Experimental Thruster "Ramp Down" Preview

[shrewd gust]

yeah

not ideal

the lasers are there to show the cursor

no inputs pressed btw

another oddity, hard to replicate (I dunno how but pulled it off twice), I have my cursor on the left side but the ship keeps spinning right

[faint slate]

Face ship to cursor being broken for 2 hours straight

[shrewd gust]

I think fixing it could make DC way better

[wispy bane]

sure
But it still literally contradicts your point :)

[runic hill]

true

not every new player

however from the incredible sample size of 3, 2 support unless i misread and one partially supports

[wispy bane]

partial support

where

geniunely where

[runic hill]

i interpreted it as the change for mrt is ok but everything else no

[wispy bane]

I read it as 'IF MRT is an issue then address only MRT, but leave everything else alone ffs'
Which is definitely not partial support for this

[runic hill]

mrt is issue

ht is also issue

[wispy bane]

no

[runic hill]

large thrust is also issue but to much much smaller extent

[wispy bane]

also no

[runic hill]

"everything is ok because i said so"

[wispy bane]

"Everything is an issue because I said so"

[runic hill]

@spark grove i do not think there should be irrelevant gifs allowed here because they just take up space and make it hard to read

[runic hill]

the intended balance feature is not balancing

therefore, there is an issue

[spark grove]

Lets take it a step further.
How about we abolish all gifs that have nothing to do with Cosmoteer in threads pertaining to Cosmoteer.

[wispy bane]

brugh

[runic hill]

half the screen is taken up by a message with practically no content

[spark grove]

This isn't #off-topic, this is a thread looked over devs for insight, take your silly gifs where they fit.

[wispy bane]

Except it is...?
Of course for large ships you aint using tiny thrusters, thats stupid. It genuinely makes sense that if your ship is big that you will use bigger and bigger thrusters for maneuvering, thats simple logic. Gutting ships ability to turn and forcing an even bigger cliff for new pilots is not balance.

[runic hill]

no? small thrusts are meant to be for maneuvering

larger thrusts should never feel agile

there is not a bigger cliff for new players

[wispy bane]

imma be real are you really using tiny thrusters on your big ships as manuvering thrusters

They dont have nearly enough thrust for that

[runic hill]

no because every thrust is currently a maneuvering thrust

[wispy bane]

As your ship scales up your manuvering thrusters must scale up

[runic hill]

which is why #1299092934796382331 message

[ripe rapids]

Air and Kelsia you've both been arguing since yesterday in dragged out discussions. Please do so in DM or in another channel and share concise and pertinent info of your experience of this preview for the devs here.

[wispy bane]

This is pertinient, though...?

[ripe rapids]

Parts yes, others not so much

[wispy bane]

Depends on the ship...?

On a smaller ship you'll use standards or tinies, but if you've got a damn dreadnought or battleship then you simply need the thrust of bigger ones. Even if you slapped on banks of tiny thrusters then you would still be turning abysmally, and your space allotocation would be horrendous. In order to have decent direct control maneuverability you need a lack of rampdown, because otherwise any oversteer turns into mroe oversteer when you correct it.

Massively increasing tiny thruster power reqs is only going to mess up logistics for built-ins, make sustaining them a bitch, and still not fix the fact that big ships quite literally cannot rely on small thrusters for manuvering.

It should not be a challenge to keep a straight course.

[runic hill]

it is not?? ships can still fly straight except when ai is bad

[runic hill]

what is dreadnaught or battleship

everything you complain of is also a new player complaint of direct control with only ramp up

and logistics for built ins should not change - the vast majority of tjem should still work the same

anyways, if you are using only larger thrusts, agility should suffer

so i think what u described is the balancr working as intended

[wispy bane]

big ship

literally just a big ship

[runic hill]

big is so vague

are you allergic to concrete numbers

[wispy bane]

Just big in general jesus fuck its not complicated

And even for smaller ships using only tinies for manuvering is completely impractical

[runic hill]

i tried maneuvering this and it still works fine

in fact, due to other thrust's rampdown being longer, it does better in its role

[wispy bane]

Literally tested baelor, a ship with pretty damn decen thrust and reliance on standards and it had issues.

[runic hill]

that thing is not very agile even without rampdown so idk why that is your metric

this thing?

o wait this thing

[wispy bane]

Yes.

[runic hill]

ofc that is not going to feel agile agony it never has

[wispy bane]

There is a difference between not being agile and crippling oversteer, Air.

[runic hill]

if you are oversteering then that is generally known as "skill issue" and has existed ever since people were not born with the innate ability to predict ramp up

[wispy bane]

Except w/o rampdown its far easier to correct.
But here it is not

[runic hill]

do not see how this would be different than a completely new player also oversteering with rampup only

i think that is more due to the total time being increased 50% than the fact that rampdown exists at all

[wispy bane]

Literally this.

[wispy bane]

No?

[runic hill]

why don't you just mod it and see

[wispy bane]

Because when you fire your thrusters to correct your turn... then they have to ramp down.
And the cycle repeats.

[runic hill]

???? without rampdown, when you fire your thrust, the other thrust deramps, and now that needs to ramp back up after you over steer and now you are in a loop of losing ramp up and turning too far

that is how new players pilot

[wispy bane]

except its not nearly as bad, because you can actually do precise manuvers
but here you cant

[runic hill]

why not

[woeful lodge]

rock vs rock

[runic hill]

if a new player was showed ramp up they would think the same thing

[wispy bane]

Because if you attempt to correct it you then have to wait for rampdown and the cycle repeats

[runic hill]

wow if you try to correct with only ramp up, the other thrust is completely off and needs time to get on

now you overturn and the cycle repeats

[wispy bane]

Nope. Because its A: far easier to stop turning, and B: ramp up can enable you to make more minor corrections

[woeful lodge]

guys did you read what blaze said

[runic hill]

do you want me to shwo a gif

[wispy bane]

literally go ahead

[runic hill]

also, with ramp down, the shift key still works as usual

[woeful lodge]

@ripe rapids cmon this is getting ridiculous, the exact same discussion has been going on between these two people for like 2 days now and they wont stop when asked

i think something has to actually be done bc the thread is alr mega flooded

[hollow totem]

This is why Walt should make a post on the steam forums to see how the casual players feel

[wispy bane]

Geniunely would be a really good idea ngl

[runic hill]

????

have you seen the steam forums

barely better than reddit

[wispy bane]

no, but opening it up to the more casual playerbase would be good

[woeful lodge]

meh

the feedback should be regarded with a grain of salt either way

the steam forums are very silly

[runic hill]

oh no ramp up makes it so when i stop thrusting, my correction thruster doesn't work and i keep overturning

[woeful lodge]

wobble wobble wobble

[runic hill]

and at the end i just held shift

i assume this behavior is what is being complained about

but you can just stop/start thrust preemptively, the same way you do to adapt to rmap up only

or use the shift key

[upbeat mesa]

yeah braking is interesting..

[runic hill]

i think it is bugged rn :(

o wait nvm i was just not symmetrical

[upbeat mesa]

i dont think that small assymetry is making a huge difference.. and the you are working with an ideaized ship anyways

no one is actually going to be using a ship that has 4 way symmetry

[runic hill]

true

[runic hill]

new discussion :walterwhite: now with gifs

[torpid rain]

holding ctrl in dc mode and moving the mouse to the edge does this for me:

but @cunning briar didnt have that issue idk

[pastel marsh]

it actually is intended, though feedback is of course always welcome

[sudden acorn]

hm, interesting

[limpid umbra]

i think boost probably shouldn't have rampdown considering one of its biggest use cases is burst maneuvering and rampdown kinda eliminates that i think

[sudden acorn]

it doesn't really

it makes it a bit more sluggish, but it's still far beyond other thrusters for quick maneuvers

[limpid umbra]

idk from my testing it was really awkward, i felt like i was better off putting more of the smaller thrusters

[sudden acorn]

eh, anti was in favour of keeping rampdown for boosts

i'm personally neutral towards it

[pastel marsh]

Can you please upload or send me your settings.rules file?

Same, please post or send me your settings.rules file, as well as a saved game if it seems related to a specific save file.

[silent fjord]

It happened while creating a new game so no specific save file.And excuse me, how do I find the settings.rules file?

[hollow totem]

Same location logs and such are

?logs

?log

[signal palm]

Please upload your latest Cosmoteer log file, which will help us solve your problem. Log files can be found in C:\Users\[username]\Saved Games\Cosmoteer\[Steam User ID #]\Logs with the extension .txt. (You may also see files with the extension .rec, which are not log files and we do not need unless we specifically ask for them.) Simply drag-and-drop the latest log file into this Discord channel to upload it.

[sudden acorn]

@ripe rapids @wooden wave these are my overall feelings/changes i would make for the preview

[fast birch]

Please make this mrt specific at the very least

[wooden wave]

I join Fish on that point, apply ramp down to MRT only.

[sudden acorn]

either MRT-only or vastly greater effect on MRT than on others

[silent fjord]

@pastel marsh @hollow totem

[sudden acorn]

like, i wouldn't be against having like, 1/8th or 1/10th rampdown/rampup for non-MRT thrusters

[wooden wave]

I want to add that the behavior of boost is a bit strange because they have 0 rampup, but they do have ramp down

[fast birch]

I’m firmly in the position that this sort of balancing only makes the game feel less responsive while possible on mrt for there speed advantages it is still going to likely kill the part in most PvP games and the other nerfs are completely unnecessary

[fast birch]

I think this was kept in as a measure of balance

[fast birch]

As well as this is the best way fix issues with the elim community while leaving dom (largely) unaffected

[silent fjord]

I want to return the official version but it saids file permissions lost.....how to solve it?

[torpid rain]

interesting. All of us thought its bugged lol

[stray lion]

makes sense to me to have it tbh

I can see either way tho

[limpid umbra]

what if the rampdown was dependent on how much ramp up you lost when you turned off your thruster so like
you turn on your thruster and reach max ramp up
you cut thrust for 2 seconds then turn it back on until you reach max ramp up
then when you turn off the thruster you'll take 2 seconds of rampdown

so if you're constantly turning thrust on and off you have to deal with lots of ramp down but if you aren't you'll deal with almost none after the initial first wave

this is just an idea though, it might have some massive weakness that makes it completely obsolete that i haven't thought about

[shy egret]

I do think rampdown makes some sense for MRT, but I agree with those that have said that it make ships feel more sluggish and less responsive. I found this to be especially noticeable on my diagonal ships.

[gusty panther]

This system is so painful to deal with on large ships i outright stop thinking about how to counter it and instead just want new thruster types that can turn ships rather than push them.
I shouldnt be losing all ramp up of thrusters in addition to countering the built up momentum just because I needed to turn 90 degrees left, and then 90 degrees right...

I wouldnt mind the delay so much if it didnt kill all of my thrust power

[shy egret]

Maybe I am too attached to MRTs as is, but I do feel that I would prefer sliightly less ramp down even on them

[gusty panther]

I use a massive ship. I am SUPPOSED to use MRT...

[shy egret]

Yeah it has definitely hurt a lot with this ship:

[gusty panther]

omg that ship looks so cool. but yeah.... extremely painful change for it

and uncalled for

I dont know any examples of ships that are overperforming that this preview is supposed to bring in line

all I see is my entire size archtype getting an omega nerf in its already weakest point

many of the other preview changes i could see positives to them but this.... I dont see the benefit to the game

[shy egret]

I can feel that

[sudden acorn]

yeah, that's the general feeling

[gusty panther]

I would sooner try to find a way to discourage MRT use on smaller ships so they are more effective on larger ships

[sudden acorn]

moving to rampdown being 1/4 of rampup, or halving rampup and keeping rampdown at 1/2, is the general consensus

[tidal cedar]

the general feeling is to make the rampdown less then it is for all regular thrusters i believe, and keeping the rampdown as it is for MRT

[gusty panther]

something like required attatched minimum mass for the MRTs to function at full power

[shy egret]

I didnt realize MRTs were being used on smaller ships

how is that even doable with the requirements

[gusty panther]

extreme case but could be interesting. What if the MRT when connected to too small of a mass would explode from within. This would give a massive disadvantage to the engine type because it risks an explosion from other damage

[tidal cedar]

MRTs are being used everywhere possible because of the amount of thrust they provide, and they are good at maneuvering, which was not their original intent

[sudden acorn]

nope, people are really feeling the unresponsiveness and MRT in pvp is almost useless

cutting rampdown from all non-MRT thrusters or reducing it to very low levels is the general feeling

[stark hornet]

or it makes it posible to also use small ships because they are faster

[sudden acorn]

eh, that kinda feels arbitrary

[tidal cedar]

thats what i was meaning

[shy egret]

MRT naturally require so much crew and power that I am honestly surprised small ships are using it.

[stark hornet]

if a big ship is slow, a small ship can get to the weak point.

[tidal cedar]

no rampdown for everything but mrt is weird, however having rampdown be not near instant, but not like 2 seconds, would be a good compromise

[gusty panther]

it kind of does, but I still find it a better answer to discouraging small ships from using oversized engines without completely gutting massive ships that are using the correct engine types

[stark hornet]

this is why i like this change

[gusty panther]

PRoblem is big ship CANT be fast with this change

[shy egret]

Does make small ships feel less agile to me

[stark hornet]

they can be fast, but it takes more time

[gusty panther]

my ship is the most mobile dreadnaught that has ever existed, and this change completely deletes its ability to use its mobility

[tidal cedar]

i mean they could, just is a fair bit more sluggish at changing direction, and for diags its even worse

as diags straight thrust is its turning thrust

and in general it has overall less thrust force because its on a diag to begin with

[sudden acorn]

i don't think it's the size of ships MRT are used on that's the issue

[gusty panther]

which is why I get hit so insanely hard. it takes all my turning power, and turns it against myself. causing a chain reaction that prevents any way of keeping ramp up

[fast birch]

The issue is in practice with PvP the ramp down feels awful almost like your lagging

[tidal cedar]

which is why having the rampdown be a bit less would be a good thing for diags, and less lagging feeling

[sudden acorn]

the effect on diagonal ships is definitely a bad one from what i've seen, looks like thrust balancing algorithms will need another pass

[gusty panther]

Can you provide any example of an actual issue? I have never seen any of this so called problem

[tidal cedar]

not instant, but not too long either, its one of them things that needs some feeling over time

and i support the idea of rampdown in general because for rocket engines it makes some sense

[stark hornet]

i hope one day many small ships that are the same prize as one big ship can destroy the big ship.

[sudden acorn]

the issue is ships like this being able to go 200m/s and dodge rails

[tidal cedar]

ah yes

nuke UL

[fast birch]

I just disagree sorry the ramp down was implemented as an attempt to curve the speed gained from mrt but was never ment for other thruster types

[shy egret]

That is cancer

jesus

[sudden acorn]

and MRT making monothrust ships in general far too good compared to any other thrust layout

[fast birch]

They can’t dodge rails really lol

Not if they are targeted correctly

[gusty panther]

This is exactly the kind of ship I hope to prevent with that minimum mass or the MRT explodes idea. THAT is a missile. not a ship

[tidal cedar]

shrug, still, having just half a second of rampdown for HTs wouldnt make it feel that bad tbh

[fast birch]

Half a second of lag feels awful

When added for no reason

[tidal cedar]

for me it wouldnt, then again i dont pilot all that precise

[fast birch]

Yes that’s why the PvP community is against it

Career players don’t push the limits of this game enough to feel it

While also being less experienced

[tidal cedar]

which is why this should be a thing, because all of the 80% of people dont mind it, or are for it

[sudden acorn]

half a second of rampdown isn't necessarily half a second of lag

[fast birch]

Balance is based on the people with the most knowledge here

Not the masses

[gusty panther]

Its based on both and the general intent of the game design

[tidal cedar]

however the masses are the ones that are should be more catered to

[sudden acorn]

it should be based on both

[fast birch]

In practice it will feel similar to this and cause needless unresponsiveness

[sudden acorn]

i'm feeling maybe a second before my inputs start turning, and that's with majority huge thrust (4 seconds of rampdown in 1/2 speed)

i don't think 0.125 seconds of 'lag' will be too big of an issue

[fast birch]

Yes that’s why when mechanics that are pushed to the limit are being adjusted the PvP community is asked it’s the only input we have in game design

[fast birch]

Why add it in the first place lol

It’s only a negative

Mrt is out of line yes

But other thrust is balanced

[sudden acorn]

to make monothrust using only huge thrust not dominant for every archetype except avoiders

[shy egret]

I do believe adding it to MRT makes sense, big ships should realistically feel a bit less responsive, so maybe at like 1.5 sec for MRT

[tidal cedar]

and thats the main reason why the other thrusters need atleast a bit of it

[fast birch]

Agreed

[sudden acorn]

i think MRT should have rampdown be at 1/4 of their rampup, huge thrusters have 1/8th of rampup, and all other thrusters have no rampdown

[shy egret]

I like his

[fast birch]

Huge thrust doesn’t need a nerf at all

Several Omni / multi directional ships do very well in its meta

[sudden acorn]

it doesn't necessarily need a nerf, but a nerf would be interesting to test

[sudden acorn]

avoiders do. that's about it

[shy egret]

Also, what is monothrust

[fast birch]

Cruisers, diag missle,

[fast birch]

Lmao

[tidal cedar]

that i agree with, HTs still give that large power draining rockets that are the little brother to MRTs

[sudden acorn]

thrust only facing in one direction

[sudden acorn]

this is an extreme example of a monothrust ship

[shy egret]

why would one do such a thing, this career player cannot fathom

lmfao

[sudden acorn]

this is a more reasonable monothrust ship

[tidal cedar]

because its incredibly good if you know how to pilot

[sudden acorn]

most speed for least investment in thrust

[fast birch]

This is why career players are not asked about balance

Bc they have no clue how the mechanics work

[sudden acorn]

bit rude that, fish

[tidal cedar]

or you assume..

[fast birch]

Im allowed to be rude when they have repeatedly said PvP player’s opinions don’t matter at all

I share the inverse sentiment

[sudden acorn]

i don't think they did

[fast birch]

I’ve been told that several times here

I don’t wanna go through this buried convo to find them

I can if you rlly want me to tho

[tidal cedar]

any compitent builder knows what most of the mechanics in this game are lmao, you literally cant make effective warships without that

[shy egret]

Its interesting because career players and PvP push different areas of mechanics. For example, in career, a monothrust ship would be risky and likely result in credits wasted.

Obviously both parts of the game need to be considered when balancing, but I do think it is shortsighted to assume career players dont have an understanding of mechanics.

[fast birch]

I doubt career players even understand nuke flinging

Which is a major push behind these nerfs

Or pre-tasking for example

[tidal cedar]

nuke flinging is not a game mechanic it is a flight technique

[fast birch]

Yes that’s the game mechanics pushed to the edge in practice

Which is what I’m talking abt

[tidal cedar]

and its pretty well a conservation of momentum, its not rocket science

[gusty panther]

PVP community most commonly contains a game's most knowledgeable playerbase that are also consistantly present. There are other expert fields that exist outside of pvp that have less natural reason to be in a communication discord.
I try to provide input from a less vocal side of playerbase that enjoys larger ships even though my own ship size is larger than some players will ever make. It doesnt mean my info is more or less weighted than a PVP player. Its all info the devs can use to find the best balance that doesnt cause extreme harm to any gameplay type while fixing an issue that came up with another group

[sudden acorn]

aye

[fast birch]

I agree with that

[sudden acorn]

fair

[fast birch]

But saying that the PvP community’s input is somthing to be brushed aside is foolish

[tidal cedar]

the pvp players are the ones that will get used to the changes much more quickly and even find ways around it

[sudden acorn]

i also wouldn't say this. a good amount of pvp players are not opposed, as long as it gets toned down

[fast birch]

Over half are

At least to the non mrt changes

For sure

Even more so if you count dom

Which has players with over 20k hours in it

[gusty panther]

This is just not a wise thing to say. because you imply that ALL PVP players have more mechanical knowledge than ALL other types. You can think of several pvp players right now that you know dont understand the mechanics but can still fly a ship in combat.

input has value regardless of the source, but understanding how much credibility is behind it can add weight to knowing if a skill issue or a game issue was the cause

[shy egret]

Anyone that would say that would indeed be foolish, but that isnt any of us here at the moment

[fast birch]

No I can claim that for sure average PvP player vs average career player mechanics wise

[shy egret]

Hours matter above all else in the end

[tidal cedar]

especially those that have the game knowledge but not the most skill in much of anything

[fast birch]

Several earlier were saying that just bc the PvP community is smaller their opinions on what is purely game mechanic balance are irrelevant

[sudden acorn]

hence 'as long as it gets toned down'

[fast birch]

When they are the most informed and should be the most important

[fast birch]

I don’t think anyone but you and air are happy with any of the non mrt changes

The majority want nothing but mrt changed

[sudden acorn]

i don't think enough of the pvp community's played and given feedback enough for that to be a certainty

[gusty panther]

failing to see a point here? It doesnt matter if the avg player of any group has more or less mechanical understand. What matters is input from all player types of the game so the devs can make the best improvements.
Its not a game of whos' info is more backed up. all that matters is that the game is fun enough that we encourage others to enjoy it as well

[fast birch]

The PvP community is the most informed so on a change that is purely mechanic game balance they should be listened to the most

Is my point

Game design and direction the PvP community has very little voice in

But mechanics and balance is life or death (we are getting off topic I won’t respond to anything further on this sry dm me or somthing)

[sudden acorn]

pvp is more sensitive to a meta being broken and has less ways to get around a bad meta when compared to career, so that is a reason that pvp players should generally have a bit more say than career players in terms of balance. however, career players are still players and should still have substantial input

[limpid canyon]

one (mono) [direction of] thrust

[shy egret]

I do think that for both career and PvP this makes the most sense of the proposals I have seen so far.

[gusty panther]

I am not a PVP player, yet my gameplay is severally negatively impacted by this preview's change. To a point that I would feel naturally discouraged from playing.
Its so bad that I have found it near impossible to provide any useful advice to implement it in a way that doesnt completely cripple my gameplay.
I play with massive ships that pvp players have told me for over a year than this size is useless and not worth even thinking about.
Career ships often end up this massive size but few players of that group communicate in this discord, making me feel obligated to voice for myself and those players.

This is what I mean when saying that PVP community is not the only valuable source of mechanics and balance

[fast birch]

The PvP community also hates these changes lol

[sudden acorn]

not entirely

[gusty panther]

wait... then who is this change for?

[fast birch]

Majority

[gusty panther]

"who"

[fast birch]

Terrific question

[sudden acorn]

stop assuming that the entirety/majority of the pvp community shares your precise opinion

[fast birch]

A significant group holds similar opinions to me

That mrt nerf could be fine but messing with all other thrust was far to far

[sudden acorn]

yeah, pretty much everyone agrees with that

even me, i definitely wouldn't be against HT being unaffected, though i do sorta want it to have slight rampdown

[fast birch]

Then why are you saying I don’t represent ppl lol

I just want Walt to put the gun down so we can talk

[sudden acorn]

since when was walt holding the metaphorical gun

[gusty panther]

The problem is that this is not supposed to be a nerf, and is supposed to change balance similar to a nerf.
I dont know of any massive ship that are not impacted by this change harder than smaller ships. This change, to my understanding, was supposed to decrease the power of ultralight ships full of thrusters, not specifically just MRT but those have the biggest impact on that archtype.
My problem with how this change plays out is that those same UL ships using too much engine when combatting my massive ship actually gain an advantage from this change due to how badly it impacts all of my answers

[sudden acorn]

it's even mentioned in the initial notes that walt would be open to applying it only to mrt

also, blaze has been typing for a concerningly long time

[fast birch]

He is defo in my mind

[fast birch]

Yea we are all banned

[limpid canyon]

bible typa stuff

[fast birch]

If that’s your opinion it’s certainly interesting ngl

[gusty panther]

im convinced we have gone ON and OFF topic and caused them to delete and rewrite an essay several times.
That or compiling all the useful information we are saying

[fast birch]

Wish you had made it clear you were a career player pro no mrt nerf

Bc this is definitely structured as a nerf bc mrt is “too strong” I don’t think it’s as bad but certainly overtuned

Id personally rather different paths of nerfs stated previously but I’m just trying to walk back what I can and just deal with it

[naive walrus]

Thanks! I can reproduce the crash with this.

[shy egret]

so anyway, if the devs get anything from our talk, it is that they should increase rampdown even more to scare us away so that we stfu 😂

[gusty panther]

I am a career and creative player that made this ship in creative then learned its almost impossible to crew in career but had spent over 500 hours having fun building a mobile dreadnaught that can be used to fight other massive dreadnaughts or fleets and watch the explosions. Turning/strafing WAS my advantage, and why I am so worried about this change as i lose all ramp up forward thrust when turning while before i didnt have that problem to such an extreme and could maintain speed while turning

[fast birch]

Yes you are a part of the groups that will get hit hardest by this path of balance (that I don’t like) as you have no other options

In PvP ppl what mrt ships to just have turning thrust but that is going to limit the amount of viable ship types so much to where it’s out of the meta

But this is currently not an opinion shared by the majority so I have little support sorry

[naive walrus]

Next update we'll just set rampdown to 999999999. Balance has never been better!

[gusty panther]

Just wondering. how viable would it be to have minimum mass limits connected to an MRT before it would explode if used at full power. I am still trying to figure out why this change is in a preview so I can try to come up with any alternatives that dont hurt my experience so hard

[fast birch]

Brutal tab alt confirmed

[limpid canyon]

btw chat this is what i envisioned when mrt was being conceptalized

[sudden acorn]

yeah and it's exactly the sort of thrust setup i wanted to be used with MRT when i made the suggestion

MRT should be a main drive, and other thrusters for maneuvering

[fast birch]

This is not currently how it operates if this is what the devs intended btw^

Although I like the way it is currently and would rather more traditional nerfs

I’m honestly very very surprised this was the first balance change taken as it was relatively not as supported

[gusty panther]

?

first?

[naive walrus]

I mean it's probably possible to do that, but having a part self destruct due to some arbitrary threshold doesn't seem like a great gameplay mechanic. Shutting off maybe, but that'd be hard to lore-justify when equal or superior thrust in other forms works fine.

I believe the idea here is to:

• Nerf MRTs (since eeeveryone's been asking for that), preferably in a way that keeps them viable as like heavy load transport rather than as ridiculous maneuvering options.
• Give smaller thrusters more of a usecase; for a long time "optimal" thrust has always been about power/cost regardless of thruster type; increased rampup is intended to act as a counterbalance to increased power (higher top speed gives worse response time), but high-level play simply works around that, giving smaller thrusters very little purpose outside of "I didn't have room". Even outside of competitive, when's the last time you placed a small thruster for any purpose, on any size of ship?
• Idk if this is "intentional" or "happy accident", but it gives ships with a very high power/weight ratio a lot more granular control. For instance, on pretty much any small but fast ship, a single tick's worth of DC left input can send it reeling like 30d+, leaving manual control basically unusable. Rampdown lets you make much finer adjustments to course without completely killing your ability to rotate.

[fast birch]

First path taken

[gusty panther]

first path taken for???
MRT have been balance changed several times

[fast birch]

This has been the only period where they have been meta / used at all

In PvP

[pastel marsh]

That 3rd point is "happy accident". Otherwise this is all accurate.

[fast birch]

I think people would rather see buffs to the smaller thrusters (me)

And smaller thrust is used exclusively in dom

Mrt / huges are out of the meta completely

[sudden acorn]

i wouldn't, as this causes mobiltity creep, increasing the barrier to entry and the impact of ping

[fast birch]

Unless your artem

[fast birch]

The same could be said about the opposite I’m opposed to a slow down of fights which this would do

[naive walrus]

Is that because of higher maneuverability though, or just "I didn't have the space/budget for bigger ones"?

[fast birch]

Nope it’s due mostly because of protection limitations

[sudden acorn]

people were complaining about speed meta when the fastest regularly-used ships went 140m/s. having ships over 200 is definitely pushing it, and you can still have very dynamic and interesting fights at speeds as low as even 90

[fast birch]

I disagree

[gusty panther]

MY ship has every size of thruster. I specifically had installed smaller thrusters to deal with ramp up issues for turning. I even tried internal interlocked grids of the smallest thrusters and would have used that design if the 2 directional thruster's footprint matched the graphic instead of the 2x2 that it blocks. This was specifically to enable turning without overspin and minimal rampup loss.
When I added MRTs that could feather, I was able to get away with slightly slower ramp up times of the larger thrusters because the MRT's ramp up was stored while feathering, enabling me to use the slightly ramped down but still ramped up thrust to undo the overspin

[fast birch]

I don’t think any ship fights are interesting that slow except tbr which is always the exception

[sudden acorn]

i had some very fun fights in my (93m/s) ion rammer vs blaze's DC rammer just earlier

anyway i need to go get ready for dnd now so bye

[limpid canyon]

i think fights can still be dynamic at speeds of 60, just not ones that are one-mistake kills

ultimately it's a matter of opinion what you find exciting

[gusty panther]

I just want any viable answer to turn my ship without losing all my ramp up. Feathering was the best answer I had and MRT was an improved version of the Boost thruster or mini thruster grid designs i made. This change just deletes the engine type for my ship because I will have to fight against my own ship, not just make it sluggish

[stray lion]

that’s what i be saying though

is that not wanting to have your cake and eat it too

[sudden acorn]

adding back thrust recovery window would at least help with this

[gusty panther]

if massive ships had combat advantage compared to fleets of equal cost as is the most commonly accepted way to balance fights in this game then I wouldnt be trying to defend what mobility I have. but massive ships already suffer in that matchup specifically due to mobility already

[fast birch]

Gl hf I just prefer 110- 170s

I will concede that piloting ul nukes that are 200s makes me feel like I’m weaving through traffic on the interstate over playing a game

[gusty panther]

i see this as taking an entire arm, then giving back the arm but only down to the elbow. Its the same problem just slightly less of it.
The turning problems, ramp up maintain, and thrusters not firing due to the thruster balance code are problems that exist in current client but are at a level that can be counteracted. This change just makes it harder to deal with an already difficult chain reaction issue.

[fast birch]

I do rlly appreciate the devs response and reaction to our current feedback

[gusty panther]

I expect the dev direction to be to encourage creative design without making parts overly powerful to the point they are used instead of other options rather than by choice

[ripe rapids]

After accumulating ~10h on the preview and testing it in various situations, here's my two cents.

• Piloting has become unpleasant for me as it feels like there's constant input lag. I've learned to anticipate when to apply/disengage thrust sooner but the gameplay remains sluggish and mistakes are now more punishing. This ends up raising the skill ceiling for manual piloting.
• I'll share a save file of a racetrack where's I've practiced piloting so people may have a go at it for themselves. Previously, I'd navigate the course manually without crashing but it has now become difficult to do so. Don't worry about the mods it will load fine without them.
• Some people have already mentioned that ships in RTS may wiggle a lot before stabilizing their course towards their destination.
• I've perhaps played this game for too long to be able to accurately determine what the new player experience would be like with these changes. However, If I were to join a game for the first time and my inputs had such delays I'd find it frustrating.

There have been suggestions to decrease the rampdown but I'd be more inclined to making it an MRT only change. The current feel for piloting would be maintained and would encourage players to use MRT as a "spinal" module complemented by other unchanged thruster types for manoeuvring.

[woeful lodge]

i think even if it becomes mrt only the fallout will be disastrous as it would entirely kill mrt monothrust as we know it, mrt monothrust will be unable to compete with ht and be unusable

[limpid canyon]

good lol

[ripe rapids]

I'm not so sure, I think some creative hybrid designs could be established. It requires more testing

[limpid canyon]

they're literally not supposed to

[woeful lodge]

im not in favor of nuking an entire genre of archetypes

[limpid canyon]

they were too dominant anyway

[woeful lodge]

i heavily doubt it as turning thrust only does so much, costs a ton and messes with ur layout. i am willing to bet with this change they will just become unplayable

[woeful lodge]

an archetype being dominant doesnt mean it should be deleted xd

[limpid canyon]

if something wasn't the vision i'd also try to mitigate its dominance in this unintentional tangent it went in

[fast birch]

J uki watching as every ship type he runs gets thanos snapped by the devs (I told you to pick up some non mrt ships for when they overnerf it)

[woeful lodge]

yeah i did

[fast birch]

Gl with your emp barge + squibs lol

All you have left

[woeful lodge]

nah i have a spinner squib too

in development

[fast birch]

Real just like mine

[woeful lodge]

gonna just play all the toxic archetypes

they will pay

ill learn lc swarm next

[limpid canyon]

need to maky railfans practical again

[woeful lodge]

they might actually be

i mean obv ill try using ht cgs if this goes thru

but theyre not great

[fast birch]

They suck in comparison to mrts matchups

[woeful lodge]

things will be shaken up anyways

you never know

[fast birch]

I think with the current agreed upon nerfs mrt with just be out of the meta

Entirely

So it shouldn’t be

[woeful lodge]

yes it will entirely kill mrts

[fast birch]

Yet another reason why I’m surprised this path was taken but it does align with mrts original goals

[fast birch]

Missle kites only real use

[stray lion]

based

[woeful lodge]

me and fish both are one of the most experienced players of certain mrt archetypes and trust me they will become unusable, coaxial turning thrusters will be useless in terms of elim

[fast birch]

Mrt are not good enough to justify them lol

Maybe mrt thrust buffs along with this could work

[woeful lodge]

they will also as i warned only be playable as a boring passive hit n run type ship that just tries to move faster than the enemy

[woeful lodge]

why even bother just nerf mrt in an actually normal way in the first place

[gusty panther]

I hope im not being too annoying with my feedback. I am sorry if it has been repetitive. Just having a really hard time finding how to change this idea so it could work without breaking my experience.
Its why I came up with that idea of an arbitrary limit on MRTs where the engine thrust would thematically rip itself from the ship when not braced by enough connected mass, and if under that limit it would break off and explode like a directional nuke through whatever ship is in the way after that, or just self destruct if the other idea could be used for offense in a negative way.

Overall i just feel this preview's direction is the wrong way to nerf thrusters on the intended ship types

Currently the biggest weaknesses of MRT:
power management which is the way it is because it didnt work correctly for intended designs before and nerfing this would break it again.
Mandatory open hole in the ship in the direction of thruster exhaust, which has little impact on small ships but defines the entire design of massive ships.
Causes other thrusters to have difficulty in stabilizing so they dont fire as soon as players would expect

Current strengths of MRT:
Massive thrust to space/cost ratio.
Usable internal space for thrusters.

[fast birch]

I’ve said several times that this direction of balance was surprising

[woeful lodge]

your nerf suggestion is very deranged XD but it would def be funny. however u analysis of mrt is good

[gusty panther]

Suggestion to have mass thresholds for thrusters that limit their full thrust power if the ship is below the threshold.
IE if your ship's mass is below the threshold it would limit that thruster type's max thrust by 30% or so, making it more cost effective to use a smaller sized thruster on that ship instead.

For newer players this also provides a natural incentive to have at least some armor to make the ship heavy enough to get the real thruster power.

[woeful lodge]

thats really forced and weird, i dont think it would work in cosmoteer at all

it doesnt make sense either

[fast birch]

It also it’s certainly immersion breaking and almost arcade like

[gusty panther]

Please give your own ideas that can decrease the overuse of MRTs on tiny ships that doesnt cripple massive ships.

[woeful lodge]

tiny ships? mrt is bad on tiny ships

and i have already given my thoughts on 2 different actually productive ways to nerf mrt both in the short and long term

[sudden acorn]

you say this but then harana has a very solid ship that uses spinal mrt and secondary maneuvering thrust

[fast birch]

Command point nerfs / thrust nerfs / ramp up nerfs / ramp down speed nerfs / cost nerfs

[woeful lodge]

they made it 30 mins ago how do you know its solid or even usable

[fast birch]

It’s a missle ship

We said missle kites would work

That’s it

[stray lion]

Maybe smaller thrusters should get buffed

[sudden acorn]

i've fought it, multiple times

[sudden acorn]

not a kite

[woeful lodge]

doesnt mean anything and also what fish said

[gusty panther]

if it were a hard breakpoint then yes. it would likely need to scale over a mass range. thematically, space itself is made of soup that likes to eat momentum as its. its not entirely unfeasible to say the ship itself shields larger engines from similar strange effects

[woeful lodge]

mrt will be good on only he orbiters because they require very little precision

and have forgiving cost breakpoints

any sort of mrt ship that requires actual precision, maneuverability, or agency will be unplayable

[fast birch]

This would also be better

Than ramp down

[sudden acorn]

except mobility creep

[woeful lodge]

i dont think it would solve the root issue

[fast birch]

This is slowness creep

[gusty panther]

Command point nerfs! I heavily support this one
Thrust nerfs. unlikely to fix the problem before making intended use cases a clear worse option.
ramp up nerfs/ramp down speed nerfs are what this preview suggests and are why I am desperately trying to find an answer that doesnt delete my massive ship in the crossfire
Cost nerfs This works too

[woeful lodge]

ul he orbiters and kiters are practically the same ship btw

[fast birch]

Exactly those are widely supported by the pvp community over ramp down

[runic hill]

yes that was the original proposal for rampdown

[gusty panther]

command points make a ton more sense to need a lot for a massive engine

[fast birch]

I would like to see this actual but for only mrt

[woeful lodge]

i mean it makes sense extenders dont need extra cp cause theyre still just one engine

[fast birch]

I think this could work well

[brisk horizon]

anyone know if its currently possible to mod the recovery window back in?

[fast birch]

Prolly

[brisk horizon]

I wanna know how then

[fast birch]

I’d ask plaus hara or air directly

[gusty panther]

i have a MASSIVE ship. it has 6 BRIDGES. i use 3000 command points. This is thematically correct for a massive ship. A tiny ship shouldnt so easily have access to command needed for the engine maintanence

[woeful lodge]

why do you keep talking about tiny ships

[gusty panther]

a way to deal with the issue that doesnt gut me!

[woeful lodge]

mrt isnt an issue on small ships

[fast birch]

Bc we are small

1.5 is small ig

[woeful lodge]

uh it isnt really but anyways i dont see how its particularly unrealistic really that 1 cr can run a "tiny" ship

[sudden acorn]

it's a break in the mobility creep that people have been complaining about for ages

[fast birch]

I love the mobility creep personally

[woeful lodge]

by nuking like 5 archetypes 🙏

[fast birch]

Speed meta is very fun

[sudden acorn]

it is, to a point

[fast birch]

Yea and we can come away from that point without bombing the Mrt embassy

[sudden acorn]

mate i also think these changes went too far

[woeful lodge]

why are you arguing for them then

[sudden acorn]

there's a reason i'd usually say rampdown should take 1/4 of rampup time when i made the suggestion

[fast birch]

He’s not

lol

[woeful lodge]

1/4th still kills mrt omnithrust like entirely totally

[sudden acorn]

i'm arguing for them to be kept but reduced, or removed for smaller thrusters

[fast birch]

He just doesn’t want as much of a roll back as we do

I haven’t heard any PvP player support theses as is

[woeful lodge]

It doesnt matter if the time it takes to turn changes from 30 seconds to 15 that still is horrible and unplayable

[fast birch]

@ me if you do so I can put you on a watchlist

[sudden acorn]

MRT alone should be a high-speed poor-turning thrust, to get fast turning you should need other thrusters as well

[runic hill]

the point :brainexplode:

[woeful lodge]

in an ideal world but that will almost guaranteed kill mrt as an option on all but the most boring archetypes

[sudden acorn]

if needed, MRT could even get other buffs so it can be effectively used with turning thrust and be competitive with (not objectively superior to) other setups

[runic hill]

afaik that is how it already works

[gusty panther]

I USE every thruster and needed the MRT OFF just to turn this massive brick

[fast birch]

Yea j uki they are actively trying to remove all mrt ships as is

That’s their goal

[runic hill]

??? only the current form of them

[fast birch]

I rlly hate it as well

[woeful lodge]

weve truly gotten to delete archetypes i dont like

[fast birch]

What I meant by as is

[runic hill]

deete arhcetypes that delete too many other archetypes

[sudden acorn]

yeah, hence why i think the changes should be partially reverted

[runic hill]

if tb rail becomes overly dominant then delete that too

[woeful lodge]

lol sure

[fast birch]

I rlly do hate the idea of actively removing ship types from the meta

[woeful lodge]

just nerf literally everything that becomes op from the consequences

[fast birch]

Which is what this does

[sudden acorn]

outright deleting archetypes isn't really a good thing yeah

[runic hill]

discord mobile search is terrible but just look for the message where walt pinged me and said that he did not want to do these changes now

[sudden acorn]

having them require a rebuild to have similar effectiveness is more ideal

[gusty panther]

Deleting ship archtypes from any gameplay is.... not fun if you spent time making them

[fast birch]

That’s not possible lol

[sudden acorn]

-# [citation needed]

[woeful lodge]

unless u make mrt like twice as cost effective and powerful it will never justify using them and adding turning thrust

they will strictly be worse than ht

[fast birch]

Cost wise^

[sudden acorn]

honestly, i doubt that. but it needs testing

[woeful lodge]

who here is the one that has spent their entire pvp career pushing the mrt meta

[runic hill]

imo thrust should be balanced by its cost of logistics, which is less strictly just from thrust count and more design dependent

[fast birch]

The gap isn’t huge enough to have a niche

[runic hill]

which is why i said what i said 5000 messages ago

[woeful lodge]

mrt is only subtly better than ht in a way that makes it the obvious use case for most ships but nowhere near enough to actually resist massive nerfs like people think

[fast birch]

That’s a completely different implementation than the current change lol

[runic hill]

it would work best when comboed with this

[woeful lodge]

theoretically mrt does abide by this, its logistics are pretty expensive generally

[runic hill]

rampdown would also wokr better with that because maneuver thrust would have much more signifiant impact

[woeful lodge]

tho idk how its per newton efficiency actually is on common setups

[runic hill]

it's just a lot of # changes

if this preview is still up or being considered in 1-3 months i can mod it

[woeful lodge]

lol

[limpid canyon]

fish bait

[fast birch]

Let’s just pause all changes for 3 months guys until air is active then I can get my tournament win and retire before mrt nerf

[gusty panther]

I read that Walt comment in relation to your suggestion of how to change the preview, not opposition to the preview itself.
That said, rereading the original post of how this is extremely experimental and that we should give feedback if in its current form the preview is the worst thing since the ban on drinking the yellow reactor juice

[woeful lodge]

another issue with "just add turning thrust" is that when u try to turn with it, it will be constantly deramping ur mrts while u have to ramp up ur turning thrust, meaning you will either entirely overturn or entirely underturn realistically

precise maneuvers will be impossible

[sudden acorn]

why do you think i wanted configurable thrust inputs when suggesting this

[limpid canyon]

advanced thruster control does solve this issue lots

[fast birch]

Not entirely mrt will at best still be niche in the meta

[torpid rain]

You have not heard of me then

[sudden acorn]

wasn't expecting special forces

[fast birch]

Your now on the list plaus

[limpid canyon]

ah finally we got agent 47 in here

[runic hill]

i think current preview is better than nothing

[runic hill]

true which is why smaller thrusts rebalance needed

[gusty panther]

I would prefer nothing over this, sadly

[runic hill]

i disagree with this though - same argument could be made for rampup onlu

[woeful lodge]

its not in a playable state

[stray lion]

if ppl are unhappy with downramp can we at least agree there should be better balance between the various thruster sizes

[fast birch]

Ofc

We all agreed on various mrt nerfs

[stray lion]

im talking aboht the smaller ones too—even before mrt was released i was getting tired of seeing every ship above 1m only having huges

[fast birch]

Just a much less agreed upon one was suggested

[woeful lodge]

avoider

and hts being op was a pervasive issue before mrts yeah

sounds silly to say now

[fast birch]

With how unusable mrt and huges are in the lower cost brackets I personally don’t see an issue

[runic hill]

i think niches need to be shifted a bit

[stray lion]

mrt yeah but tbh anything above like 250k is just better off using huges currently

[runic hill]

i think the best way to do would be to shift larger thrusts from being more efficient in terms of thrust/mass to thrust/power or logistixs

[gusty panther]

got no issue with that. But my argument is that MRT should be the best thruster to have on massive ships. This change make them so bad to deal with the opposing turn force that the ship loses all forward rampup. They become the WORST thruster on massive ship

[fast birch]

Not for dom really

Majority of dom ships don’t run huges even around 350k

[stray lion]

that’s dom ships

[woeful lodge]

thats pvp clearly doesnt matter

[fast birch]

Dom ships are highly optimized PvP

[woeful lodge]

the ultimate balance litmus test is career

where the meta is spamming reactors and kiting

[fast birch]

There are also a ton of 350 k dom ships with huges only as well

[fast birch]

Exactly why we need to remove the reverse direction for balance /j devs

[woeful lodge]

tru

all ships should have a powerful gravitational pull

[fast birch]

Past 350k tho the reason to use non huges nearly evaporate mostly due to how strong they are combined with engine rooms

[woeful lodge]

to balance the career meta

[fast birch]

And other thruster types simply don’t benefit from engine rooms

[woeful lodge]

yea the rampup loss doesnt matter when smaller thrust often accelerates u slower anyways due to less raw force

[fast birch]

Yep

I’d rather an engine room nerf over a huge thruster nerf

But I don’t think either are needed

[woeful lodge]

hm

[stray lion]

i’d rather small and regular and large thruster buffs

[fast birch]

Agreed

[woeful lodge]

but muh meta balance buzzwords

[fast birch]

This is the best path for balancing as its promotes discovering new thruster types without making older ones unusable

[stray lion]

I don’t think it’s bad that more expensive ships mainly use the larger thrusters but i’d like there to at least be a point to using them on larger ships

[woeful lodge]

we just need to change the drag equation and all of these issues would be solved but we arent ready for that conversation yet it seems

[stray lion]

the only reason i’d ever stick something smaller than a huge on a 1m+ ship is like 1 small thruster for reverse thrust so i can get dat magic thrust

[woeful lodge]

not how it even works btw

magic thrust works in all directions regardless

[stray lion]

but you need at least one thruster to be activated

if ur trying to reverse without any reverse thrust it dont work

[woeful lodge]

activated as in supplied with power

it doesnt have to actually be doing anything

[woeful lodge]

it does work

[stray lion]

at the very least it doesn’t work well enough for ai

[woeful lodge]

much to the chagrin of dom players

[fast birch]

It does

[woeful lodge]

works fine

[fast birch]

If you toggle collision avoidance

[woeful lodge]

you should have ca off anyways

its rly annoying

[stray lion]

ai without reverse thrust gets stuck on rocks and station frequently

[woeful lodge]

thats cause the ai sucks

rts is fine with magic thrust

[fast birch]

Yes you have to toggle collision avoidance on

There’s a key for it x I think is default

[stray lion]

i dont think the ai in career has it on by default

[fast birch]

I use it all the time

[woeful lodge]

yeah it does

why wouldnt it

its just really bad at it

[fast birch]

I don’t know abt the pure ai tho

[stray lion]

well if it does it doesn’t help enough because ai gets stuck on stations and rocks frequently lol

That’s why reverse thrust is a requirement for DC submissions

[fast birch]

Ai probably not but in rts it does

I purposely tell new dom players they don’t need reverse thrust bc of this

Bc I don’t and I just use magic thrust if I get stuck on something

[stray lion]

yeah if you are controlling it yourself its fine

players arent the ones getting stuck on rocks it’s the ai in career

[fast birch]

Yea so that’s an ai issue not any magic thrust issue

Sorry I think we confused ai with rts

[runic hill]

it does afaik when not in combat

[runic hill]

if you could only right click the destination and never intervene you would get stuck too

[stray lion]

yeah true but ai is unable to intervene with itself

[late locust]

It feels like the the ramp down continues to put out thrust after you've stopped putting in inputs which I think is the main thing that makes it feel laggy from my experience. I generally like the idea of removing feathering because I've always kinda felt like it was a way for people to ignore the advantages and disadvantages of ramp times for different thrusters but yeah this could use some tweaking in my opinion.

[elfin leaf]

alright soooo ive played multiple matches earlier today with the preview
as most other elimination players have pointed out, everything is unpilotable and super hard to control even with ample side thrust

i believe that the best thing to do is to only apply the ramp-down to MRT, it will give them a fun and entertaining niche while keeping them in check & letting other thrusters be playable

[limpid canyon]

https://tenor.com/view/animated-tightrope-rope-balance-gif-10135008

current rampdown gameplay

[fast birch]

I do wonder if there’s any substance behind airs claims of it would feel better if we just played it more but it feels so bad comparatively I don’t want to force myself to

[limpid canyon]

hey i'm the one who loves the tightrope

[woeful lodge]

other thrusters are playable because mrt is genuinely unusable by comparison

[elfin leaf]

i assure you they aren't
this is a ship of mine that i built

and well controlling this is literally as hard as piloting a CG rammer but two of the nozzles already got destroyed

its really, really bad

on the bright side, i hit nearly every shot with this thing by rarely having to fling

[runic hill]

i think this is just normal time taken to adapt to it

[elfin leaf]

i assure you this is insanely atrocious

lmao

i do think its a great concept, and the rampdown sounds like a good idea maybe for the MRT

but its quite extreme when applied to every thruster in the game

[runic hill]

and i am sure any new player just exposed to ramp up would assure the same thing

[elfin leaf]

waitwaitwait you're telling me that you dont mind this? lmao

[runic hill]

bruh i literally came up with it

[stray lion]

any nerf to anything will feel bad, that is unfortunately the point

like flak with their reduced ammo made it a bit more uncomfortable to build them

i think the ‘feel’ of changes usually take like a week or two then people get used to it

[fast birch]

Yes the difference is that a nerf to non mrt types and the way mrt was nerfed was much less agreed upon and more aggressive than needed

And flak is certainly a great example of nerfs gone too far

[runic hill]

if everyone weapon was nerfed alongside flak then it would be fine i think

[stray lion]

Well i can agree about non mrt being nerfed not being ideal, although i think ht also needs to be balanced a bit

[fast birch]

Common air nuclear balance team

[stray lion]

I think walt should turn on the half speed preview and the rampdown preview at the same time

chad patch

[fast birch]

Mrt was nerfed too far and huges certainly don’t need a nerf

[runic hill]

in the ideal balance, i think every thrust type should have use case for every price range up to ~20m

[runic hill]

yes i did balance nukes thanks

[stray lion]

I dont think huges need a nerf but then the smaller ones would need a buff

same thing in the end tbqh

my only hope for thruster changes is that more thrust types become viable so monothrust mrt or huge setups being toned down is a win in my eyes

[sudden acorn]

you did pretty well with it for like your first games using the ship

[quasi garden]

i feel like this should only apply to mrt and a tiny bit to huge thrusters

[sudden acorn]

agreed

@pastel marsh apologies for the ping, just bumping this in case you haven't seen it

[shrewd gust]

Maybe the rampdown rate should be exponential, so small thrusters have none, standart a really small fraction of the rampup, large and boost around 1/4, huge 1/3 and MRT 1/2 (ofc the numbers could change, not the order tho)

Also for DC there's a major issue (that I dunno how to address honestly) where if you press a direction key you set the desired thrust to 100%, which then makes it hard to maneuver for newer players

This is a probably really dumb idea but what if instead of the keys affecting the thrusters directly, they would affect a percentage on the screen (from -100% to 100%) for forward/backward and left/right directions, that would stay even when not pressing any keys?

Just something that I just thought of tho, and I have a feeling the responsiveness would also be bad

[sudden acorn]

not sure about exponential, but scaling it with larger thrusters is a good call

[shrewd gust]

Yeah just not 1/2 everywhere

[limpid umbra]

wait hold why wasn't it implemented then

[cunning briar]

So after playing around preview for a day I think that this change needs to either be MRT-only or scale with thruster size because piloting in general feels extremely sluggish and delayed on all ships I've piloted.
I’m more inclined towards suggesting this be an MRT-exclusive balance change for simplicity's sake (not turning the meta upside down completely) and because I believe Huge Thrust to be a much more reasonable example of monothrust in its application, as it was more or less balanced before MRT came into the picture.
Another concern with applying the change to all thrusters is just how overly effective this makes Tractor Beams, as ships simply cannot resist being flipped by them because TB provide an instant output of momentum that ships cannot even try to compensate for because of the rampdown, even when they themselves have TB on them, which makes make TB borderline overpowered.

[sudden acorn]

that's the general consensus it seems, though a decent few people are also for HT getting slight rampdown

personally i think it should be tested with 1/4 rampdown for MRT and 1/8 for huge

others 0 rampdown

[cunning briar]

that sounds like a good idea to test

[cunning briar]

we could ask plaus to test that while we wait for the official stance on it

[torpid rain]

I could mod that

[cunning briar]

yay that'd be great!

[torpid rain]

But having faster rampdown is a very small advantage. Mrt and ht would both ve extremely weak.

They would need some buff to compensate

[cunning briar]

i think keeping mrt rampdown higher is the way to go to force it out of the monothrust meta
im not against it being at 1/3 either or even kept as it is now

after all that is the reason for the change

[torpid rain]

The rampddown number doesnt matter as much

It matters that it has deramp

[cunning briar]

thats something we'll have to see i guess

[torpid rain]

Its pretty obviously true

[cunning briar]

btw when will you be available to test the changes?

[torpid rain]

If we had instant rampdown it would still be way too much of a nerf

[torpid rain]

Rn I guess. After I made the mod

[cunning briar]

oh nice! let me know when i can hop on then!

[sudden acorn]

i also think that readding thrust recovery window would be good

[torpid rain]

I thought that was implied

[loud tree]

I want to give a second opinion:

I am a casual player that has 200 hours in modern, and more than that in classic, long time ago. I never really touched DC before in modern, and in classic it wasn't a thing yet.

I just did 30 minutes of DC practice with a whole lineup of my ships. This was basically the first time playing DC intentionally. (everything on 1x speed)

Most of my ships are RP-ish for career and for fun, with generally pretty balanced layouts (at least some backwards and sidways), and going around 90m/s.

I recently got into some more competitive/efficient designs, and also have some mainly monothrust ships in the lineup.

The first practice in old DC went pretty easy, not hard to learn, easy to fly the course i set up, and parking back went smoothly. Basically every ship i had felt good, some were more sluggish, but hey that was the design. Feathering with mrt felt easy enough and i mainly flew without brake and using the shift to brake. After the 30 min I felt pretty proficient.

Now switching to the preview. At first i overturned lots, and it was defenitly more difficult to get into. after some time I switched to always fly with Brake, and use SHIFT for drifts. This worked much much better (really reccommend). With enough strafing thrust there was absolute no wiggles, and quite easy to control after some while. For turning a more tappy playstile worked wonders, and i felt like i had control, even in quite tight turns. The more the design was monothrust, the larger the tunrs were and the more difficult to control. the more balanced thrust, the easier. With some ships that had lots of small and medium thrusters feeling exaclty the same as old DC.

Asside from needing to be a bit carefull, diagonal ships did not feel any different, and there good mobility and generally included strafing thrust made it feel just good.

First i was quite scared when i felt the increased difficulty, but when i used good thruster design it felt good.

This is a very good ship to test fly with IMO. It has mainly MRT for forward propulsion, but has enough turning thrust to be stable at all points, and feel very natural. I think it is a good example for how thrust layout should work with proper design in such a new build

The precise things were more difficult on every ship, especially parking back in the lineup. I think it is a good change, as I truly feel good thruster design is being rewarded in manueverability and control, but it might need a little rebalance for some more precision. I felt no problems with flying on smaller ships, but i think having a balance where smaller thrusters need less rampown % wise would feel natural. Small fighters being truly more nimble is something very cool in space games, and that would make using the smaller thrusters on larger ships for stabilization and control more effective, without inbalancing or speedcreeping things.

In the case of making small thrusters more viable, perhaps a thing where small thrusters share their power when connected could be a solution. The ships that had large and huge thrusters for main, but manuevre with lots of small, felt almost the same as old DC, even when going 60+

I would be a little sad if the changes were implemented directly, as it would get more difficult to fly in general. But with some adjustments i think it would do good things for Design.

For me Ship Design is the most fun and important aspect of the game, and being rewarded or challenged in that point is what i love most, in mono-thrust nerf would be something I like, as me trying to make more realistic ships would be less, less-efficient than going pure meta

I hope my perspective can bring some value, as a quite experienced (casual) player, and fresh view on DC

One thing to add, for the largest part of my time playing I never touched DC, as i felt no need to, and the RTS felt easier and more fun, and more than enough. Only when i started building some more meta-ish ships with central CG's etc did i feel the need to try some DC to optimize the effectiveness of my ships and beat harder opponents for the same cost.

With this being the case I think the most important thing for casual players is that the regular RTS AI works good. (in standard settings, DC isn't even a think on your UI, and My recently started friend doesn't even know about it I think)

Most casual players will have more balanced thrust setups, so with that feel the "nerfs" less automatically, as monothrust was only an option in my mind after hanging around in the discord for a while, and learning that DC is used in PvP

[torpid rain]

@naive walrus is it possible to readd thrust recovery time with a mod? I tried this and it did remove the thrust decrease but didnt add thrust recovery back.

        Action = Remove
        Remove = "<ships/terran/thruster_large/thruster_large.rules>/Part/ThrustDecreaseTime"
    }
    {
        Action = Add
        AddTo = "<ships/terran/thruster_large/thruster_large.rules>/Part/Components/MainThruster"
        Name = "ActivationRecoveryTime"
        ToAdd = 2
    }
    {
        Action = Remove
        Remove = "<ships/terran/thruster_large/thruster_large.rules>/Part/Components/MainThruster/ActivationDecreaseTime"
    }```

@cunning briar sorry I cant get it to work

[cunning briar]

aw damn

wish i knew stuff about modding to help

[wooden wave]

Great analysis. I share same opinion

[faint slate]

The most concerning thing about this change to me is how cracked TB becomes.

It's already one of the most powerful ship functions.

[loud tree]

Tb ramp-up and ramp-down 👀

[faint slate]

Nah the TV's main gimmick is instant output.

[pastel marsh]

Not possible because I removed the code support for it, but the next preview will re-add it.

[torpid rain]

cool thanks!

[runic hill]

idk ask walt

[runic hill]

ht was not balanced - ht was the only option for monothrust after rampup was bypassable

before it was completely bypassable, thrust choice was very important for monothrust agility

that is why classic walls had boost and standard/large thrusr blocks

[runic hill]

https://tenor.com/view/cat-look-cat-look-at-camera-silly-cat-in-a-cage-gif-889392959852579879

[cunning briar]

thats a fair point

[runic hill]

ramp up has existed since classic

[runic hill]

(obviously some used ht even before rampup completely bypassed, but that was when all thrusts rampuped up 2x as quickly as currently and they also were not super controllable and had the same complaints as what literally every complainer here has said)

[runic hill]

however: it does not reset when modes switch

[ancient surge]

tb rampdown is bypassable by just rotating the ship or turret smh

[wispy bane]

(This is honestly a geniunely insane take that fails to understand why people use larger thrusters)

Its called tiny thrusters literally being useless no matter what because they simply dont have enough thrust

[grave hawk]

Why is wanting thrusters to be useful across all ranges so insane? In the current state, as you said, tiny thrusters are relatively useless for large ships. But wouldn't it be nice if that wasn't the case, and thrusters were useful across a variety of size ranges?

[wispy bane]

Its just... not practical at all?
If you increase their thrust enough then it causes serious balance problems, because they are cheaper, provide a good amount of thrust, with no rampup. Per tile tiny thrusters are signficantly cheaper then huges- you can get nine for ever huge thruster.

As ships get bigger, their thrusters must also necessarily get bigger. On some of my big ships I geniunely use core plasma thrusters, simply because they are one of the only ways to get a ship to turn at an appreciable speed without massive space reqs. Hell, when I remake B5 I am going to probably have to shove MRT's in as RCS, because it simply is not practical to use such small thrusters.

For smaller ships I get the concern that they arent useful, but I would argue they are. True, once you have banks of larges or huges you dont use them at all, but again, I dont really mind that. They are still very useful on smaller ships, and tinies also have the massive advantage of having three-way variants, which lets you use them as limited RCS for ships that lack it.

The only thruster I find somewhat obselete is actually the standard thruster, to be honest.

[shrewd gust]

increasing their thrust would be bad, yes, but making their rampup/rampdown timers different for better responsibility for turning is a good idea to give them a use even on large ships

[wispy bane]

...except they still wont be useful because they dont have nearly enough thrust

[tidal cedar]

i also love seeing that nobody even bothered to read the analysis from SilverShadow, am disappointed

[stray lion]

i did i just didn’t have anything to add

i agre

[ripe rapids]

Every comment is most likely read. People don't necessarily reply to them.

[tidal cedar]

still i was disappointed to see nobody even address it, it felt very well thought out especially for someone newly using direct control

[ripe rapids]

That's understandable. At least you can be assured that one of the devs read it and that's what matters the most at the end of the day.

[magic kite]

might i ask what is the advantage of adding this rampdown ?
(to clearify it... what bug or what exploits are tried to fix or what was not nice that gets better now ?)
because as i see it it brings an disadventage to people that like to play the game more in an arcade style instead of tactical fleet simulation
(but i can not see an advantage in general except to make it more tricky.... please correct me when im wrong)

[stray lion]

The goal is mainly to nerf MRT

[magic kite]

ehm, sry to be that outdated.... what exactly has to be nerfed on mrt ?
the max speed ?
that ships accellerate too fast ? because last time i tried it they where just an additional way so that ships dont have these truster blocks everywhere

[tidal cedar]

its maneuverability

insta cut thrust means that mrts can cut all thrust immediately, and thus can make some very stupid turns while just using two mrts

one of my large craft uses just 6 forward mrts and some reverse thrust and it still turns very very well

in current versions

[grave hawk]

Basically, MRTs are supposed to be primary central engines that aren't good at maneuvering. As they are without this change, though, people discovered that they're ridiculously good at maneuvering. So, the developers are trying to rebalance them so they're used for their intended purpose.

[magic kite]

intended purpose is for long travel ?
then i would add some sort of afterglow to mrt only instead of nerfing/chaning the logic of the entire thrusters

[runic hill]

why would it cause balance problems? the logistics would be massively more expensive

[magic kite]

but dunno if it is possible to fix this issue since thrusters can be build in any direction you can always compensate

[runic hill]

huge thrusts are also ridiculously agile

[runic hill]

the goal is not to nerf mrt specifically imo - it is to make the ramp up mechanic not completely bypassable

because as a balancing feature it is currently completely useless

and the few archetypes (avoiders mostly) that are affected by it are terrible compared to everything else that can bypass

[sudden acorn]

the advanced ship controls on the UI are added when you get past a certain tutorial, just letting you know

[sudden acorn]

the original suggestion that i made was intended to make MRT no longer the Objectively Best™️ option for monodirectional thrust (monothrust) on PVP ships, which was having the knock-on effects of making multidirectional thrust much less useful by comparison, increasing overall top speeds, and overall making controls be a lot faster, meaning ping plays a lot more of a part

[woeful lodge]

you misunderstand how and why mrt is op fundamentally

[runic hill]

because ramp up doesn'

doesn't do anything for monothrust and mrt's numbers other than ramp up is bigger than everything else

[sudden acorn]

a phrase that you'll probably hear a decent amount in balance discussions is 'speed meta', essentially the fact that being fast and overall mobile is the best choice in pvp gameplay (at least in the popular Elimination mode). the speeds of elim ships have been steadily rising for a while (at the very least since modern cosmoteer launched), and with how cosmoteer's physics and thruster mechanics work (at least in stable, non-preview) that also means the agility of monothrust ships tends to increase. i felt that it was just getting to an unreasonable degree, so made the suggestion to hopefully curtail the worst excesses of the speed meta and bring things a bit more in line with each other

[sudden acorn]

rampup does do something for monothrust, but yeah it definitely doesn't have the balancing affect it's likely intended to

[runic hill]

the main issue is that in stable, max speed = agility, and has been equivalent to agility ever since ramp up could easily be bypassed

[sudden acorn]

yeah, that's a concise summary

it's not accurate in all cases, but for the vast majority of cases it's true

it's more accurate to say that agility tends to be proportional to speed

[runic hill]

for monothrust it is

if it has more thrust force then it handles better

[sudden acorn]

ships with thrusters mounted more centrally don't get quite as much torque per thrust, but yeah

[magic kite]

for me it sounds like there is an general issue with the entire concept of thrust
the first thing that sounds weird to me is that ships with no thrusters have thrust even when just a little
the second one is when there are only mechanics that are directional independed, you will never achive directional depended behavior

i dont get it

[sudden acorn]

'magic thrust' requires at least one activated thruster on the ship

it's more to help for ships that have no strafe or reverse

the second one, i don't understand what you're trying to say?

[magic kite]

what i mean with that point is that there should be no help, when a ship has no thrust compensation (e.g. like a rocket) then be it like that and the player should live with the disadventage... (that is the ship needs to be rotated to be able to stop movement)

[sudden acorn]

drag means movement will stop with 0 thrust input anyway

it's largely for like, ai control or when you get stuck on a rock

[wispy bane]

me when drag

[magic kite]

when you want something is better in just one point you should not create it to be applicable in every direction
e.g. you create something that should accellerate fast in one direction only then there need to be a definition that makes it so.
nobody prevents people from building some part in all 4 directions
but there is the flight direction (with that i mean the definition which of the 8 directions is actually forward) that could be used to add ....... some magic thrust ..... to opposite thrusters

i hate magic

i hope you get my point now

[sudden acorn]

so... you're arguing that some parts should be restricted to being built only 'forwards' relative to the ship's flight direction?

[magic kite]

no

[sudden acorn]

also, hosting 1.5mil elim on preview

[sudden acorn]

sorry, i don't understand what you're trying to say then

[runic hill]

magic thrust bad

[magic kite]

the problem atm (why rampdown is coming) is that as faster the thrusters get as more precise the movement of the ships is... right ?
or what exactly is the problem?

[runic hill]

the problem is is that the only thing that matters for agility with thrust that only goes 1 way is the thrust force

that is it

and the one with the most force per cost is mrt

[sudden acorn]

not necessarily precise, but differential thrust means that ships with more thrust (higher speed) can by definition have higher torque and thus faster turning than ships with less thrust but the same overall layout

essentially yeah the same as what air said

more thrust = faster turning

[magic kite]

ok, so i am right with: as "faster" the thrusters are as more aggility a ship has.
so this is actually because you can build the same thruster (or combination of thrusters) in every direction
and this will never change

[sudden acorn]

building thrust in multiple directions slows you down

[magic kite]

except you create a definition that give an direction an adventage..... e.g. by looking at the choosen flight direction and buffing opposite thrusters

[sudden acorn]

because it's more cost and more mass that isn't making thrust in any given direction

[magic kite]

i mean you have to build them when you want aggility

no ?

[sudden acorn]

no, the most agile (for turning at least) ships in pvp are monothrust

[wispy bane]

though tbf this is never going to be fixed
All this does is make DC a pain in the ass and cause problems

[sudden acorn]

because they can just shut off the thrust on one half of their ship and spin around

[sudden acorn]

it's drastically slowed the turn rate of most ships but especially MRTs, i think it has fixed that specific problem. in its current state the preview's flaws outweigh its upsides, but it does technically fix the problem that it set out to fix, so it can be fixed

with some tuning and rebalancing this preview has very good potential

[runic hill]

why not

[wispy bane]

It makes large ships extrodinarily hard to pilot and makes DC even more of a cliff to new players. The turn rate isnt changed, all thats changed is the ability to actually control wtf you are doing.

[wispy bane]

because
More thrust
is
faster turn

[sudden acorn]

the immediate turn rate has changed, and that was the problem

[runic hill]

new player that just picks up dc for the first time does not complain of difficulty for this

[sudden acorn]

yes you can still spin at the same speed, but only by ramping your thrust all the way down, which takes quite a while

[runic hill]

then we can make it either an uncontrollable turn, or make it so the turn is delayed and slower (which is what this does)

[loud tree]

I would complain about controlabillity if i was flying monothrust MRT tho

And that is the point

[wispy bane]

...only for ships with one direction of thrust
For ships with any sort of sideways thrust you are just fucked by this

[sudden acorn]

the immediate turn rate is practically 0 however, and the turn rate for turns taking a normal amount of time is decreased

[runic hill]

what

how

[magic kite]

what exactly is monothrust ?

[wispy bane]

turnrate unchanged but still far more uncontrollable

[sudden acorn]

i flew this thing around when i was first testing, it's absolutely fine

[runic hill]

turn rate is changed

[sudden acorn]

monodirectional thrust

[wispy bane]

it isnt though-

[sudden acorn]

basically, ships with thrust going in only one direction (usually forwards)

[runic hill]

this is more agile than this

[sudden acorn]

absolute maximum turn rate isn't. practical turn rate is, in all cases aside from full small thrusters

[runic hill]

yes it is because the thrust needs to deramp first

[magic kite]

this design only works when you have a force you work against.... does not apply to space

[sudden acorn]

it works in stable branch pvp

[magic kite]

i mean... it should but ... magic

[sudden acorn]

i don't know what you're trying to say here?

[magic kite]

in general you have thrusters everywhere to slow down or rotate

[wispy bane]

I think that might be because one has more thrust to apply relative to the size
And again, 's literally just making piloting harder

which I am firmly against

[sudden acorn]

not in pvp. monothrust (thrust in only one direction) is the best in almost all cases

[runic hill]

yes and having thrust in just 1 direction should not be more agile than having thrust in every direction

[wispy bane]

not necessarily but okay

[sudden acorn]

that's not the only thing that it's doing. it is slowing down turns in all practical cases

[runic hill]

this is true for you because the restriction of ramp up properly applies to you because you don't know how to bypass it

[wispy bane]

It legitimately just depends on how your ship is made
if you have hellishly more power-to-weight ratio then of course you will turn faster

[sudden acorn]

which is the issue, that this is trying to fix

[runic hill]

this is meant to try to be the first step in making thrust size what determines agility, not just thrust force

[wispy bane]

it doesnt fix it, it literally just makes it more of a bitch to pilot

[sudden acorn]

it does fix it

in pvp at least

[magic kite]

yes that, but also because of.... look:

[runic hill]

the point is that it should be a bitch to pilot because now the balance measures actually work

??

[wispy bane]

I dont think ships being a bitch to pilot is good

[runic hill]

it is how the game was originally balanced

[sudden acorn]

monothrust ships cannot turn stupidly quickly anymore. which is great

[wispy bane]

Especially for newer players given they tend to... how do I say it
Not optimize their thrusters

[runic hill]

yes and it is even better for them

[sudden acorn]

all ships shouldn't, but ships using solely the thruster designed to be bad at turning placed in only one direction probably should

[runic hill]

because they actually use smaller thrusts and put them everywhere

so relative to a monothrust or larger thrust ship, it's even more agile

[sudden acorn]

it depends on the player

[wispy bane]

This just makes every ship that doesnt rely on tinies a bitch to pilot

[sudden acorn]

yeah hence why me and pretty much everyone wants it toned down and/or removed for non-MRT thrusters

as i've said

this preview goes too far

but it does technically fix the problem

[runic hill]

it should be for ht as well, and if it's for ht too, i don't see the issue of reducing all ramp up/down for all the smaller thrusters and also applying it to them as well

imo all ramp up time needs to be decreased as well

[sudden acorn]

as i've said previously, 1/4 for MRT, 1/8 for HT, 0 for others

[wispy bane]

I still dont think keeping it for MRT is a good idea (I would prefer other balance mechanisms for it), but I would definitely prefer it over having it on everything
And applying it to everything is just a no

[wispy bane]

mfw he makes it even worse to pilot

[runic hill]

why not just match ramp up and down to same number and decrease that number for everyone

[runic hill]

mod it and try it before assuming

[wispy bane]

bitch I dont mod

[sudden acorn]

tone it down, you don't want to get muted again

[runic hill]

?r14

[signal palm]

Rule 14. Curse words are currently allowed as long as they aren't directed at any members. (This rule may change in the future.)

[wispy bane]

¯_(ツ)_/¯

[runic hill]

@hollow totem

[wispy bane]

literally what but okay

[magic kite]

cool

[runic hill]

can you not read the rules

there is a channel of #rules you are supposed to follow in this server

[wispy bane]

Can you not be an obstinate idiot for once

[magic kite]

uf calm down guys

[wispy bane]

If you want me to test it then make the mod yourself, I dont mod

[runic hill]

bruh

do not claim its effects then

[wispy bane]

How can you claim it will be helpful for new players if you arent a new player then, hmmm?

[sudden acorn]

both of you calm down

[runic hill]

because a new player said so

[sudden acorn]

insulting each other will not help

[wispy bane]

citation needed

[runic hill]

where did i insult :(

[runic hill]

1 sec

[hollow totem]

?warn @wispy bane r14

[signal palm]

zendikarofthewest has been warned.

[hollow totem]

for the love of Sol act civil people

[runic hill]

here you go #1299092934796382331 message

[wispy bane]

h m

HM

me when it quite literally contradicts your point

[runic hill]

what

where

seems they think net positive

[wispy bane]

But its significantly harder to get into...?

[runic hill]

imo that is because they got used to old dc as well

which has different timings they were relying on

that's how it felt for me

but that is just for me

[wispy bane]

they used it for thirty minutes

[tidal cedar]

silver shadows analysis is quite good and is well thought out, especially in the feel of original DC, and in the preview

and they are typing, i would shush for a minute and listen

[loud tree]

I am in favor of the changes, and the ships were good to control as longs as they were sufficiently non-mono thrust. However it was more difficult and i think a little tone down for eg the smaller thrusters would be a good thing

[tidal cedar]

and like you said earlier shadow, that it does need some getting used to, however once learned then you can pretty well control similar to how it was in the release version?

[loud tree]

Yes, but i did switch modes to fly with "brake on" as standard mode. The ship I included felt generally the same, and was comfortable to fly

The AI brake also stops rotation if not imputted, this helps with controlling stability

[runic hill]

that is the default afaik

you probably changed it some time before

[sudden acorn]

you can hold shift to temporarily enable autobrake

it's very handy to stabilize

[loud tree]

Yes, but i think pvp usually plays on the other mode right?

[runic hill]

yes

[sudden acorn]

pvp standard is autobrake off but it is personal preference

[tidal cedar]

because shift can be used

[sudden acorn]

and i've found that doing this is incredible to stabilize

[runic hill]

it is because you do not want to waste any thrust at all - if you press w then 100% goes forawrds

[loud tree]

Yes, but i preffered SHIFT as drift rather dan other way around

[sudden acorn]

yeah, preference

[loud tree]

It made sharper turns and kept more speed

[sudden acorn]

if any of yall want to do some testing i do have a pvp game open rn

[runic hill]

not watching the tourney?

[sudden acorn]

https://tenor.com/view/the-road-to-el-dorado-both-both-is-good-gif-8304204

i can multitask

[loud tree]

I can join

[runic hill]

pvp against new player is always just going to be curbstomp and i don't think any good data will be generated

[loud tree]

In the preview, in normal other way around

[sudden acorn]

yeah, it's open

[runic hill]

imo build and battle would be best way to test

[sudden acorn]

eh, we're both relearning the piloting and i can give shadow the same ship as i'm using

[tidal cedar]

i will say partially that fleet admiral is correct that it is more difficult to get into, especially those that dont use DC or know of autobrake, and air is correct with just getting used to it to develop said skills, now you two stop the now frankly boring argument lmao
@wispy bane and we dont need you getting more warnings for being less then civil

is this acceptable?

[wispy bane]

and we dont need you getting more warnings for being less then civil
tbf I dont paticularly care but w h a t e v e r

[tidal cedar]

hey its you holding the shovel, im just trying to help mate

[wispy bane]

True.
I just dislike air for... reasons

[tidal cedar]

dont need you getting yourself banned for it, and ill now stop as we dont need this more clogged up then it already is

[loud tree]

I just flew in the PvP tourney (as pretty new player) and got warmed up with that, and now did some Elim on the preview, @sudden acorn & @runic hill you can review how i did

But it felt good

Ships were nuke avoider and a ion rammer with large thrust

The biggest struggle i had in flying were the TB's as i haven't really experienced them before (but that was same in the pvp tourney)

[sudden acorn]

(the ion rammer)

i must say silver, for a near-complete newbie to PVP you are very good on the piloting side, would highly recommend making some ships of your own

[runic hill]

major piloting skill issues but the nuke barge seemed to do decent

well it was still mostly maneuverable

[sudden acorn]

they were a bit better piloting the rammer i think

[runic hill]

bug

(strafing)

[woeful lodge]

peak rts gameplay

[sudden acorn]

hm

[runic hill]

what helped me pilot a lot is just visually looking at the thrust and judging the rampup/down

which is very good as an unintended feature because now you can always tell the thrust ramp level visually, which was not possible before

[sudden acorn]

i will also second what air says about shift being very handy to control turns

[runic hill]

i did not use shift at all when i was piloting

[runic hill]

well i used it with the avoider when rts was not working due to bug

but that is it

[magic kite]

where do post crash reports related to this preview ?

i can start the game but asap i launch creative mode i get that error

[runic hill]

settings file?

[wispy bane]

thats already a known crash iirc

[sudden acorn]

@naive walrus another report for ya

[naive walrus]

Yeah that crash should be fixed in the next patch; you can avoid it for now by reenabling UI animations (weird, I know)

[magic kite]

ok thanks i will try :)

[runic hill]

what is the cause, out of curioisity?

[naive walrus]

A sound effect trying to scale its speed based on the duration of the previous frame, which without UI animations can apparently be 0 on the very first frame of a new save.

[sudden acorn]

unexpected (but positive) side effect: direct control in 8x is actually reasonable

it is still twitchy with HT monothrust, but with a mix of thrusts it flies pretty good

substantial wobbling with mouse control

also present on a ship with thrusters more optimized for rampdown (mix of huges placed more centrally with boosts, larges, and standards further out) but notably less

ships used for testing, the one with the mix of thrusters and side structure cages is the one made for preview

[runic hill]

possibly related to but idk

[sudden acorn]

that seems to be the fact that diagonal movement in general has issues with the preview

it seems the new thrust algorithm might have a problem with diagonals

[naive walrus]

The thruster algorithm hasn't actually been reworked, just updated to accommodate rampdown. It's just not working super well super consistently.

[sudden acorn]

ah

crucify walt for his lies

[runic hill]

even without ramp down, it was still buggy like that

[naive walrus]

At least, to my knowledge. If Walt said it was reworked it probably was and I just haven't heard that yet.

[naive walrus]

Buggy like what?

[quasi garden]

this is going to render so many ships obsolete, and will chage everything :(

[sudden acorn]

btw, i will make it clear: i cannot think of anyone that has said they want this to be implemented as-is

it's pretty clear that people want this to be changed before implementing it

[runic hill]

meeee

but i still would like changes

[runic hill]

that is the point

ships that only existed due to ramp up as a mechanic doing jack will have agility significantly impaired

[quasi garden]

but so many old ships will be ruined

[runic hill]

wdym

current career ships all work fine

[quasi garden]

mostly i think it will make piloting a nightmare

[wispy bane]

I think thats because you classify as clinically insane

¯_(ツ)_/¯

[runic hill]

the ship also acted strangely when strafing in stable

also, when stopping, sometimes the forwards thrust is flickered on and off for 1 tick

[tidal cedar]

kelsia for the love of fuck mate

[runic hill]

even though the ship is trying to brake

[naive walrus]

Flickering should already be on the tracker; it's a repeated overcompensation thing when trying to ease into place.

[quasi garden]

i really think that if its implemented, it should only apply to mrt and maybe a tiny bit to huge thrusters

[runic hill]

why so?

[naive walrus]

Feel free to shoot me a save file or something

[runic hill]

ship is here

[tidal cedar]

which is the general feel from everyone, well, mostly everyone

[runic hill]

will see if i can get u a save later

[sudden acorn]

yeah, though a good few people (many in the pvp community) are against having rampdown on HTs at all

i'm personally ambivalent as to whether it gets added but would definitely like to see it tested

[quasi garden]

could this be made a toggleable option for multiplayer instead of effecting the whole game?

[woeful lodge]

likely not

[sudden acorn]

not how the game works

[limpid canyon]

huge overhauld of the game required

[runic hill]

does it have significant impact single player? it shouldn't

[runic hill]

although instant high speed turns with very strong thrust, which is fun on its own, are not possible, i think it is overall better for the game to not have that *with current thruster niches/balances*

[fast birch]

Feedback on the current implementation

• making this change apply to only mrt would be much more inline with what the original changes proposed seek to fix
• The goal is to make mrt mono thrust have a significant agility drawback not kill it entirely so making the ramp down time less than it currently is as well as additional grace period preventing ramp up loss should make this feel much better
• The above tweaks to this intended balance change would stabilize the meta significantly while removing the oppressive nature of monothrust mrt and promote meta diversity with turning specific thrust on mrt without forcibly scraping current designs