Experimental Thruster "Ramp Down" Preview

[fast birch]

That’s something most PvP players have outlined above as well I just haven’t written my take out well until this ^

[runic hill]

the original proposal was everything

i thought ht walls were still maneuverable enough

*monothrust ht

[loud tree]

Having some form of rampdown on all thrusters would make less-monothrust ships more viable/optimal, and that brings also good things, more complicated/interesting thruster designs

So more could be accomplished than only a MRT nerf

[runic hill]

from #1275844483631681637 message

[fast birch]

Huges still allow for a ton of non mono thrust ships

Mrt is the only thing that shifted the mono thrust balance as it has no draw backs to huges

[runic hill]

huges have no draw backs comapred to large

large has no drawback compared to standard

standard has no drawback to tiny

[fast birch]

Huges act as a baseline for thrust imo

And if smaller thrusters have to little advantages then maybe they should have buffs looked at

[runic hill]

i do not think buffs are the way to go

[loud tree]

So adding rampdown on all makes more mixed designs something more worth

[fast birch]

But the meta is healthy with huges as the base

[runic hill]

unless their niches are redefined

[runic hill]

yeah that is because you have never seen healthy meta before

[fast birch]

I disagree

Older players like mun agree that the mono thrust nerfs are too far

[runic hill]

there is never a design consideration for thrust size

[fast birch]

And that mrt is the issue here

[runic hill]

it is just "what is the biggest thrust i can use"

previously, when ramp up was not bypassable, it was a consideration

[runic hill]

@eager whale thoughts?

oops @limpid canyon

[fast birch]

I believe I had this discussion with them earlier today in excelsior

[limpid canyon]

juno agrees its too far for the most part

i like the fast lane but eh it gets boring after you dodge 500 lines of missiles

relevant thread: in excelsior

[fast birch]

You have no idea how happy I am to have someone air can’t pull the seniority card on agree btw

[runic hill]

why bad for game do you think?

[fast birch]

(Make sure you send me your paypal /j)

[runic hill]

i am not a fan of grace period because it is a hidden number that is hard to describe succinctly in the stat box

[fast birch]

That’s a fair criticism of it

[runic hill]

hidden number = bad (wish there was a better way to make magic thrust work because new players do get confused)

[fast birch]

I don’t think it is enough to knock it down as a much more forgiving system while still having the same agility penalty’s

[fast birch]

Even non new players do when I tell them to drop the reverse thrust in dom

[runic hill]

personally i think large thrust should actually have a minor ramp down time increase, but every thrust's ramp up should be halved to match their ramp down

i like the new way because feathering is not required, so it is less impacted by lag and it is more about how long you hold the thrust down for

[fast birch]

Making it 1 to 1 ish?

[runic hill]

yes

1:1 exactly

easiest way to show in stat block and in tutorials and just makes intuitive sense

[wispy bane]

Mfw that makes stuff moar of am issue but whatever

[fast birch]

It’s only fair I entertain and understand airs suggestions fully

If I want them to do the same

Disagree or not

[runic hill]

i can see your point and how it would in fact fix stuff without disrupting tooooo much

however, i think there is more fixing that can be done despite more disruption

[runic hill]

??? did you test it? mod it and see

[wispy bane]

Given the massive impact itll have on the game in general + the new plater experience its not goos

[runic hill]

on new player it should do literally nothing because they are just learning ship controls

[fast birch]

I think that that change should be made after the mrt nerfs if done to let the meta stabilize a little

[wispy bane]

Literally dont mod, if you are so insistent that I do so make me a mod and ill test it

[fast birch]

I’m not supporting the change tho

[runic hill]

"this change is going to be terrible" *does nothing to prove it* ????

[wispy bane]

I have laid out pretty detailed, logical arguments, Air.

[fast birch]

You too keep baiting each other go argue where the devs don’t have to shift it pls

[runic hill]

"it has less delay so it will be harder to control" makes no sense

[wispy bane]

Not really?

Because the advantage of rampup is the fine manuvering it can give you

[runic hill]

are you saying it is easier to do fine manevers with long ramp up time or short ramp up time

[wispy bane]

Long, at least on bigger thrusters.

[runic hill]

how so? if the thrust reacts quicker, you can do the adjustment quicker

my main reason for wanting to halve ramp up is so the total time where the thrust is not at the desired force is the same as it is in stable

[wispy bane]

It literally lets you use less thrust to make those fine adjustments

[runic hill]

in stable, it is 100% at the start and 0% at the end, and now it should be 50% at start and 50% at end

[wispy bane]

Which is good

Because it means you can do it with much less fear of overshoot

[runic hill]

i think this is a misunderstanding of how physics works - if you have a thruster that functionally has 2x more force due to ramping up 2x faster (because you wont' fully ramp up for small things) then you can make the small things faster under ai control

if it's manual, then i think it is just not learning the timings

[wispy bane]

For manual its far more flexible to do it with rampup then without, simply because you do not have to use all of your thrust force

[runic hill]

what's stopping you from pulling out earlier if ramp up time is shorter?

[wispy bane]

🤦‍♂️

[fast birch]

Kelsia it doesn’t make stuff entirely uncontrollable it is just much less agility

[wispy bane]

Because its significantly less precise

[fast birch]

It’s less agile and responsive and requires more thought out momevemts

[wispy bane]

Which isnt good, as its more of a cliff for newer players

[fast birch]

We are just arguing that it doesn’t need the agility nerf not that it’s less precise

Ok well saying it’s harder to control as a newer player is difficult to compare

As you have to find someone completely new to all thrust to justify it

Very few in the PvP community are arguing it’s literally not precise it’s just a crazy high agility nerf

[loud tree]

I would say it is more difficult in general, unless at high (1x-4x) speeds and small ships with very high thrust to weigth. than the more precise/slow imputs help and its actually easier

[fast birch]

I never said it wasn’t I just said it’s difficult to argue as we all have some experience and learning without it

[runic hill]

i did not pilot beyond ~10 min intervals for ~3/4 of a year so i am probably the closest one to a new player here lol

[wispy bane]

Plus I would argue it heavily disincetivises using anything but tiny thrusters for maneuvering, which I definitely dislike

(Mainly because in order to do those fine manuvers you would have to turn off any of the larger thrusters and be unable to turn at any sort of decent speed)

[wispy bane]

-_-

https://tenor.com/view/doubt-press-x-la-noire-meme-x-button-gif-19259237

[fast birch]

Ok so that’s bait

Saying your more unfamiliar with thrust techniques and piloting than career players is underestimating your own piloting lvl

[loud tree]

^^

[runic hill]

true, i just mean that i do not remember any timings

so i need to relearn from scratch

[wispy bane]

Myb

[runic hill]

and currently, for me at least, timings feel decent and although things do not feel as agileas before, they are still fairly controllable

[wispy bane]

Me when I the muscle memory

[runic hill]

yeah i did have to relearn it at first

[vital solar]

Coming from a mediocre Elim PvP player perspective, I agree on all points.
-# Though to nitpick, can you fix the markdown bullet points?

[sudden acorn]

not from me

the biggest question/disagreement rn seems to be between adding rampdown to huges or not

i personally am ambivalent as to whether or not it is added to huges, but would definitely like to see it tested with 1/4 rampdown for MRT, 1/8 for huges, and 0 for everything else

[brisk horizon]

easy to test just change the values in the files

[tidal cedar]

make a mod of the preview, if thats possible

[brisk horizon]

would you bring back the recovery window then?

[sudden acorn]

yeah, though probably smaller for MRT and HT

[brisk horizon]

made a mod with these values (and fake recovery window) if you want to try it

still feels like too much to me

[runic hill]

imo even larges and standards should have ramp down

their ramp up/down is so low it doesn't really matter much

so why not keep it for consistency?

[sudden acorn]

that is fair, but there's also the argument that if it doesn't really matter why have it

[runic hill]

consistency and should still be a consideration, even if minor

otherwise then it will still just be "pick biggest thrust you can use" for every thruster that does not have rampdown

[wispy bane]

It still does tho-

[runic hill]

yes, that is the point

[runic hill]

due to

[wispy bane]

Your contradicting yourself ynow

[runic hill]

it should have impact

ramp up should always be a consideration

even if it's a relatively small consideration

but currently in stable it is not at all

[wispy bane]

Do you geniunely expect me to be able to use tinies for 10m+ ships

Geniunely

[runic hill]

not currently, but i would hope so in the future

when more balance

[wispy bane]

Its pretty clear it does make it harder to pilot, and that aint a good thing.

[wispy bane]

How the fuck-

???

[runic hill]

...that is the point

[wispy bane]

So the point is to make piloting harder

[runic hill]

yes

[wispy bane]

Thats what your saying?

Then straight up no.

Pilotings already hard for new people to get into.

Just making it harder has no positive benefits, and I would argue it restricts creativity within ship designs.

[sudden acorn]

ehhhh

more difficult piloting does not innately mean less creativity

[runic hill]

it restricts things that restric many many many more other creative things

[woeful lodge]

generational beef with career players

[wispy bane]

If you are forced to build a certain way in order for a ship to be controllable it aint good

[fast birch]

is this a cannon event for you two to argue

[wispy bane]

???

[sudden acorn]

if you're forced to build using a certain part for your ship to be able to do things it ain't good

[wispy bane]

How does HT having no rampdown restrict me from making ships

[sudden acorn]

air's primarily speaking in a competitive sense there

[wispy bane]

Then air can stfu, because that isnt any reason for game-wide changes.

[runic hill]

skipydog pt 2

[wispy bane]

Especially since career should be the main focus.

[runic hill]

this affects career balance too

[woeful lodge]

na na u dont get it

[sudden acorn]

other people in this thread have also mentioned that they'd enjoy monothrust being somewhat less prevalent in career

it's not the most common opinion but has been a thing mentioned

anyway afk a bit

[runic hill]

it would make it easier for new players to "trick" the ai into doing something dumb if the ai is using monothrust, which is constantly complained about

[wispy bane]

But it would also be harder to control your ship in general

And it would heavily restrict your designs

[runic hill]

i do not think heavily restrict is a good descriptor - almost every career built in still works mostly the same except for the monothrust ht ones

[wispy bane]

uses large thrusters to manauver
dies of death because they cant do that noe

uses literally anything but tinies to manuver
same result

[runic hill]

idk this felt pretty agile to me and it has ht

[sudden acorn]

not necessarily the case dependent on implementation

[wispy bane]

The player having less control isnt good

[wispy bane]

That also has ~300% more thrust then most career ships...

[runic hill]

this felt about the same as it does in stable, except for the rts bugs

[sudden acorn]

also ngl i don't think that should be the case honestly

[grave hawk]

But in my opinion the player having to build ships well to have maneuverable ships is a good thing.

[runic hill]

currently max speed = maneuverability/agility which is very very bad for balance

[sudden acorn]

as ships get larger, their thrust should need to get larger as well, which would also serve to enforce the logic of big ships being necessarily more sluggish than small ones

[runic hill]

well if the big ship is using bigger thrust, naturally it would be less agile

if it continues to use less efficient smaller thrust, it will stay agile but be more expensive

[sudden acorn]

i don't think it should ever be to the point of like, needing MRT to turn, but you also shouldn't have to slap 200 tiny thrusters on as well

[wispy bane]

There is a difference between fairly basic stuff like that and this, especially for new players.

Like most new player ships barely hit 100m/s at most, they dont need this manuverability nerf

It will just make them worse to play and less intuitve for new players.

[runic hill]

those ships should be minimally impacted - that is the point of using ramp down as the mechanic and not instant rampup loss upon not firing or something of that nature

[grave hawk]

How about revisiting the idea of gyroscopes for rotation?

[wispy bane]

I mean they tend to use large/heavies but okay

[runic hill]

large thrust is still pretty good for agility, just not as good as before

[sudden acorn]

most new player ships use smaller thrust in multiple directions, which is the thrust layout least affected by this, especially with the implementation that i'd want (1/4 rampdown for MRT, 1/8th for HT, minimal or 0 for everything else)

[sudden acorn]

not really i see a lot of newer players not picking huges because of the rampup

[runic hill]

(becuase they can't bypass it)

[grave hawk]

If MRTs are a dedicated “go forward fast” it might be interesting to have a dedicated “turn fast” option for large ships as well.

[wispy bane]

Tbh they kinda have to once they get big enough, part of it is cost tho

[sudden acorn]

that's kinda boosters

[wispy bane]

Huge thrusters need 10 tri-steel

[runic hill]

imo small thrust should be rebalanced to fit that niche while still also allowing tiny ships to go very fast

[sudden acorn]

but gyros or more powerful dedicated RCS thrusters could be neat

[wispy bane]

Larges only need coils

[sudden acorn]

true, tristeel is tough to get lots of

at least earlier-game

[wispy bane]

And thats per thruster which makes it worse.

[tidal cedar]

unless you go specifically into mining stuff it is very difficult to find randomly, unless you resort to pirating lmao

[sudden acorn]

but yeah i have seen a lot of people just not go with huges because they're scared of what the rampup will do to their maneuverability

[tidal cedar]

(am talking about 1st-2nd system btw)

[wispy bane]

I think its likely it is more the cost ngl

Like genuinely I think huges cost a fuckton for what they are

[sudden acorn]

people specifically are worried about the rampup

it's a relatively common thing for new players

not every new player, but a good few

[tidal cedar]

huges for turning is not the greatest, especially for just mid size craft, the only time ive used HTs was for turning massive battleships

[runic hill]

and balance works as intended for them :D they are not the target audience here and should not be majorly affected by this change

[tidal cedar]

and ofc the main thrusters on mid size craft

[runic hill]

if they are actually restricted by rampup, then balance has done its job

however, not everyone is being restricted by rampup which is the problem

[wispy bane]

For main propulsion is pretty good, I tend to use larges for turning since they can fit in a lot of places and have actual thrust.

[sudden acorn]

in PVP they're very good for turning (monothrust moment)

[wispy bane]

makes it harder to pilot in general
ah yes wont effect new players

[tidal cedar]

indeed, but you need 2 of them to match an HT, and 2 HTs can fit in the space 3 LTs take up

[sudden acorn]

yeah, it's an immense piloting effectiveness bump when you figure out thrust feathering

[tidal cedar]

so not just cost but also space efficiency

[wispy bane]

You need more then 2

Kek

[tidal cedar]

point proven more then

[sudden acorn]

also btw, when you're talking about the changes, are you considering them as if implemented as-is, or implemented in a toned-down state

[wispy bane]

Horizontal space is more an issue tbh

[tidal cedar]

which is what i was talking about in general

i would rather have 2 HTs then 3 Lts

unless cost was an issue then i would use LTs as trit is expensive

[wispy bane]

What air wants + current preview
The only one I can see as semi-acceptable is MRT, but even then I would rather balance it other ways.

[tidal cedar]

that and Hcoil

[wispy bane]

Exclusion areas

Which are pretty important if you have internal thrust

[sudden acorn]

yeah most people want MRT to have 1/4 rampup and a decent few are fine with (or at least want tested) 1/8th HT rampup

[tidal cedar]

for backthrust i will always take the former

[runic hill]

it doesn't though? if you are just right clicking everything is basically the same

[sudden acorn]

air is somewhat of an outlier in their opinion

[runic hill]

except for the fact total times +50%

[tidal cedar]

zone dont matter if nothing is gonna be there anyways

[sudden acorn]

not necessarily, it does reduce functional reaction speed

[wispy bane]

It does-

Internal thrusters + the fact that career players need that space for storage

HT have a hefty exclusion zone

[runic hill]

yes, because total time has increased by 50% because ramp up time was not decreased to compensate for ramp down existing

simply reudce rampup time by 50% to match rampdown time and everything will be the same as before for rts right click ai players

[wispy bane]

It wont though-

[runic hill]

why not

[sudden acorn]

not the same, there would still be differences when changing thrust

the total time to cycle thrust from 0-full-0 would be unchanged, but that's not the whole picture

[wispy bane]

^
I have literally explained it before, quite a lot actually

[tidal cedar]

wheeze
if you need internal thrust then your a bit big to begin with, which means LTs will be less effective, and if someone dont have storage on a separate vessel for scrapping and cleaning up combat corpses, then honestly thats not great

[runic hill]

i am pretty sure if ramp up was decreased by 50% then it would be mostly the same, but would need to either do a lot of math or test it

[wispy bane]

air in a nutshell tbh

[sudden acorn]

i'm not entirely sure what the outcome would be and depending on ship design it could essentially cancel out, i wouldn't be too opposed to trying/testing it, but it definitely wouldn't be entirely the same

[wispy bane]

I mean not really, I use internal thrust a good chunk because of the added protection

1-2 internal LTs and your doing fine

[tidal cedar]

which is fair, i use it from time to time for reverse or a bit of turning

[fast birch]

btw i dont think airs ideas are bad necessarily but the draw backs to meta stability are far to much a cost

air does have some logical points

[sudden acorn]

just because they're an outlier doesn't mean their opinion should be disregarded. they've been active to at least some degree in the community for (not exaggerating here) many years, and they were after all the one behind nukes' rework between classic and modern

[wispy bane]

Dont have to fear loss of manuv from damage

[tidal cedar]

that is it though, all forward thrust and most turning will be outside of the core of the vessel

[wispy bane]

I know that, but I also hate them acting like their word is god

[sudden acorn]

but then protections over reverse thrust will likely add mass, reducing your maneuverability in the first place. it's all tradeoffs

[wispy bane]

Just cause you made one rework correctly doesn't mean all of your ideas will be good

[tidal cedar]

its because everything they say is easy to interpret as passive aggressive

[runic hill]

the point is to introduce instability :(

[tidal cedar]

tbh

[sudden acorn]

that is fair, but i do think that you should probably calm down a bit when talking to them

[wispy bane]

Lemme get that quote rq...

[sudden acorn]

the curse of an essentially all-autistic pvp community

[tidal cedar]

and they are obviously skilled, them just rubbing it in is unhelpful in most cases at times

[sudden acorn]

it's usually a good idea to interpret things that notable pvp players say at face value

[tidal cedar]

and kelsia its not like you have been exactly civil either at times

[sudden acorn]

yeah

[wispy bane]

Oh I know

I can be a right arse at times

[runic hill]

yeah i do not mean to be aggressive when i say things

i just say what i think and that is what i mean

if i say your ship is bad then it is because i think your ship is bad

[tidal cedar]

as can i, i just tone it when its about something like this, as being one is not productive

[sudden acorn]

in general (to everyone) just try keep arguments as civil and objective as possible, don't assume that your position is automatically right, and if you notice an argument starting to get circular probably take a break from that avenue of discussion for a bit before moderators have to get involved

and also: dislike ideas, not people

[tidal cedar]

and try and process what the others point might be, if it isnt clear, then ask

[wispy bane]

Tbf a lot of my anger at air is also his... contempt? Dunno if thats the right word, for career players

[runic hill]

??

elaborate?

[sudden acorn]

their*

[wispy bane]

Oh shit fuck

Sorry

[runic hill]

i do not dislike any players other than gog and xed and a couple other very bad people who are literally banned from the game

[sudden acorn]

some of your comments are coming off as if you assume career players are playing at about the simplest level of strategy possible in the game, which can be considered rude/elitist

[wispy bane]

Its pretty clear that you view career as the secondary mode that should not be balanced around, especially the noncombat parts of it.

[tidal cedar]

(or they have made others feel their opinion is as such)

[sudden acorn]

to be fair walt's own philosophy is to primarily balance around pvp for reasons i've noted a few times

not saying that career's balance should be disregarded as it is a very major part of the game, but balancing around pvp primarily does have substantial benefits

[runic hill]

i think that combat should be balanced for pvp because eventually, career combat should resemble it as ai improves

the noncombat parts imo is too much time for not any good reason

[wispy bane]

Aha here it is

[tidal cedar]

they are wanting the singleplayer career to be quite expansive and not just constant fighting of ships and pirates

to note

[sudden acorn]

yeah

overall design direction of the game should be based on career as it is the game's primary mode

[tidal cedar]

but the major part of it will be ship combat, especially with improvements to the ai and faction stuff

[sudden acorn]

but the finer aspects of balance are better suited to be forged with pvp in mind more so than career

[wispy bane]

Agreed, but I do think non-combat stuff needs a place to shine too

[sudden acorn]

yeah

[runic hill]

i don't think that this balance is really noncombat unless you keep running into rocks

[wispy bane]

Eh, not really
Look at the ships new players make lol

[runic hill]

for this preview specifically

[wispy bane]

Thrusters affect

Everything

[tidal cedar]

bro dont like being counterargued lmao

[runic hill]

max speed and whatnot have not changed

[tidal cedar]

thats what i get from that

[sudden acorn]

the game has good potential to be a very neat factory/economy game, it just isn't there yet

[wispy bane]

Most of em are slow as shit

Which is directly opposite to what pvp is

[sudden acorn]

i don't really see how that's too relevant?

[runic hill]

i think this is just due to many players just not placing anything

[sudden acorn]

yeah, i don't like the speed meta being as fast as it is

[runic hill]

most of it is just wasted space

[sudden acorn]

the suggestion that sparked this preview was attempting to slow down the speed meta, or at least make the fastest ships less effective in other ways

[wispy bane]

If you balance off of pvp then you ignore that people dont make optimum ships and because of that the intended "balance" may not work

[sudden acorn]

this is why i say mostly and primarily

[wispy bane]

Ex: if you nerfed all thrusters it would hurt their ships too

[sudden acorn]

career should be taken into account for balancing as well

.

[fast birch]

the non mrt nerfs were largely not considered by the pvp community and are now not wanted

nerf mrt ppl are behind not nerf everything else

[wispy bane]

And career players dont care about mrt that much I dont think

[sudden acorn]

yeah everyone i've seen except air and maybe like a couple other people want most thrusters unchanged or very little changed

[runic hill]

that is because they can't bypass ramp up

so the balance works as intended

[wispy bane]

I mean no?

[fast birch]

its like air and you mainly maybe nugg?

you less so ofc

air has gone full partisan

[wispy bane]

Its mainly because its expensive as shit + does its job good enough while having that price barrier

[sudden acorn]

to clarify: air's point here is that MRT isn't an issue in career because career players and the builtin ship ai are not typically capable of 'feathering' to bypass thrust rampup, thus its intended downsides of low maneuverability are in effect while playing career

[fast birch]

imo its bc the logi is more complex

[wispy bane]

And its also very space-heavy

[wispy bane]

That too

[sudden acorn]

it's a problem in pvp because pvp players are capable of feathering and thus build ships designed around that to achieve very high speeds without those maneuvearability tradeoffs

[wispy bane]

Rampdown will make all thrust a problem though and make manuverability worse kekw

[fast birch]

they want to nerf manuverability

intentionally

[wispy bane]

Which aint good for career

[fast birch]

for mrt

specifically

[sudden acorn]

yeah, hence why most people don't want anything but MRT being majorly nerfed in terms of maneuverability

[sudden acorn]

i will just say i am entirely neutral on whether or not HT ends up getting rampdown in the full release, i just want to see it tested with rampdown

[fast birch]

other career players were infavor of this bc mono thrust built ins preform much better

[runic hill]

yeah pretty much

[runic hill]

the very thing it was meant to nerf?

you mean the monothrust ships do better in preview?

[fast birch]

no lol

[sudden acorn]

no

[fast birch]

im saying some of the career players do like this change

[sudden acorn]

aye

i think it was rednax that spoke up a while back?

[tidal cedar]

like i

[fast birch]

i still dislike it entirely for non mrt and for mrt its to harsh

[sudden acorn]

not sure

[tidal cedar]

i build my craft with RTS in mind really, and thus am not really effected by it

[sudden acorn]

yeah which seems to be the majority opinion

[wispy bane]

Tbh at least for me I never see much use for MRTs
They are pretty expensive + the logistics is really a pain in the ass

[tidal cedar]

and i dont use direct control either

[runic hill]

direct control is still very controllable in my experience

just takes a while to relearn

[fast birch]

they are just the best by abt a 20% + margin

when optimized for cost

[runic hill]

it's more a feeling of "my ship physically cannot turn this fast" than "i cant control my ship"

[wispy bane]

I wouldnt mind mrt rampdown if the logistics were less crew-heavy and simpler

[sudden acorn]

yeah, that's one of the main reasons things like power usage increases were not a popular idea for nerfing it

[tidal cedar]

which is exactly why i support it is because piloting takes learning to begin with

[wispy bane]

Its going to be harder to learn though-

Which isnt good

[fast birch]

this is flawed

but alr

[sudden acorn]

silvershadow did make a very good writeup a bit ago about learning DC piloting in both stable and preview

[wispy bane]

I almost want to make its power usage a lot higher but simplify its logistics a ton

Like make it able to be fed from one point or sum shit

[sudden acorn]

its logistics are hard because of power draw, largely

[fast birch]

i dont need to argue anymore the pvp community mostly agrees its too far / not needed or wanted on non mrt

[runic hill]

imo it is more due to the inconvenient shape and relatively small power storage

[wispy bane]

And crew...

[fast birch]

crew requirement is the same

rlly

[sudden acorn]

here's silver

[sudden acorn]

it is more finnicky to set up/harder to independently come up with though

[fast birch]

if your using medium reacotor modules its much less

actually

than huges

[tidal cedar]

learning it is still possible, and if its more challenging, tbh thats not bad as it will give the feeling like you actually got better
if someone doesnt want to learn and then complain that its hard to learn then they are wining about something they dont wanna bother to mess with anyways

[runic hill]

using mr in literally anything in career is more crew efficent lol

[sudden acorn]

for the CG rammer style of LR ones at least

[wispy bane]

Thats not good mf

Like

[fast birch]

for mrt specifically tho

[sudden acorn]

it's a matter of opinion

[wispy bane]

The gap to piloting being bigger is bad

[fast birch]

no

not against that part

[runic hill]

i think that it greatly simplifies piloting in a good way - it is more about how long you hold down the turn for and not about what feathering % you are at (which is highly disrupted by lag)

[wispy bane]

Especially since the game already has issues with it, just look at the compaints abt nukes

Imagine that if it was even harder to pilot

[sudden acorn]

my personal opinion is that a higher skill floor for the same result is bad, but if the skill floor increases and getting to that skill floor is more rewarding and allows more designs/possibilities than before, that changes

[runic hill]

true saris kept asking for more hp because pd walls were shooting nukes down so now they have way more hp, in a time where there is no pd wall

[tidal cedar]

which is what ive seen, for someone that doesnt pilot outside of AI movement they will largely not mess with it anyways

[tidal cedar]

agreed here

[runic hill]

instead of thinking "i will hold e for 2/3 of ticks and release for 1/3" it is now just "i will hold down e for 2 sec and then let go" which is much better

[sudden acorn]

there's definitely less cases of 'i turned for 20ms too long and now need to restart my rampup entirely'

[fast birch]

re buff pd make it targetable and give it 2 pen per shot /j

XD

[sudden acorn]

not sure if piloting is overall simpler, but there are good and bad aspects to both preview and stable

[wispy bane]

I still noticed a decent difference in response time- the AI definitely could maneuver, but its worse then before I would say.

[tidal cedar]

with bigger craft, allows you to feel the weight of it

and if you think that the builtin craft arent effected they still are aswell

[runic hill]

yeah, but i think that is due to the total rampup+down times being 50% longer, and not a rampdown specific issue

[tidal cedar]

meaning it slows down some battles a little

[wispy bane]

It was across the board. More prevalent on HT/LT ships, but it was definitely there.

[tidal cedar]

exactly, which in general, large ships should feel like a large several thousand ton vessel

[wispy bane]

Not really?
'S that paradoxical relationship again

[runic hill]

i will mod it when i have time (probably next week) if walt doesn't change it himself

[wispy bane]

It just made ships harder to pilot in general, though. Literally any ship with standard thrusters and up

[tidal cedar]

rampdown being added means that it takes longer to get from 0-100-0 meaning it would feel more sluggish

[wispy bane]

And again, see nuke issue

¯_(ツ)_/¯

[tidal cedar]

air talking about decreasing rampup would help with that feeling by making the time nearer to the original time it took to do the same in stable version

[runic hill]

let's simplify to say that after exerting x force, the ship will stop (will use this as a proxy for agility)

[tidal cedar]

im guessing the purple is a graph of thruster force

[runic hill]

the time to exert the same force is the exact same with ramp up and ramp down, if just ramp up is 100% and ramp up+ramp down adds up to 100%

[tidal cedar]

and kelsia let em talk

[wispy bane]

But then the thruster you stopped with has to rampdown
:moment:

[runic hill]

yes, hiehgt = force/sec

[tidal cedar]

yea

[runic hill]

yes that is what the second triangle on the lower graph is

[sudden acorn]

if the rampup was reduced like air wanted it'd probably be easier to dodge nukes for most people

[runic hill]

yeah a bit faster to get started but then slower to stop

[sudden acorn]

and compared to stable probably slightly harder to do in pvp where they are a bit powerful in a lot of cases

[runic hill]

the average is the same but in between will change

*if ramp up in preview is decreased 50% to match that of rampdown

[sudden acorn]

well i shouldn't say a lot of cases

[wispy bane]

Doubtful tbh
Since you cant immediately stop your thrust

[sudden acorn]

in the case of nuke flinging

[sudden acorn]

but starting it is faster, which i imagine is how most people try to do it

[tidal cedar]

aslong as you are moving in a direction at a decent speed you will never be hit by them

[wispy bane]

But because stopping it is slower, starting is also slower.

[tidal cedar]

and with ramp it can actually help move you out of the way if you try stopping

[wispy bane]

(Because you are fighting against that already-going thruster force.)

[tidal cedar]

no, as rampup was the same the start would be the same as if done in stable

[sudden acorn]

true

[tidal cedar]

having less rampup would actually make it far faster too

[sudden acorn]

and from a standstill it would be quicker

[tidal cedar]

because less time to reach full thrust

[wispy bane]

No?

For the first... 2s lets say, if you have 4s rampup

Your effective thrust will be nil

Then it starts to increase faster

And reaches max turning force within a 2s timespan

[sudden acorn]

hm actually yeah

would be quicker from a standstill though

[wispy bane]

99% of the time you arent staying still kekw

[tidal cedar]

stop with the kekw breh

[wispy bane]

Nein

[sudden acorn]

not entirely no, but in the directions pertinent to dodging nukes (sideways) it seems like you are mostly static

[wispy bane]

Kinda...?
Depends on your thrust, because your rear thrusters also play a part in turning

Wider ships are hurt more by this

[tidal cedar]

if the rampdown makes turns feel more like drifting then that should also mean that nuke dodges would be more effective, drifting sideways at a rate and trying to go forward

[wispy bane]

And stopping that turn is also harder

[tidal cedar]

for something like a standard battleship that is longer then wide

[wispy bane]

Because you have to fight your thrust again

[tidal cedar]

which is literally nothing in meta lmao
still rampdown is an interesting concept, and in general if rampup/down was near the same time and a little shorter, would make it feel quite nice for using turning thrust

[wispy bane]

Now say you have ~2s rampdown to ~4s rampup
After ~.1.5s? .125s? you start to actually thrust

And say you have ~4s rampup to ~1s rampdown
Youve got ~.8 or so

[tidal cedar]

with .5 rampdown left i was thinking it would be subtracted from rampup time

[sudden acorn]

what about 2s rampdown and rampup both, as air's suggestion would have for huge thrusters?

[tidal cedar]

if 1.5s of rampdown has passed, then it would take 1.5s to ramp back up, instead of 2

its actually linear

[wispy bane]

Then its the halfway mark, 1s

[sudden acorn]

there are actually a couple archetypes which have lengths and widths close to each other, a couple of them do cross that line

[wispy bane]

Its an odd exponential relationship

[sudden acorn]

some UL nukes and MRT CG rammers (typically the 6CG ones)

then again that's largely because they both prominently feature stacked MRT

though actually a lot of the length of 6cg rammers is from the rear guns' mags

[tidal cedar]

kelsia i think you are overthinking, simply
2s of ramp up and ramp down
it should simply be that if 1 second has passed of rampdown, then it should only take 1 second to ramp back up to full

[sudden acorn]

indeed

[tidal cedar]

its literally a linear graph

[fast birch]

?

[wispy bane]

Im talking about the RU:RD ratio and time to start turning

[tidal cedar]

instead of some weird math

[fast birch]

the longest ship types see the most nerfs in ramp down world btw

by far

[sudden acorn]

and with 4s rampup and 2s rampdown (current preview HT), 1 sec of rampdown = 2 sec of rampup

[tidal cedar]

weve seen our fair share of walls back then lmao

[wispy bane]

And it aint even time to start turning, its time to start canceling momentum

[fast birch]

what

very confused wym

[wispy bane]

Wheras currently that is 0s

[tidal cedar]

was there never a thing like laser or cannon walls?

[fast birch]

ofc

[runic hill]

probably because mrt is long so mrt dependent ships are long

[fast birch]

but they are very very wide

and flat

[tidal cedar]

what i was meaning

[fast birch]

you said long lol

[sudden acorn]

6cg one (by Toothless), though i think this is an older version of the ship

[runic hill]

most modern ones are no longer as flat and late classic ones aren't either, because people realized you can just add more thrust to the bottom

[sudden acorn]

depends on the type

[wispy bane]

Which is ideal imo. MRT would have (assuming 4s 4s) a 2s delay before even starting to turn horizontal correcting your turn

[fast birch]

i dont consider this true as a square design is best for rammers

[sudden acorn]

laser orbiter walls were quite in fashion in relatively early modern pvp before people figured out that large cannons were just Better™️

[wispy bane]

Which is not good.

Because it is literally just input delay

[sudden acorn]

well yeah but i am just saying that there are a couple pvp archetypes usable in meta that are taller than wide

[tidal cedar]

which is to be expected with rampdown you would cut turning thrust earlier, and start counter turning

[wispy bane]

Which takes 2s to even start

[runic hill]

well the cannon ones also ram much more

[wispy bane]

It is literally

Just input delay

[runic hill]

probably better classified as rammer than orbiter

[sudden acorn]

i think less responsiveness can be a good thing for balance, and comes with the positive side effect of evening out things like ping differences

[runic hill]

the laser ones usually didn't do too much touching

[tidal cedar]

at the same time the other side would be ramping down, meaning a smooth transition of force

[wispy bane]

No

[tidal cedar]

that is literally physics

[sudden acorn]

it actually is a smooth transition

it takes a bit to get used to but it is

[wispy bane]

Because this is the starting of the thrusters actually working

[fast birch]

physics is no drag is space

[wispy bane]

Its actually a sharper transition

[fast birch]

buuuuut back to game world not realism

[tidal cedar]

we arent talking about drag we are talking about forces

[sudden acorn]

it's not, it is smoother

[wispy bane]

I dunno angular drag in cosmo

[fast birch]

just poking holes is all dw

[sudden acorn]

i believe angular velocity is reduced by 40% per either second or tick

i could be wrong though so don't quote me on that

[runic hill]

literally you?

[tidal cedar]

you would expect to see a linear function graph almost of the turning forces as it swaps from turning one way to turning the other way

[wispy bane]

No
Because, first 2s is complete ineffectiveness of your thrusters. Your momentum isnt even being slowed down, its just being sustained.

Once you reach that 2s mark you see a sudden jump in effective thrust force from 2s (0 tf) to 4s (100% tf)

[runic hill]

just mod it :despair:

if you spent 10% of the time you spend repeating "no it doesn't" you would've already learn to mod

[sudden acorn]

the ramping down of thrust on one side and ramping up of thrust on the other means it is a smooth transition. your turn is sustained until that crossover point, yes, but its rate slows due to the lower thrust differential

[tidal cedar]

that is not accounting for drag but you would expect that if it was it would still keep the smooth transition, hell make it even faster

[wispy bane]

I dont mod, and I have said this multiple times. If you want me to test it so badly, you can mod it yourself.

And sofar as I know my logic is sound.

[tidal cedar]

because you have drag and rampup thrust working against the now ramping down thruster force

[wispy bane]

You still have the initial velocity, so your turn rate is still there
You have at least a second of full-speed turning before that massive cut to 0 etf (effective thrustforce) at 2s, and then as you go back up you have that sharp curve

[tidal cedar]

the explain it and use some sort of diagram

[runic hill]

if you are going to waste so much time saying "just trust me bro" why not just actually prove it

[sudden acorn]

they're trying to prove it via mathematical reasoning

it's just that in this case the reasoning or maths seems to be wrong

[tidal cedar]

or both

wrong reply woop

and i am a mathematics inclined person

[sudden acorn]

due to how the game's physics works, you have to maintain the same turning thrust to maintain the same turn rate. as soon as you start turning a different way, the turning thrust that was turning you starts ramping down, and the counterthrust starts ramping up, meaning you have less turning thrust

[wispy bane]

I dont see any issues atm, and in order to get precise data I would need the exact calc for angular drag

[sudden acorn]

thus, your turn slows

[runic hill]

if we assume 3 squares of force are needed to stop the rotation (to move in new direction), then if [s]table will take 3 [a]rbitrary [u]nits of [t]ime to stop, [p]review will take 3.5 auts, and [a]ir's proposal owuld take 3 auts (same as stable \👍)

due to 3.5 auts > 3 auts, current preview would feel less maneuverable

[s]table - 2 aut ramp up, 0 aut ramp down
[p]review - 2 aut ramp up, 1 aut ramp down
[a]ir proposal - 1 aut ramp up, 1 aut ramp down

[wispy bane]

I know, but you would still have that gap
At ~1/4 or ~1/8 it would be better then yours though, and

Its probably a fairly simple equation but I aint got the time to do that

[runic hill]

i am only concerned of the average for this, reaction time initially will be quicker and braking time will take a bit longer near the end

[wispy bane]

Also this logic is flawed gomme a sec

[tidal cedar]

the curve at the bottom is the changover of thruster force

[sudden acorn]

kelsia i think your mistake might be the assumption that because the thrust cancels out it cancels out equally/entirely disregards the other force

when it's not equal because of how the game's physics works

[wispy bane]

W/your proposal
~.5s of pure wasted time
Preview is:
~.75s of wasted time
Stable is
~0s of wasted time

[runic hill]

?? where is the wasted time

the purple bars are the same length

therefore, under this frictionless vacuum scenario, the time taken is the same

[wispy bane]

When the etf of your counterthrust is negative

[runic hill]

etf?

[wispy bane]

Effective thrust force

[tidal cedar]

effective total thrust

or that

mybad

[sudden acorn]

not pure wasted time

[wispy bane]

So its when your old thrust is larger then your counterthrust

[sudden acorn]

because during that time your turn slows

[tidal cedar]

and does so quickly while your counterthrust is ramping

[sudden acorn]

it is time spent not actively turning in your intended direction, but it is not wasted

[wispy bane]

Were talking vaccum rn since we dont have ang drag equation

[sudden acorn]

angular drag equation isn't necessary to get an overall idea

[tidal cedar]

you have to account drag somewhat, as that is a factor

[runic hill]

in the space vacuum you would have started the first time faster due to shorter ramp up so the time should still be the same

[sudden acorn]

found it

it's not exact but it'll do

[tidal cedar]

so with RD, this graph would have a tighter dip

but still be a smooth curve

without RD, the thruster force would drop entirely as the other side begins to ramp

and as drag takes part and really makes it stop quicker

no RD means more reactive but more jaring and twitchy turns
with RD turns feel more linear as the transition of forces goes from one side to the other

that is my take, having some rampdown will make turning especially with smaller craft mush less twitchy

anyways, time i go and build

[wispy bane]

Allright
So
~40% loss of speed/s
So first second is 40% plus the gradual rampup to 1/2 etf for stable
For air its the 20% for the first 1/2s with a sharp increase to 1 etf from the .5 to .1 mark
And for current prev its ~30% for the first about .75s and then a gradual increase from 0 to 1 etf to 2s

Tho the percentages are likely lower to to negative etf

[runic hill]

can someone that is not me just spend 10 minutes modding this

or literally just change the game file

[sudden acorn]

why not do it yourself

[runic hill]

doing other stuff while i look at this

i would if i could

[runic hill]

more on the boosted boost having rampdown: i think it is actually good, but it would be nice if the statblock for boost said
+\♾️ rampup speed +0% rampdown speed
or something like that

[pastel marsh]

I've locked this post because I can't keep up with the discussion and I think I have received enough feedback for another preview.