots in harder to dodge places which makes it worse, alot worse

[noble matrix]

Gotcha

[brittle thorn]

not mentioning that faster ships can also dodge and they do it better

[vagrant flume]

Avoiders don’t like getting rammed

[noble matrix]

Now I get it

[vagrant flume]

At this point, yea lmao

[supple pagoda]

isn't a missile barge supposed to stay away?

[brittle thorn]

that's a morbiter, it orbits instead of kiting

[languid sand]

We recently saw that mines make avoiders significantly better. I would even go so far to say they are strong right now

[dire fox]

the deadzone is a bit of a lot

it wuld be cool if the thruster had a ramp up animation like it goes from 3 wide then flares out into a 5 cone

i know the art for the things is temporary, but the booster moduals are.... strange when you have a lot of them in a row,

definitly need something without the thruster window vent thinges, that looks good while being repeditive

they uh, also dont realy feal worth it to put on a ship

[plucky thunder]

Rockets could be a great addition to already existing ships

I think for career rockets will be a must have on any non combat ship

[boreal violet]

It’s great to see people finding so many uses for these already

Also the rockets look so good in mix with other thrusters wow

[cold crypt]

I'm surprised that the modular thrusters aren't wider

their presence on large ships would feel more significant and require more work-arounds if they were wider

since they are already a fairly ship-defining feature now

[boreal violet]

I think as they are they work just fine

I’d expect them to be much more powerful if they were even just 1 tile wider

They would probably feel weird

[supple pagoda]

Wait 5 wide with fuel not counting ERs isn't wide enough?

[cold crypt]

oh I wasn't thinking about with fuel

[plucky thunder]

The reason they shouldn't be wider : They are supposed to "fix" the issues that make us make pancake ships : Deadzones

[cold crypt]

bruhhh

[boreal violet]

This

[brittle thorn]

i have thought about them possibly becoming wider but that's the usecase for regular ht, these are meant to make the cool asf thruster banks that are longer than they are wide

speaking of which, they would be great for this considering its thrusters are massive

[boreal violet]

I’d like to reiterate that making them wider would likely require them to probably be much stronger both ho wise and thrust wise and there are a few issues with that

[supple pagoda]

looks like a cool fighter jet sketch

[boreal violet]

How a ship feels to use is important too

[boreal violet]

This is pretty nice

[plucky thunder]

You can always make larger thrusters by putting thrusters next to each other

You can't make longer thrusters

[brittle thorn]

keep in mind this is like half a kilometer long

[supple pagoda]

couldn't! 😄

[plucky thunder]

If you wanna make larger rockets, put two, three of them

And make it so it works

[boreal violet]

A proper fuel pod ER rocket thruster setup is already too wide and causes complications as is

[plucky thunder]

yes

I think it's alright right now

[boreal violet]

Too wide as in Im In experienced and still learning good ways to implement them

[plucky thunder]

Yes

I think it's near perfect width wise rn

[boreal violet]

The setups I have for a few ships do work amazingly and the benefit of having these thrusters on large ships is amazing so I’m pretty happy with them too

I don’t think they need to get any wider imo

That’d make everything way more squished and obviously no one likes a cannon shot to the rear so more pancaking!

[plucky thunder]

Next is enforcer ;3

[brittle thorn]

oh god

[sinful vapor]

Cool use of the extra fuel pods. What does this ship do exactly, fly around for vulnerable locations on a ship, destroy shields and snipe inside them?

[boreal swan]

built in but w/ rocket

[stark gorge]

the fuel pod is touching the extender and it gets supplied by the engine room, but the extender doesn't have power. Is this intended? (image 1)
Intended but I'm open to being persuaded othewise. (If I can figure out the code for it. It was also easiest to code that way.)
The extenders are too cheap right now, so I believe these are the best setups you can make (thrust/cost). (image 2) I think we should go back to 7.5k to make engine rooms viable again. They would allow interesting setups like these ones (image 3)
If extenders go back to 7.5k, will rockets still be competitive with huge thrusters?
I think extenders should cost at least 1 control point, but your call
Why?
I love the crew requirement for the nozzles and the rest feels perfect as it is. The average speed of meta ships will go up with these rockets, is this ok?
I'm not sure. The idea is that the rockets are harder to control (much longer ramp-up) but I'm not sure in practice whether that's a sufficient offset.

[marble mauve]

the "harder to control" part doesnt seem to work because they just put the rockets on either side of their ships and the instant thrust turnoff allows them to quickly turn as long as they're in full boost forwards

[plucky thunder]

Enforcer is an integrated ship

7.5k for mere fuel pods is... Just use ER then

1.5k is just right I think

[marble mauve]

i think they mean 7.5k for the extenders not the fuel pods?

[plucky thunder]

makes the extender 9 or 11.5k, wich is not too cheap

Oh yes

sorry

Hum

I forgot this was changed

5k is fine

It makes thrust cheaper as you increase it

Basically makes travelling faster

but in combat the more you add the longer the ramp up

so it's balanced IG

[deft crow]

it's not because it doesn't allow engine rooms

[stark gorge]

Going to repeat this question:
If extenders go back to 7.5k, will rockets still be competitive with huge thrusters?

[deft crow]

short answer: yes
long answer: I'm working on a mathematical proof

yes by a big margin, about 10%

[brittle thorn]

yeah, they still will be better than huges for high thrust

[stark gorge]

okay then i'll put them back at 7.5k

(All of your testing has been incredibly helpful btw, thanks so much!!)

[supple pagoda]

@stark gorge just want to make sure you're aware of this bug where RTS control won't use the thrusters past a certain, varying number of extenders #1201644365307727872 message

[marble mauve]

i have posted a saved game of the above issue, too

[marble mauve]

here

[marble mauve]

and a crash log

[boreal violet]

I can’t wait for when these are released

[sinful vapor]

I wonder if the finalized mechanics for them will include some kind of Booster injector module for them. Turn on the gas when in danger, or bait attacks and ZOOM!

[plucky thunder]

Oh shit

[boreal violet]

That’s an amazing screenshot

[plucky thunder]

Is 10% a lot considering the nozzle entry cost + the ramp up ???

[boreal swan]

unoptimized armor????

[plucky thunder]

I'm draining the entire reactor

[boreal violet]

Ik isn’t it awesome

[plucky thunder]

I had to add a capacitor to the CR because it kept running out ;-;

[deft crow]

Intended but I'm open to being persuaded othewise. (If I can figure out the code for it. It was also easiest to code that way.)
👍 I saw a few people confused trying to supply the extender/nozzle through a fuel pod, I think it doesn't change the meta designs a lot, I don't mind if it's possible or not.
Why?
It feels a bit weird to control so much thrust with a small cr, our setups today demonstrate that vertical stacks of extenders don't need a buff at all. I don't mind if they don't need control points though.

[boreal swan]

single cockpit w/ massive thrust stick looks wrong

[plucky thunder]

single cockpit handling massive stick

[stark gorge]

Yup I'm aware but haven't looked into it yet, thanks!

[deft crow]

Proof for that:
these are 3 setups

• the standard 7 engine room 21 huge thrusters that we use today
• a vertically stacked rocket without ers
• a vertically stacked rocket with ers

I've adjusted them to consume almost 1 large reactor of power

vertically stacked rockets have now almost double (!!!) thrust/cost

[stark gorge]

I think I'm starting to feel pretty happy with the current modules for Rocket Thrusters V1.0, but I wouldn't rule out adding a boost injector or other modules in the future.

[deft crow]

this is what i'm suggesting, with extenders at 7.5k

they're still better, and the vertically stacked rockets with engine rooms become better

[stark gorge]

I saw a few people confused trying to supply the extender/nozzle through a fuel pod, I think it doesn't change the meta designs a lot, I don't mind if it's possible or not.
Now that fuel pods allow door access to the extenders, I think yeah it doesn't change design much. (Unless ERs can also supply a pod on the other side via an ER->pod->extender->pod setup? Any thoughts about that?)

[plucky thunder]

Booster injector seems really neat ahah

[stark gorge]

That's at 7.5k per extender?

[stark gorge]

Ah I see, nevermind. Thanks.

[deft crow]

first is at 5k per extender, second is 7.5k

[plucky thunder]

I think ER are a bit underwhelming with extenders considering stability, there's a lot of flicker even with optimal setup

[stark gorge]

Still a fairly significant advantage.

[deft crow]

it's still significant yes, might replace huge thruster setups completely on a lot of ships

i've been working on this prototype for example

[marble mauve]

i wonder how the maneuverability of meta ships that use rocket engines will be effected if the 5% sideways thrust was removed

[deft crow]

I don't know tbh, I think it should be fine to allow that

[stark gorge]

Or maybe if the 5% didn't scale with extenders?

[deft crow]

that's a good idea 👍

[marble mauve]

i remember another person suggesting that beforehand, sure

[stark gorge]

(I've been a bit wary about completely removing lateral thrust from thrusters even though in principal I don't like it, because it helps newbies and also helps the AI be slightly less totally incompetent.)

[chrome marlin]

Do you have a column for crew count also? Since crew count is often more important than cost in career

(I figure you probably do somewhere since it's a part of cost haha)

[deft crow]

I assume this will be the best module for career (the vertically stacked medium reactor module)

while elim players might try to use the left one

the right one is also good for ultralights

[sinful vapor]

The thrust is impressive but it also comes with having to protect that giant stick from all sides, barring Orbiters making one side basically safe.

[deft crow]

yes, and these thrust modules are very fragile, you break anything and it stops working almost completely

the thrusters we use today are very redundant

[brittle thorn]

flanks will have to be protected really well

otherwise railfans can easily snipe

[chrome marlin]

So the right one will have a huge crew count advantage vs 7 ER huges, the left one not as much?

[novel notch]

This is aweomse

[sinful vapor]

I think ultimately down the road you will probably have the options available to adjust the physics for runs, or have presets for physics. Possibly even having these different physics in different zones on the Campaign map? Would be super cool. I don't like the 5% at all personally, but AI is difficult to make so whatever is best for that side of things.

[deft crow]

I think the right one is the best on thrust/crew and thrust/weight, and left one is the best one on thrust/cost

better than anything we have

[chrome marlin]

Do you have numbers for thrust/crew for the three setups? To compare

[deft crow]

one sec i'll calculate it

[chrome marlin]

Ty! Just trying to ask about balance for both career and pvp haha

[deft crow]

8000 thrust/crew on medium reactor
4800 thrust/crew on large reactor

i don't have a 7 er setup on hand rn but i pwomise you it's lower than the medium reactor number

[chrome marlin]

So in career these setups will have a bigger advantage than the cost advantage for pvp, but that's probably fine because it'll be offset by the fragility of these?

[boreal swan]

emp to kill the whole thrust could be interesting

or just force a ramp down

[deft crow]

yeah lol

[boreal swan]

emp to ramp down everything in radius even if it doesn't drain?

[deft crow]

that would be a nice buff to emps

[chrome marlin]

The most crew efficient thrust module I've gotten away with in career is 2 ER 6 Huge Thrust for one LR and 10 crew (very cost inefficient), puts it at 7200 thrust/crew

More balanced still kinda cost inefficient I've done is 4 er 10 huge one LR 24 crew

5000 thrust/crew

[deft crow]

yeah

[chrome marlin]

So yeah beats or matches those at seems much better cost efficiency

[deft crow]

try a medium reactor feeding 2 ers, i bet it's close to that

like that might be 7000 thrust per crew or something like that

[chrome marlin]

Oh yeah that setup gets me 12 crew, I've tried that one

6000 thrust/crew

[deft crow]

as you can see these are crazy efficient

[chrome marlin]

Yeah

I think that's balanced for career because being fragile is expensive

And will be a good tradeoff

Btw I'll send pictures of my credit inefficient career thrust setups I mentioned so people can see if they can get lower crew counts

I'm definitely not the most expert haha

Oh yeah with the mr I think I can get less crew

I have unneccessary reverse thrust

response time doesn't matter for sustain

Slightly doesn't sustain with 12

So yeah the new thrusters with your mr setup of 8000 thrust/crew beat this by a 25% margin:

Though this does flicker a little

[plucky thunder]

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1105970403777708163/1153717570327826442/dog-sleep.gif

[chrome marlin]

This actually sustains and gets 9k thrust/crew, but it's so cost inefficient it's probably a bad idea even for career

[deft crow]

yup

I bet you could make some weird stuff with no ers to get more thrust/crew

[chrome marlin]

Oh yeah put the thrusters around reactors or something

[vivid stratus]

Fuel pods should recieve power from Extenders/nozzles and not be fed manually imo, would simplify crew pathfinding somewhat

[deft crow]

walt agreed to implement it, yes

[chrome marlin]

I'm getting this to sustain is a slightly less unreasonable career LR setup (operators aren't optimized and sorry idk where those extra doors came from, I fixed my prior worst setup quickly)

10 Huges with ERs for 20 crew

Same 6000 Thrust/Crew as the mr one earlier

[novel notch]

Wait is the modular thruster in beta?

[chrome marlin]

So yeah between these two it seems the mr one beats the cost inefficient crew optimized career setups I have by 25% for thrust/crew, and the other one actually doesn't by thrust/crew but does by thrust/cost by a big margin

[novel notch]

How ud make this, its not in beta yet i checked unless im blind

[boreal violet]

?

its open testing

[novel notch]

huh how

[boreal violet]

everone can use roket thrusters?

[novel notch]

No modular thrusters

I cant find em

In the beta

[boreal violet]

you use the password in pins

[novel notch]

oh

my bad

[boreal violet]

no worries