Release Candidate 0.28.0 - Quality of Life Improvements & Balance Changes

[warm zinc]

Cosmoteer release candidate 0.28.0 is now available for testing! (To play this release candidate, you must opt in to test it. Please see this post for info on how to test release candidates.)

This release candidate has a ton of quality-of-life improvements, a few significant balance changes, and a handful of bug fixes.

We're still working hard at a bunch of upcoming improvements as part of Career 2.0, but we wanted to get these improvements out to everyone sooner rather than later.

Thanks for testing!

Full RC Notes

[worthy lily]

hello guys

[solid basin]

second

[worthy lily]

lol

[rancid grove]

rampdown!

[broken burrow]

Out of all things up until the "career" section, having EMPs reload time set on 2 seconds is the most intresting to me/genuintely

[carmine jay]

RAHHHHHHHH

YESSSSSS

[rancid grove]

optimal!

[broken burrow]

Ships (especially ships with diagonal flight directions) should now strafe more intelligently and be less likely to overshoot their destination.
I am pretty sure this is the 3rd time already such sentence is in a patchnote

[raw idol]

Hey, "more intelligently" isn't "works 100% of the time". In a game where you can just, not have thrusters, 100% isn't really achievable.

(plus stuff can get rebroken)

[broken burrow]

Were the changes in the "career" sections about hailing ennemies not implemented to stable yet, by the way?

[modest sun]

Renamed the Flak Battery to "Flak Array". peak

[dull sapphire]

surrenduring 👍

[modest sun]

missing T on then some or all of the circles around any closer crew would also be red. [[[]]]he sensor array's dish rotation should no longer slowly desync from its audio beeps. (Or if it still does, it should now desync much more slowly.) Log files were logging the default settings instead of the user's custom settings upon initial startup.

no way

[broken burrow]

Using the salvage tool and clicking (without dragging a box) on a junked ship or asteroid will now mark the whole ship or asteroid for salvaging and automatically move to be nearby it. Multiple such commands can be queued up by holding shift. Once salvaging and resource collection for each is complete, the ship will move on to the next.
Changed my mind, this is hot!

[raw idol]

So fun fact, that was actually a thing in the rampdown preview also but nobody noticed.

[modest sun]

now i actually have to update my mod when this drops
damm no eternal break for me

[broken burrow]

srry i am really waiting missions variety to play career again ,_,
I just feel like that is one of the two things that affect the most (positively) your average player

[rancid grove]

oh that's what the QoL changes that walt mentioned were

[modest lily]

why no mention of the tb power exploit in the bug fixes?

[raw idol]

I think that's this (but I could be wrong)

[modest lily]

ah
under modding not bug fixes

[raw idol]

yeah, idk why that is

[vital rivet]

AAAA

ok time to get to work

[broken burrow]

Is there any reasons the "velocity arrows" options does not support "being shown" on all ships, regardless of wether they are selected or not?

I personally don't find the arrow oppresive, they are quite small actually. And they are too informative to left out actually

[mystic trail]

i did read the rc notes and i love it. i go to play it next morning, i need to sleep, it is now 00:24

[slate pond]

Any reason emp cooldown was decreased but nuke cooldown wasnt?

[earnest valley]

I really like these changes, especially the mining commands.

[icy sapphire]

unreadable

[modest sun]

HE sensors

[wispy heart]

okay so i think i should have mentioned this a few previews ago

i really despise the ramp-down for huge thrust
it really wasn't a problem for pvp at all

everyone in the pvp community that ive talked to also agrees

im guessing it wasn't a big problem for career either

the trouble is that the HT rampdown is making TB busted, despite its 20% nerf

[rancid grove]

will disagree on everyone

[wispy heart]

okay, everyone but air

who def doesn't have a history of the hottest takes

[wicked spade]

unfortunately rampdown absolutely obliterates my enjoyment of elim pvp. not only is my main archetype deleted from the meta and unusable, direct control in general plays far more sluggishly and unenjoyably. obviously the supporters of this preview (aka avoider/tb players) won though, because both of those archetypes are oppressively strong and incredibly buffed.

I will likely be quitting pvp if this change becomes implemented on stable. This is not a threat, and i dont think people should care that i quit pvp, it is simply a statement of how bad i think this change is for elim pvp. I have been saying from the beginning that this change is tantamount to deleting entire archetypes, and i wont name any names but almost every pvp player that supported this change mains archetypes that directly benefits from mrt being rendered unusable. i wont go outright and say this support was in bad faith, but every day it feels more that way. unfortunately since the meta and community have gotten to the point of actively trying to delete archetypes and parts they dont want to be in the game, i dont see much more point in me playing such a gamemode

i wont touch on the multitude of glaring balance issues like tb and boost but im sure they will come to light very very quickly regardless

[wispy heart]

not just very quickly
we are seeing the frustration now

but MRT rampdown was kind of necessary

[rancid grove]

i did give suggestions to nerf boost

[wicked spade]

i mean yes but theyll become more widespread and actually unable to just be gaslit away by supporters

[rancid grove]

me as well, i honestly quite like the fact that HT isn't just THE thruster to always use on monothrust

[wispy heart]

well if not HT then it will just be boost lol

and besides, its not like giving HT rampup will reduce its viability

everyone is anyway still running HT monothrust
its just more annoying to pilot now

[rancid grove]

i've been using a mix of thrusts to good effect, mung and anti have both seen use out of mixed-thrust hybrid ions as well

[wicked spade]

ok 1 sec theta explain to me what ur current main archetype is

just for recording purposes

my main archetype is mrt cg rammers

[rancid grove]

boost is additional micro and gives downtime, even if that downtime can be quite easily minimized by good logistics

[wicked spade]

main on preview is ht cgs

[rancid grove]

2tb ion rammers, yes, i do like TB and use it on almost all of my ships

[wicked spade]

ok good

[rancid grove]

hence why i mentioned the fact that 2 other people have been successful in using mixed thrust

[wicked spade]

i will also say how many of the hardline supporters of this change are long time pvp players. while this of course means they hold a very intimate knowledge of the game it also means they do not have an intuitive feel for what is better for new players; i definitely do not doubt rampdown will greatly impact newer players as piloting is much much harder and less snappy/responsive. many new players already greatly struggle with effectively utilizing direct control mode without rampdown and it is a deterrent for new players who are used to using rts. making this even harder will only serve to further discourage new players from getting into elimination pvp

[carmine jay]

I think this is likely a direct result of the inability to instantly react, and I worry it may not go away even with more severe nerfs.

[wicked spade]

@lucid stream @dark sorrel @wispy heart @simple flicker please do make ur thoughts known 1 more time

sorry for ping

[wispy heart]

okay

just play a game of RC preview
direct controlling any ship that uses HT is brutal

and honestly the HT rampdown sharply decreases viable archetypes, more than pre-rampdown MRT did

i feel like it would also make it brutal for new players to pick up elimination
because monothrust piloting itself was hard when i first picked it up in 2021

[mellow moss]

Time to fire up the old beta lol will report back

[wispy heart]

and plus the prevalence of HT monothrust was never a problem that people complained about before the preview
why fix a problem that wasn't meant to be solved?

especially if said solution makes most ships dreary to play?

[lucid stream]

@unkempt sinew @dark sorrel also on this list

[dark sorrel]

yes i hate rampdown on ht

[lucid stream]

the ramp down changes feel awful to play on the majority of ht ships it would be much better if only limited to ht

[mellow moss]

How do I install the RC is it just the beta option on Steam?

[unkempt sinew]

Yes, HT rampdown feels horrible to play. its just way too long

[lucid stream]

unstable

[wispy heart]

its the option called "unstable"

[lucid stream]

i thought ramp down would just nerf mrt and mrt would be awful which it is mrt is not playable on any ships ive seen by anyone in our full lobby so far but ht ships are also awful to control

[simple flicker]

which is a huge buff to tb rails

[mellow moss]

70% downloaded I'll speak my opinion soon lol

[wicked spade]

bread ur anti preview right

[lucid stream]

it is a drastic quality of life change and i truly think the ramp down changes will negatively impact the pvp community to a unsalvageable state if applied to all thrusters instead of just mrt which the original idea suggested

[lucid stream]

welcome to tb / avoider hell

[simple flicker]

yeah lol, makes mirrors less intresting

[unkempt sinew]

Its just all TB, all the time now

[wicked spade]

can you tell me what archetypes you play consistently

@modest lily what are your thoughts on the preview? yes/no works

[unkempt sinew]

TBrf, avoiders, UL nukes, Ion rammers

[mellow moss]

Gonna hop into the lobby for the funnies

[unkempt sinew]

I play many archtypes, safe to say the rampdown feels horrible on all of em except avoiders which don't use HT

[mellow moss]

@simple flicker pwo

[wispy heart]

pffft wrong channel 😭

[wicked spade]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19APBizSBwj7W6m0u9c7P9bcOyHDZg6bUrOQhgtrwctk/edit?usp=sharing here is a spreadsheet with most people who have played in the preview who are active in the pvp community that i have talked with/know. please ping/dm me if there is an error or you wish to be added to the list (pvp players only)

[wispy heart]

idk if i go into tb ion

i do have one
but ive only played it for a couple games

[wicked spade]

many things like the archetypes represented and the people chosen are obviously somewhat arbitrary, but i hope this goes to show that most people do not want this change

[wispy heart]

wait holy shit thats a lot of ppl that want rampdown on HT

[shut apex]

I am very offended

[wispy heart]

i thought only air and theta

bro have they not played preview tho????

its atrocious

and its not like HT was a problem before
why is it getting nerfed now?

[modest sun]

i played this change and i like it

[wispy heart]

okay

why

[modest sun]

very cool

[wispy heart]

ill hear you out

the HT rampdown btw

basically all of us are in favor of MRT rampdown

but HT rampdown is just terrible to play

it wont curb speed meta
it will just make everyone's piloting awkward, even in the long term

[wicked spade]

for transparency, arbitrary components:

• ive placed a requirement for reasonable competency/consistency with an archetype to actually have the cell filled. this is to ensure that people represented understand what they are asking for. however the criterion is just from me watching people play so its arbitrary
• i have chosen a few archetypes that are most impacted by the rampdown. feel free to mention if you feel other archetypes also matter. this element was also just chosen by me but ive played the preview for quite some time

oh right @shut apex ur thoughts on the preview?

ill add you if u want

[lucid stream]

tooth was anti ht rampdown

pretty sure

[wicked spade]

yep added

[modest sun]

wouldn't most of said ships tested peform better with dedicated turning thrust instead?

[wicked spade]

no

[modest sun]

how so

[wicked spade]

turning thrust is very expensive and compromises ur layout while having rampdown anyways

ships will become just strqaight up useless before having turning thrust becomes actually worth it

[lucid stream]

Just add turning trust doesnt work unless you just run full avoider set up and the weapons we have dont work on omni thrust platforms

like cgs / ions only work in rammer / cruisers

kites if your pedanticed but only monothrust

for an example

[wicked spade]

current statistics: 7 yes, 10 no

[mellow moss]

Here's my two cents: I think the way ships currently handle is pleasant and intuitive. Removing the ability of players to steer so that they can't go fast I think is counterproductive and harmful to Cosmoteer.

I think MRT could use some minor tweaks, such as making the command points required similar to huge thrust, and maybe perhaps like a 5-10% thrust output nerf.

As it stands I hope thrust continues to operate like it currently does.

[lucid stream]

so your entirely against all ramp down?

[carmine jay]

Main thing with command points is extenders don't use it, which needs to be fixed asap imo

[mellow moss]

Admittedly I only have like 1hr in preview, but yes I don't like rampdown

[wicked spade]

i dont think its a fatal issue and it makes sense logically, but if thats what it takes for mrt to not be crucified then so be it

[mellow moss]

It makes steering less enjoyable

[carmine jay]

Nuh uh
Railgun extenders use cp

[modest sun]

making agility less of a priority? wait

they might be cooking

[wicked spade]

More statistics: 6/7 in favor play a tb archetype. 5/10 against play a tb archetype
3/7 in favor play avoiders. 2/10 against play avoiders

[wicked spade]

ah yes my peak rts barge pvp meta

agility is fun and a good thing

pvp shouldnt be 2 bricks of armor shooting at eachother

[carmine jay]

[wicked spade]

again that is partly a sample size thing

[modest sun]

the problem is that agility is the biggest determining factor
very poor prediction but i'd think that this would make it ever so slightly more diverse in thrust speeds/agility instead of maximizing it

[wicked spade]

tb rails/tbs are a decently common thing

but still

its an interesting statistic

[modest sun]

i find the RC's ramp down intuitive from the little singleplayer i've played it even in direct control
i would enjoy this inplemented

[wicked spade]

single player direct control? nah ur right, ship it

[bold token]

are these changes meant to incentivise using mixed thruster types?

[carmine jay]

lmao who uses DC in singleplayer wtf

[modest sun]

yah yah witty comment aside i was doing a quick test just so i actually played the preview in creative

[bold token]

okay you guys are not being productive

[modest sun]

i'd believe so

[lucid stream]

??

[bold token]

fish, this message mostly

[carmine jay]

I mean it is a geniune point, DC is very rarely used in singleplayer

[modest sun]

how do you test your piloting in singleplayer then

[lucid stream]

gotcha thought you were talking abt the anti preview mob in general

[bold token]

do u have a representitive sample size?

[carmine jay]

https://tenor.com/view/metal-gear-rising-metal-gear-rising-revengeance-senator-armstrong-revengeance-i-made-it-the-fuck-up-gif-25029602

[bold token]

cool

[simple flicker]

literal rage bait

[carmine jay]

In reality I have seen barely anyone I know use DC in singleplayer beyond occasional dicking around, in combat they mainly use RTS.

[bold token]

from my perspective

preview: lets make it so that bigger thruster sizes need smaller thrusters to improve controllability
u guys: wow bigger thruster sizes are uncontrollable this sucks

[lucid stream]

its rlly not that

[wicked spade]

sorry sorry

that was too far

[carmine jay]

@ai-

[lucid stream]

it feels awful to pilot anything using ht / mrt in any way its better to just run pure boost / tbs

[modest sun]

i haven't seen salephz like this honestly
anyway yeah i agree i dont understand this whole mob but the strenght is concerning

[lucid stream]

BC IT S LITERALLY AWFUL TO PLAY IN

lets add forced lag into the game

[bold token]

i haven't seen salephz like this honestly
what-

[wicked spade]

i think it just proves how much heavy lifting the vocal minority (supporters) did in the preview stage to let it get to this point

[bold token]

do you agree that the spirit of the update is good?

[mellow moss]

I think forced lag best summarizes how I feel

[carmine jay]

If something is technically better balance-wise, but is significantly harmful to the overall player experience and the game in general, it should not be implemented.

[lucid stream]

in what way nerf mrt yes nerf mono thrust no

like nerf mrt hell remove it entirely

[modest sun]

the whole okay you guys are not being productive thing

[lucid stream]

but this is so awful on ht its not even funny

[wicked spade]

on the most simple and reductive fundamental level of nerfing mrt yes. any level past that no not particularly

[modest sun]

tbh i like that it's more of ship combat not car combat

[carmine jay]

I will throw an amphibious car at you

[bold token]

so there is still work to be done on this rampdown change,

and i'd agree that if the effect of all of it is too extreme and leads to only boost and avoiders and tb being effective then that's equally as unfun as mrt were

[modest lily]

I disagree, Imo it makes rammers feel more responsive

[bold token]

but between the two extremes do you think there is the potential for something that works?

[wicked spade]

its literally a release candidate. we are saying it should not be released. its besides the point that theoretically this change could be good for the game at this point

[carmine jay]

Genuinely the only issues I see with MRT atm is cost and cp discrepancy for the thrust it provides.

[modest sun]

i'm gonna re-try the rc and rethink my thoughts and see if they need updating

[wicked spade]

i mean it might work. i dont think itll work well, but it might work

but i dont think its neccessary in the slightest

the only issue with mrt is that its a bit too fast for the cost

[carmine jay]

Based on railgun proportions, each extender should take ~4 cp

[bold token]

are you trying to stop any and all changes that might make the meta more diverse or specifically this version of the rampdown

[carmine jay]

Which I think is fair.

[lucid stream]

yea im much more open to experimental in 2 months once we work out the kinks balance vs this is coming out next update as this state is not playable

[wicked spade]

1: this preview decidedly makes the meta far less diverse
2: yes i am speaking on this version of rampdown obviously

[bold token]

i agree on 1

[wicked spade]

as for whether or not other versions of rampdown might or might not work i do not know because im not under the delusion that i can see the future. i dont think its a good idea, and thats all i know

[wicked spade]

then why would you ask me that

[bold token]

my question was about 2

not 1

[modest sun]

ships play very well at 1x speed and feel like what they would for me, Workbench by nick feels very much how it would work

HOWEVER

pvp is not played at 1x

[wicked spade]

if i for some reason had cartoonishly evil aspirations to make the meta stagnant and boring for no reason why would i push against an rc that makes the meta stagnant and boring

[wicked spade]

yeah youve got the point now

this reminds me of what slowking said

when he tested out the preview and tried to tell me it wasnt that bad

[modest sun]

halve all ramp times and give it a go i guess??

[wicked spade]

and i told him he was on 1x speed

[carmine jay]

0.5s LT rampup no way

[modest sun]

1 second in half speed? makes sense to me

[carmine jay]

(Standard thrusters crying in the corner rn)

(Most op thruster in the game)

[modest sun]

yeah this is my opinion, the system is great but due to pvp being at 1/2x speed the lack of mobility really messes up things at that time speed

[bold token]

unfortunate cycle of
i dont want to waste time innovating for a change that might not happen
no one innovating means they don't learn what works and only what doesn't
only know what doesn't work means ppl dont want the change to happen
change being pushed back against reducing innovation

[wicked spade]

can we stop moralizing this as "change is bad" when its literally just a bad change

[carmine jay]

Except it has been innovated on- its literally in a release candidate.

[lucid stream]

there are objectively better solutions to the issues given

[wicked spade]

someone pushing against change doesnt mean theyre afraid of change it means they think the change is bad

[lucid stream]

if nerfing mrt is the goal

[carmine jay]

Are we supposed to wait until its actually ingame to oppose it?

[wicked spade]

lol

fr

[modest sun]

its not nerfing mrt only the goal

[wicked spade]

it was

[bold token]

how are we going to tune it without people wanting to innovate

[modest sun]

not only

[wicked spade]

this whole preview can be traced back to a thread posted by pvp players about adding rampdown to mrts

it was literally a change intended to nerf mrt

so there you go

we can stop arguing about that now

[bold token]

didn't mean to say that sorry

[modest sun]

i dont think devs added it specifically about mrt

[wicked spade]

https://discord.com/channels/314103695568666625/1292320030599680002

[carmine jay]

Again.
It is literally in a RC now.
It isnt something in the past, it isnt something that we should 'wait and see and tune', it is literally about to be added to the game.

[modest sun]

those are players

[wicked spade]

walt does in fact listen to the pvp community

good or bad

[bold token]

RC can still have changes made to it!

[wicked spade]

yes and that is what we are arguing for???

but there is so much damn work to make this actually functional

so unless walt is fine with like 15 rcs it should go back to preview

since rc isnt meant to be that

rc is supposed to be a game in a playable state

[lucid stream]

yea such as removing it and either sending it back to an experimental branch or not adding these changes all together

[modest sun]

what i'm trying to say is that the change may have gone more than just mrt nerfing
but i'm speaking nonsense and talking about opinions and thoughts of people who i havent spoken to about this so ignore what i'm saying

[bold token]

i think you guys are pushing the second point way too much rather than the first point

[wicked spade]

yes you are correct in the fact that the rampdown suggested was very different from what is in the previews and rcs, and in fact in the thread only mrt was gonna get rampdown. my point is just that this preview is inherently centered around mrt balance from the beginning

[wicked spade]

youre too far in the weeds, it isnt that complicated

this is just a bad change to make to the game

[bold token]

okay but it can be improved

[wicked spade]

nobody is arguing against that bro

[modest sun]

you???

[wicked spade]

youre arguing a point that nobody else is arguing

im not saying this is unsalvagable

im saying that this rc should not be released

thats all im saying right now

[bold token]

unfortunately that's the exact impression i'm getting

oops ping

[modest sun]

i'm testing with every ramp halved brb

[wicked spade]

your impression is incorrect unfortunately

[bold token]

incredible

[carmine jay]

^^^
Are we not allowed to express opposition to bad changes? When it was simply a preview, sure, it made sense to try and see if we could fix it or get something good out of it.

That has been done, and it is still bad. I fail to see why we should not oppose this to the fullest extent, as it either needs massive changes or simple removal.

[wicked spade]

idk what else to tell you

[bold token]

u restated what i said

[wicked spade]

i dont think its unsalvagable

do you want me to take a lie detector test

this is text on a screen and you arent psychic

you should stop trying to read between the lines for words that arent there

[carmine jay]

Are we expected to wait until it is actually ingame to improve it?

Is that what you are saying?

[modest sun]

how did you get that from that phrase?

[wicked spade]

well salephz is implying opposition to the very concept that this update should not be released yet

[bold token]

isn't that what u want? u thinkthe update isn't ready to be released and needs more time in the testing chamber?

[wicked spade]

yes???

it needs more time in the oven at the very least

[bold token]

semantics

[wicked spade]

what

no it isnt

????

[bold token]

oven/testing chamber

[wicked spade]

im not disagreeing with you???

its just a figure of speech???

jesus

media literacy is dead

[bold token]

wait does semantics not mean somethings being said are different but have the same meaning?

[carmine jay]

I think its a bad idea fundamentally, but I am not opposed to sending it back to get massively changed.

But it cannot be released now, and that is what I am expressing here. The current version of it is bad, and should not be implemented.

[wicked spade]

no it means its a meaningless distinction

im not trying to draw a distinction by utilizing a figure of speech

[modest sun]

*i think the current version only needs value adjustments *

[bold token]

oven is a meaningless distinction from testing chamber imo

[wicked spade]

in fact the figure of speech is basically just what youre saying

[wicked spade]

ITS NOT A DISTINCTION

its a figure of speech

dude

[bold token]

oh-

[wicked spade]

are u esl

or what

[carmine jay]

No need to be mean

[modest sun]

yuuki why are you so agressive like please...

[wicked spade]

by the nine im tweakin

[carmine jay]

And yes I know I am a hypocrite for saying that

But

No need to be mean

[bold token]

no but effectively yes

[carmine jay]

¯_(ツ)_/¯

[bold token]

like i'm genuinely getting confused by what is meant when u said oven instead of testing chamber and if they were meant to be the same thing or not

[wicked spade]

"needs more time in the oven" is a figure of speech

[bold token]

and also i'm being yelled at

[wicked spade]

for like stuff that maybe has potential but is in an incomplete state

[carmine jay]

Its just a figure of speech - it means the same thing.

[wicked spade]

half baked

aka

[carmine jay]

Basically means it needs significant work

at the very least

[modest sun]

the significant work: multiply every ramp up period by .7

[bold token]

okay so: i think i misread this

[carmine jay]

Citation Needed™

(How will that solve everything)

[wicked spade]

i think jani is modding it in themselves to test

is what they mean

[lucid stream]

even then tbs are still wayyy to strong boost is wayy to strong

[bold token]

nah can u please restate this my brain isnt working man 😭

[lucid stream]

i think a change closer to 0.4-0.5 mayyy work

[modest sun]

:clueless:

[wicked spade]

uhh youre against the rc being returned to preview

[carmine jay]

That doesnt mean that its a silver bullet though, and far more work is very likely to be needed.

[lucid stream]

• tb nerfs

[bold token]

NOPE

[wicked spade]

never said i think it would work

[modest sun]

yeah

i tried with .7 now and it feels like a middleground between old and "new and bad" agility

i'll check .5

only on ramp ups*

[carmine jay]

Wait

Are you only changing

Rampups

[wicked spade]

uhh

thats interesting

[modest sun]

ramp downs are drastically low honestly

[carmine jay]

oh no

oh no no no

[wicked spade]

well ig rampdown is alr relatively low so it doesnt rly matter

[carmine jay]

pulls out spreadsheet

IT VERY MUCH DOES

[lucid stream]

tbf any amount is much more than what they were at lol

[carmine jay]

Remember the ratio of rampup:rampdown we discussed earlier?

[bold token]

when i read all of u guys saying the change is simply bad
it removes the nuance that u guys think the change still has merit (with a lot of testing and work)
and that gives me the impression that you guys want the RC completely dead rather than just to go back to the preview stage

i'm perfectly okay with the rampdown going back to a preview
and i think everyone else who supports the change wouldn't mind letting it stay in the oven for a bit longer

[carmine jay]

It gets way way worse then with just 1:1

[modest sun]

hmmm no my math on this is wrong this is doing misintented effect as double as intended

[lucid stream]

i think that the comments that this change feels entirely unfinished is a good summary but its also worth noting that the ramp down changes are far to aggressive and pushed by a perceived majority

im not opposed to ramp down on mrt it def could work but in current state it feels awful

[bold token]

is that related to what i said or not (genuine question)

[lucid stream]

its related by the fact im restating my original take

[misty steeple]

Unsure how that can be when a vote was held multiple times

[lucid stream]

which you have misconstrued

[carmine jay]

Significantly less people interested in previews then RCs.

[bold token]

there were polls on ppl who supported vs didn't?

[lucid stream]

the vote wasnt active or pushed compared to an actual release candate

[misty steeple]

yes

[lucid stream]

like i literally thought this was still experimental

and didnt test it

not R.C. material

[bold token]

link pls

[modest sun]

only half rampup is not enough honestly
i`ll try half rampdown too

[misty steeple]

fair argument, I think it should've been pushed a bit harder, but that being said....

[carmine jay]

Called it lol

[bold token]

i think the poll would be better if it had 2 categories
changes in theory
changes in reality

[modest sun]

it drageed on for long and long

[misty steeple]

this is kind of a you issue

[carmine jay]

RU:RD ratio in a nutshell

[lucid stream]

yea thats why we are complaining now on mass??

[bold token]

not productive

[lucid stream]

bro basically said cope vote was final

[carmine jay]

https://tenor.com/view/nuh-uh-beocord-no-lol-gif-24435520

[lucid stream]

10% voter turnout lmao

[carmine jay]

US elections in a nutshell

[bold token]

oh god..

[misty steeple]

The point is that even if it's not perceived to be done, it should still be tested. Which kind of ties into the whole argument about lack of innovation.

#1305674101666611230 message I can't really be bothered going through all the threads

[bold token]

i agree, but dont attack fish xd

[carmine jay]

That.
Is.
What.
Experimental.
Is.
For.

Not inclusion into the full game.

[modest sun]

no need to go ballistic you too

shh

shh

[misty steeple]

I'm not attacking them. It's a simple fact. In fact, I agreed with their initial point.

[lucid stream]

ppl said it had issues lol they were just swept under the rug

[carmine jay]

https://tenor.com/view/missile-silo-gif-27464496

[modest sun]

https://tenor.com/view/cat-slap-attack-scratch-spray-bottle-gif-17118070709567052669

shhh

MOD THAT HALVES ALL RAMPUPS/DOWNS

give me your thoughts

i found it nice

[carmine jay]

Beaten under the rug moreso lol

[wicked spade]

i will say plenty of people had issues with every stage of the preview but the vocal supporters just kinda swept it under the rug/gaslit it away

[lucid stream]

or its just a zip bomb for anti preview ppl /j

[wicked spade]

mod.zip

a classic

[modest sun]

😭 its not a zipbomb

[carmine jay]

Woe, 57 petabyte zip bomb upon ye

[wicked spade]

2.56 million x2.56million png of soldier tf2

onto ur pc

[modest sun]

do you want it on steam to be safe

[wicked spade]

nah im joking

ill check it in a bit

[modest sun]

❌

[wicked spade]

working out rn

i mean go ahead its more convenient actually

[modest sun]

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3366551867

[carmine jay]

Significant work deez nu-

[misty steeple]

from my reading of the threads, it mostly boiled down to the PVP community specifically perceiving issues with it.
That being said, I did also notice some discussion about ship archetypes and a perceived lag. And from where I'm standing, efforts were made to accommodate that to some extent.

However, the vote was in favor of adding the mechanic overall, which is why we are here now. A release candidate doesn't imply that it's done and dusted, things can still be changed, which is also why this discussion is valuable. Saying you don't feel like it should be released this way is important. But a fair amount of what I've seen here is retreading things that were talked about before.

[wicked spade]

clearly things must be retread because otherwise nobody says anything and it goes to stable

like it happened from preview ->rc

[modest sun]

yeah so it would get more players to test

[wicked spade]

thats not the purpose of rc

[misty steeple]

also since we're on the topic of retreading things that have been talked about before: things taking time to ramp up/down make intuitive sense. Whether you look at cars, rockets, or quite literally anything related to newton

[modest sun]

i think the nonstop screaming into here is probably enough to consider

[wicked spade]

intuitive sense is second to actual gameplay

[modest sun]

it would be actual gameplay to someone who would'nt be used to the older

[wicked spade]

it would make intuitive sense that i could reach 0.15c in one direction by accelerating for long enough in one direction in cosmoteer but thats dumb for gameplay

yet nobody argues for that as making intuitive sense

[carmine jay]

I mean-

[bold token]

yea lowkey i wish cosmoteer had inf speed and range

[wicked spade]

because gameplay and balance almost always obviously takes precedent over intuitive sense

[wicked spade]

it would be funny but a complete mess balance wise

[misty steeple]

Sure, fair enough. But I also recall at least one comment saying that the less snappy controls made overshooting and minute controls a bit more sensible

[modest sun]

a preview is more of a secretive rc with changes but want to limit a very small sample size
RCs too have several iterations, i remember once a RC8 iirc

[misty steeple]

I think that these things usually correlate with one another

usually.

[wicked spade]

not particularly

[modest sun]

ok

[wicked spade]

drag in space

[carmine jay]

True lol

[bold token]

i think anything can be rebalanced eventually
prolly not worth it just for the memes tho 😔

excuse me?

[carmine jay]

There are mods that remove almoat all drag iirc

[wicked spade]

seems right to me

[bold token]

yeah but they aren't balanced right

[carmine jay]

Funny when combined with 10km missile mods

[modest sun]

its a bit annoying to me that making half rampup makes pvp speed enjoyable but then 1x speed makes it all just

so fast

normal players would basically not care about rampup

[misty steeple]

also just mentioning this but realism != intuition

[modest sun]

suspension of disbelief

it all works according to the rules of the game

[misty steeple]

things that make intuitive sense are not necessarily always realistic, just to make it clear

[wicked spade]

yea

[carmine jay]

I would say current stable balances this fairly well, which is an argument against RD.

[misty steeple]

We literally had a change not long ago to reconcile that discrepancy. But at some point you kinda have to evaluate where you wanna draw the line.

[carmine jay]

Even in DC I dont really have issues maintaining control of my ship in either instance

[modest sun]

also on whoever was saying it was about changing mrt i'm pretty sure this was changed to make feathering in general not too op/important/main thing

[carmine jay]

But on preview I do

[carmine jay]

What, the speed change preview?

[misty steeple]

no, recent stable update? 🤔

[modest sun]

the goal: feathering stat removal/hinderance
problem arisen: traditional piloting is fucked and discrepancy between 1x speed and 1/2x speed gameplay higher and 1/2x speed is too slow

[carmine jay]

In getting flashbacks to 1/2 speed preview

[misty steeple]

am I tweaking or are you tweaking

[carmine jay]

Could be both of us

[misty steeple]

I specifically remember some speed changes made somewhat recently

[carmine jay]

Nope, dont think so

[misty steeple]

🤔

hmm

I may have just misremembered 26.2, for all I know. I can't for the life of me find it right now

[wicked spade]

there was a recent preview but it never got implemented

[misty steeple]

ah, may have been that, then. My bad

Either way, I don't have as many hours on this game as a lot of the people here, but my gut is telling me that a lot of the problems with the previews/RC are just related to our resistance to change tbh

not trying to invalidate what has been said, but PvP has had a relatively set way of playing for the longest time, and the previews/RC are about to fundamentally change parts of that

[lucid stream]

the ppl with the highest hour counts in pvp are actually pushing this

mid hour count ppl are most resistant 500 hours - 1.5k being mid

[misty steeple]

I'm a campaign player, so I feel a bit unqualified to speak on this too much, but I personally enjoy the thought of making ships feel a bit more weighty and take a bit of the sharpness out of controlling ships

I should note that I discovered feathering while playing naturally, so it's not like I'm completely clueless about it

I like the idea of ramp-up and ramp-down. As long as they are correlated to one another in some form during DC, I'm a-ok with it

partially because mid-sized ships will then benefit from thruster diversity, partially because it makes large zoomers a bit less ridiculous

[rancid grove]

tbh it's probably because the higher hour count people have been through more change and are used to the meta being a bit slower. you and yuuki especially are relatively new having played essentially all your elim in the buffed MRT era and have a lot of your PVP effort put into MRT ships, it's understandable that you would be on the against rampdown side

[misty steeple]

Cost matters a lot more in PVP than it does in PVE. In PVE it often devolves into "big thrust go zoom", which of course will still be overall true, but this will add some nuance to it, at least

[meager mural]

im not apart of pvp yet but i want to say i really dont think HT needed anythign. i thought this nerf would be mrt exclusive since its a unique thruster and its been dominating the pvp meta, it seems kinda odd to nerf all of them when all of them werent the problem

in my experience ships that use exclusively bigger thrusters have the issue of ramp up time so you have to commit to maneuvers or be a sitting duck, so you trade high accel movement for low top speed or low accel movement for high top speed.

ive heard about a lot of mrt pvp problems and how its been a maneuver thruster so i really thought this would only apply to mrts as ive never really heard of HTs being a problem, though i did only join this community recently so im not exactly sure about HTs being a massive problem

this is my opinion, and im not the most well versed in pvp yet (i want to be) but imo the mrt shouldve been the only one to get the rampdown since the higher tier thrusters already have a trade off vs the lower ones.

sorry if im stupid or something this is just my opinion

[carmine jay]

Nah, this is actually quite useful feedback 👍

[misty steeple]

I think it's partially a matter of being consistent

[meager mural]

i also have a second opinion which is less gameplay oriented but i think mrts should only have the rampdown becasue they're a much more unique thruster, requiring crew and being extendable vs other thrustsers

[meager mural]

i can understand this, though for the sake of balance i really dont think it should be a thing

[rancid grove]

there is actually a little resentment against HT meta from one or 2 older elim players, and i personally wouldn't mind seeing it as no longer the only option for monothrust ships, though won't really complain if it remains the same

the thing about rampup time is that it's very easily bypassable by people familiar to direct control, by only turning the thrust off for a relatively short time you can get turning and then immediately re-ramp to full, essentially removing ramp time as a factor of balancing on monothrust ships

and yeah thanks for the opinion and feedback, it's valuable from a newer player (at least to pvp)

[meager mural]

is that feathering or is that something else?
I think thats feathering

[rancid grove]

yeah that's feathering

[misty steeple]

ye

[carmine jay]

tbh my own thoughts is that pvp can fuck itself and that monothrust will always be dominant there but I digress

Shrimply because of cost/unit of thrust

[misty steeple]

I think that long-term the update will do more good than bad, but I feel like if anything, it's more of a discussion of ramp-up/down numbers, rather than the mechanic itself

[carmine jay]

Not really...?
I am opposed to RD in general.

[misty steeple]

I feel like completely bypassing a game mechanic (no matter whether it requires skill or not) is not really healthy game design

[rancid grove]

one of the reasons why some people are against MRT being so good is that it makes ships that have to use smaller thrusters due to not being able to feather as easily/as reliably/at all a lot worse

[carmine jay]

Making the recovery window a flat number for all thrusters could help.

[rancid grove]

the archetype of Avoiders is the main one in question, as they have to change directions frequently and rapidly to do what their name says they do, so they can't rely on feathering

[lucid stream]

mrt ramp down isnt hated nearllllllly as much but it still isnt balnced with the current numbers

[wicked spade]

mrt should be dominant in monothrust, period. it comes with far more interesting logistics and considerations than ht, and if it were properly balanced it would be healthy for pvp

[carmine jay]

Would definitely be interesting, ill put this away for later.

[wicked spade]

people saying ht would be obsoleted are simply ignoring the many archetypes that use hts that cant use monothrust or mrts

[rancid grove]

they typically use standard, large, and boost thrusters, for their lower ramp times (0 in boost's case when it's boosting)

[rancid grove]

many?

[misty steeple]

I recall Walt mentioning that MRT was concepted to be something you use alongside other thrusters to offset heavy ships. You sacrifice accel for overall top speed, which seems intuitive to me and is the exact opposite of the boost thruster, basically

[long rampart]

testing the new decal layer moddability

[wicked spade]

cruisers, walls, spinners, hybrid thrust avoiders, strafers, etc

[misty steeple]

And I agree with that philosophy

[rancid grove]

fair

[long rampart]

"shut up exceleiors modder is speaking" /j

[wicked spade]

mrts come with the inbuilt downside of their lack of redundancy and difficult logistics, if they were balanced with normal numerical nerfs they would be good for pvp

i stand by this take

[misty steeple]

I think any thruster should be viable

[long rampart]

apparently got a crash when i gunned for 10 layers

[misty steeple]

albeit for different kinds of ships/situations

and I feel like cost and logistics are usually not enough of a deterrent to offset stats

[wicked spade]

pvp is inherently limited by cost first and foremost

[long rampart]

maybe its something about default paint scheme?

[carmine jay]

The issue is that it doesnt really work that way, and never will.

"Main Drive" thrusters mean that whatever ship they are on must have sub-par manuverability, especially since they are forced to use said MRTs for turning. (They literally are, it's not possible to prevent it.)

They dont provide enough thrust that people would use them over banks of HTs, because the manuverability cut would be too great.

[wicked spade]

difficult logistics restrict layouts and make the part more expensive to sustain

[carmine jay]

Plus, for many ultra-large ships MRTs are one of the only viable options for thrusters at all.

Ideally the problem is solved by just... making MRTs MRTs

[rancid grove]

tbh i don't think there should be A Dominant Thrust for monothrust, as that will just make ship archetypes that can't use that a lot less useful, restricting archetypes

i would be fine with 2-3 thruster types contesting for the top spot and useful for different archetypes or playstyles. MRT for high-speed ships that don't rely as much on agility, huges for a decent balanced overall ability, and boost for ships that want a burst of speed and agility and don't need full uptime

if anything i think MRT could be good with a similar ramp time (up and down) as the current RC but with a bit of a buff to thrust, to really sell the whole 'main drive' aspect

[carmine jay]

With differing modules that really allow it a niche of customizable versatility.

[misty steeple]

I usually run my MRTs along the main line of the ship, but in the ones that don't, I have supporting thrusters to cover them. I have never relied exclusively on MRTs

[rancid grove]

regardless of ramp's implementation i really do agree

[carmine jay]

dies in whatever the fuck rekyu does jesus christ

[misty steeple]

who

[rancid grove]

the whole 'forced to use for turning' is exactly why i suggested configurable thrust inputs alongside my initial suggestion for MRT rampdown and will continue to ask for it as long as i am playing the game and it isn't a thing

[carmine jay]

Eh, even then you are still going to have far worse turning then anything soley reliant on HTs

[rancid grove]

Laser Von Rekyu, notable for their relatively unique playstyle of making ships limited not by cost or crew but by the build grid

[wicked spade]

why shouldnt a thruster be dominant for monothrust as thrusters are dominant for other modes of thrust? hts are dominant for bithrust and large thrusters/boost for omnithrust. its silly to place artificial restrictions on mrts balance

[misty steeple]

noted. And that is indeed unique lol

[carmine jay]

And also large thrusters for career

Shrimply being the best thrusters

[wicked spade]

honestly incredibly counterproductive to keep placing these unrealistic and absurd requirements on mrt balance. it just stops any sort of substantive balance change from ever happening that doesnt obliterate the whole game

[rancid grove]

standards, large, boost, and even huges (either additionally to the other thrusters or even replacing them in some cases) are used on omnithrust ships

[long rampart]

thread bug reports are unviable because of a doomer or two thats so fucked

[carmine jay]

Put those in #1019741923893858305 iirc

[wicked spade]

#1019741923893858305

[misty steeple]

bonk

on the note of dominant thrusters... I feel like the framing is a bit problematic

[lost mural]

So what I'm hearing is half speed preview but with quarter ramp-up 💀

[rancid grove]

https://tenor.com/view/dungeong-gif-3654754744145897317

[carmine jay]

oh no

[misty steeple]

I feel like most thrusters fill certain niches, but it's kind of a half-hearted context right now

[long rampart]

yass gurl

[carmine jay]

I would argue all do except one

[modest sun]

https://tenor.com/view/shaking-cat-shaking-cat-alien-cat-gif-17719290639671130907

[modest sun]

wait i think i actually did reduce ramp up on a "i'll experiment with the values in this preview" when doing the half speed preview testing

[misty steeple]

pray tell

[carmine jay]

This mf

Is useless

Geniunely useless

[modest sun]

sooooo technically.... both my conclusions kinda say yes

[wicked spade]

fills space on avoider modules

still trash tho

when thats its only real use

[carmine jay]

Even in career its shit

[modest sun]

i LOVE medium thruster

[carmine jay]

'Cause you can get LTs for nearly the same price

[wicked spade]

styanyard

[misty steeple]

this is kinda what I meant with cost and logistics are often not enough of a deterrent

[carmine jay]

Geniunely how lol

[long rampart]

now to add my 2 cents about this update
maybe the default paint scheme should cycle through shades of red or smth

[modest sun]

its cheap its thrustful and its cool

[lost mural]

I don't generally contribute to thruster discussions because I fundamentally dislike the ramp, but I have no good ideas for how they could work otherwise 😭

[carmine jay]

LTs are just
Better though

[lost mural]

I hate thrusters. We should remove them and make TB slingshotting the only form of propulsion

[misty steeple]

I mean

curling game mode anoyne?

[long rampart]

ion propulsion

[modest sun]

i hate flight. we should make thrusters only placeable on the south side of the ship

[carmine jay]

MASS DRIVER META

RAHHHHH

[lost mural]

Attach ropes to crew and make them pull your ships like sled dogs

[modest sun]

make all weapons top down and make ships fly on predetermined paths

[misty steeple]

MUSH MUSH

[carmine jay]

Even cheaper in terms of steel lmfao

[long rampart]

woof woof now keep pushing my armor brick

[lost mural]

Arcade cabinet shooter overhaul for cosmoteer

[misty steeple]

what exactly do you guys dislike about the ramp anyway

that it makes ships feel sluggish to control?

[carmine jay]

Tbh at least here its the space
HTs need more then double LTs space, but LTs only need the equivalent of 2 MTs

And provide 800kN more thrust then two LTs

[modest sun]

i think that:

we could use feathering and thruster recovery window to precisely adjust our control and whatnot
feathering is kinda no longer possible and takes instead of instant, a significant amount of time and such high precison is thrown off the window

[misty steeple]

that is the precise point of the update

[carmine jay]

The fact that it feels like input lag every time you fly your ship.

[misty steeple]

and as I said earlier: bypassing a game mechanic (whether it takes skill or not) is not healthy game design imo

[carmine jay]

Inb4 railfanning gets nuked

[modest sun]

thrusters before and after basically

that was supposed to be a reply

[lost mural]

The reason I hate ramp is that it makes ships sluggish not by virtue of their own mass, and it changes the acceleration that a turn/strafe input provides. I find it mildly unintuitive, and I think it's an antithesis to the fun snappy behaviour of harder sci-fi thrust (eg. The expanse)

Ramp solves balance problems, and those problems I have no ideas on how to solve otherwise, but I also think ramp is bad feel-wise

[modest sun]

i mean real rockets do have ramp up but cosmoteer rockets dont have limited ignitions

[misty steeple]

how much of that do you think is influenced by what Cosmoteer is right now?

[lost mural]

I'm not sure I understand the question, can you rephrase/elaborate?

[carmine jay]

That snappy behaviour is also much better for gameplay, especially new players. If you tell your ship to turn a specific way you want it to turn how you told it to.

You want to be piloting the ship, not having the ship pilot you.

[carmine jay]

*though to be fair it causes a host of other balance problems

[misty steeple]

it's basically just asking you how much of it is resistance to change.

A lot of the time I feel like we tend to prefer whatever we have right now, even if it's objectively worse

[lost mural]

Main thrust is the one place I don't hate rampup

[carmine jay]

I just realized

No ones actually tested only MRT with rampdown

[lost mural]

Oh, yeah, I mean i think it's a case of the current system working well enough, and the alternatives requiring a significant investment of thought, time, and energy with no guarantee that they won't be worse, especially in unexpected or exploitable ways

[misty steeple]

I feel like if you test the same 2 ships side by side, you're kinda doing something wrong

at least in this particular case

[carmine jay]

I still think y'all could fix the whole MRT issue with more modules

[lost mural]

I don't know how Walt feels about rampup, though, so I can't say whether it's a case of him really liking the concept, or just resignation to a tentatively decent solution

[modest sun]

yeah gotta add those productivity, speed, quality, and efficiency modules

facotior

[misty steeple]

Because what this change should provoke is thrust diversification. If said diversification doesn't happen, then yeah, you're supposed to feel nerfed

[carmine jay]

Boost thruster MRT module when fr

[carmine jay]

What we have seen is that it isnt, and is making the meta less diverse iirc

Hell, this wouldnt make me toss TS or MSs on my ship, it would just make me avoid MRT altogether

[lost mural]

Thrust diversity is something that has been brought up a couple times by a few devs. Ideas have been thrown around but thrust in Cosmoteer is probably one of the hardest design problems imo

[carmine jay]

https://tenor.com/view/meme-gif-20591327

THRUST IS THRUST

[misty steeple]

I think the concept is sound, but it's 30% people liking what they have now, 40% numbers being off and 30% an issue of perspective.
I feel like fundamentally, RAMP is not a problem in itself, but rather exposing that the current thruster selection lacks identity

[misty steeple]

case in point

[wicked spade]

i think thrust diversity is already in a good enough place if mrt is nerfed

[carmine jay]

That was me being funny smh

[wicked spade]

source?

[misty steeple]

my gut feeling

[carmine jay]

https://tenor.com/view/metal-gear-rising-metal-gear-rising-revengeance-senator-armstrong-revengeance-i-made-it-the-fuck-up-gif-25029602

[misty steeple]

If MRT had enough of an identity, you'd select it for certain cases, no matter how bad RU/RD is

just as an example

[lost mural]

when it comes down to it, all my opinions are from a place with limited, casual pvp experience, so my foresight is largely limited to how it feels, as opposed to how it affects the pvp meta ¯_(ツ)_/¯

[misty steeple]

same for ST, MT, HT

I mean LT

not HT

[carmine jay]

Geniunely what would I use it for beyond like
Maybe cargo ships but even those need to actually turn

MTs are just fucked and always will be, STs have uses though

[lost mural]

I find the dominance of mono-thrust to be disappointing, because it leaves smaller thrusters to the wayside rather than perhaps giving them a strong role in maneuvering

[carmine jay]

Mainly because they have 2way and 3way

[misty steeple]

we kinda see part of this issue here

[modest sun]

what if smaller thrsuters had-
rcs thrusters with big power and big turning and instant ramp up
wait thats just boost...

[misty steeple]

So let me propose a thought experiment just for the sake of argument yeah

[wicked spade]

lets say hypothetically?

[carmine jay]

I mean that issue is a consequence of MTs not being 2x3 tbh

[lucid stream]

why are buffs to smaller thrusters actual effect on larger ships / effect when used on ers not being considered more?

[carmine jay]

But I digress

[modest sun]

FUN FACT

thruster impulse is directly correlated with the cost of the thruster exept for MRT

[misty steeple]

let us assume for a second that RAMP was 10x what it is now. Aside from the controls feeling terrible and it being a horrible idea, what should happen is that smaller thrusters should gain value because of their smaller RAMP times

people would start valuing responsiveness over pure thrust

[lost mural]

I've had occasional thoughts of how you could gear thrusters towards either rotation or translation, but every idea has a bunch of issues/exploits attached 😦

[carmine jay]

The only use for non-tiny thrusters would be long haul

Thats it

And MTs would still be useless because they are less efficient for that long haul

[lost mural]

I've brought up the idea of thruster stats that depend on ship-wide stats (eg. Mass), but it always fails to things like ship splitting or chaining

[wicked spade]

well actually not exactly due to feathering and rampdown window which we see with mrt where thrusters with longer rampup have a longer rampdown window and thus are conversely more maneuverable

[misty steeple]

but if we now come back to the here and now, RAMP is in a state where the bigger thrusters are in a spot where they are still good enough to overcome all benefits you'd gain from smaller thrusters

[wicked spade]

rampup just doesnt work as balance

rampdown wont either imo

[misty steeple]

I was gonna put that here earlier but I honestly think ramp should be LOG not linear

[carmine jay]

I mean tbh like I said, the only thruster that is useless is MTs

And that is unfortunately never going to change

[wicked spade]

i fail to see how this would help

[lucid stream]

i truly think that smaller thrusters are so much worse bc they dont effectively use er real estate nearly as effectively and think that this should be considered more often

[wicked spade]

kelsia is oddly correct too. sts are probably realistically the least used thruster type if u take the average of elim and dom too. smalls are never used in elim ofc but in dom theyre used decently often

[misty steeple]

going 0.5 sec out of 1 sec brings you to 50% right now
going 0.5 out of 1 sec with a log function brings you to like 20% or less. Ramping back up from there takes longer

and if you really wanted to feather, you'd need to essentially be a robot

[carmine jay]

This would make ships feel like shit tbh

[lucid stream]

logi drains requirements are effectively irrelevant given the current pvp community logi level as well

[misty steeple]

this would however

allow you to make RAMP times lower

[lost mural]

Log would be the other way around

[misty steeple]

it's 8am, gimme a break

Bell curve thrust when

[lost mural]

The behaviour you described is more like a square

[carmine jay]

25% credits more for 50% more thrust
And they dont need HCs so its a no-brainer

[lost mural]

If anything I think applying more of the thrust at lower ramp levels would be nicer, but I don't think it fixes any fundamental problems

[carmine jay]

STs are ~33% the credits of a MT for ~33% the thrust

Actually...

Nvm

[misty steeple]

A sharp bell curve with less ramp time would eliminate feathering mostly, while also not impacting maneuvering too much. At the very least I believe it's an improvement over linear ramping

[wicked spade]

a... bell curve?

[carmine jay]

Wha-

[wicked spade]

a bell curve

like the thing in statistics

[carmine jay]

Thrust is not my physics grade

[wicked spade]

that isnt even a function

so the acceleration would be a bell curve

[carmine jay]

https://tenor.com/view/dirac-distribution-de-dirac-dirac-delta-function-paul-dirac-dlma-gif-24387509

[carmine jay]

It is gimme a sec

[misty steeple]

a square function then, jesus. Square functions can be many shapes, though. Bell curves are associated with a certain shape

[wicked spade]

gaussian distribution

i mean it is a formula

theres better ways to get that effect though

what you want is just weak accel then strong accel then weak accel?

[carmine jay]

Unintuitve as shi-

[misty steeple]

The important part is strong deccel, moreso than weak accel

[wicked spade]

deceleration?

[carmine jay]

So just an exponential function?

[wicked spade]

god the derivatives

[misty steeple]

[lost mural]

x^p for 0 <= x <= 1, is p less than or greater than 1?

[carmine jay]

I love how we started off with fuckin
MRT balance
And ended up with a math lesson

[misty steeple]

balance is always math

always.

[carmine jay]

Anyways i slep

[lost mural]

so much math. I have several Desmos graphs saved to graph out various values

[misty steeple]

lol

[wicked spade]

so its like a cube root function

[modest sun]

sorry sorry disturbing the feedback to the thread

[misty steeple]

I feel like if you tried a square function shape and roughly half the ramp down, you'd get most of the effect you wanted to achieve while also getting less of a laggy feeling probably

I might grab some paper and plot some lines, just to see what feels right but I'm honestly too tired right now

8am and I haven't slept

if you end up trying something like it, let me know how it feels. Gut feeling tells me it's the right direction, but I wouldn't be single if it was always right

[modest lily]

I think that it doesn't actually feel that bad, even with some pure mrt ships
But tbh I can't decide if I'm for or against it (sorry that's not very helpful)

[wicked spade]

totally fine

[tidal urchin]

I like all of the changes, except for the drop rate being increased for your ship

seems abusable by taking over defeated ships before destroying them, and also having your and enemy ships follow different rules isn't very immersive.

I get that it's done due to players often save scumming for the best outcome

but I think a different (even tho slightly harder to code) solution exists

just make bounty rewards have some sort of insurance

would probably need to be capped at around 30% damage taken while fighting the enemy, more damage wouldn't be covered

also making it only eligible if you took the mission beforehand would be nice

so that people don't attack bounties before checking them out at a station

[tidal urchin]

Also another bump to rework the random name generator, I checked out my crew names and they're awful

[slate pond]

Maybe? Its definitely not achieving that though

[tidal urchin]

Same with systems and stations

Also being able to toggle the favorited crew visuals would be nice, maybe between the star, an outline or none

The stars take up too much space imo and are too distracting, but they're also very useful when inspecting crew priorities in a messy area, so I think a toggle is the best solution

[slate pond]

You forget swarms

[jovial orbit]

Uhh I've tried making a mod that increases the decal layers to 5 but when I build a ship in Creative with the mod, it crashes the game

[long rampart]

looks like the bug i reported a bit ago too

[spice kernel]

-When a thruster is selected or hovered, a bar will now be displayed under the health bar that indicates the thruster's current thrust level.

Who added that? Sneaky sneaky "stealing" i see grrrrrrrr

(SW:ACD has a similar functionality for all thrusters)

[long rampart]

it was suggested outside of your influence iirc

[versed cove]

Great changes all throughout, except I'm concerned this will make getting damaged even less punishing than it already is.

[wispy heart]

sounds like a career player problem

[frank cloud]

well yes that is exactly what it is

[mystic trail]

i have played cosmoteer multiple hours today, this new version is so fun. because of the surender option, i have survived a to power full npc ship, and i did also find out how to let enemy serender.

i have a fun idea because of the surender option: what if you can surender by a pirate station and if you do so, they can trade with you, and you can get missions to get fame with the pirates.

[spice kernel]

sure, but its funny something similar gets implemented 2-3 months after we had it...

[versed cove]

Uh yes, it's literally career balance?

[wicked spade]

oh plaus are u for or against the preview btw

[slate pond]

Idk tbh. I hate how mono thrust uls pilot now but I like that some stuff we have not seen in a long time is playable.
What I do agree with is that this isnt rc ready. We have not tested the tb changes and we ahve not even had a boost nerf yet. Me and some others also preferred half ramp up over the current system.
I fear I might really dislike the changes once the novelty wears off.

[lucid stream]

I think ramp down on mrt can work and give mrt its own separate niche opposed to ht which would give more Omni thrust ships an opportunity to be good as ht can be used in those set ups but ramp down on ht and below is just objectively not needed and is supported by an even fewer % of the community than this r.c. Is overall

[rancid grove]

i wouldn't mind greatly either way, but i think HT should still have some rampdown. i'd suggest trying it out with half of what it is currently

so 0.5secs rampdown, from 1sec

[lucid stream]

I just don’t get why ppl want ht nerfs we had an extremely healthy meta pre mrt and if mrt is nerfed to the point where ht mono is viable other ships Omni ships viable in ht come back annnnnnd mrt mono thrust can still work “with obvious drawbacks of ramp down tho”

Ramp down on other thrusters just feels like a downside that isn’t needed past trying to make small thrusters viable on large ships which should be dealt with in the opposite direction as smaller thrusters are mostly bad due to their inefficient use of ers comparably

[rancid grove]

rampdown on large and smaller def isn't necessary yeah, though i'm also not really against it

[rancid grove]

i'm not really sure if i'd call it extremely healthy. better imo than with buffed MRT, but it's not the best the game's been

tbh i think part of it might be that the skill ceiling's increased from when i started playing pvp, also means the skill floor's essentially increased (because you need to be better to make a ship good enough to contest the better ships that people are running now)

anyway hosting on unstable

[lucid stream]

Regardless of predicted meta diversity ht rampdown is objectively hated by at least 50% + of the community

[rancid grove]

do you have the numbers for that?

[lucid stream]

The google sheet j uki made

[rancid grove]

given that 73% of people voted in favour of preview 4 i find it difficult to believe

and also i will say that disagreeing with =/= hating

but fair

[lucid stream]

^

[rancid grove]

yeah i saw it

[lucid stream]

This is just voter turnout rlly

Like ppl are much less likely to bot on experimental changes

[rancid grove]

which i don't really understand given that walt literally pinged everyone in the forum post

[lucid stream]

Vs something actually planned on being added

[lucid stream]

It’s undoubted that few PvP ppl voted tho

We got a full lobby in unstable last night

[rancid grove]

there were a total of 18-20 depending how you count silver and astral

[lucid stream]

Bc this made it to r.c last time

[lucid stream]

I wouldn’t counter either of them

The majority of the hate is just directed at ht ramp down rlly

[lucid stream]

Like ramp down nerf for mrt is definitely much more accurately represented by the poll there

Imo

Still bad imo but it’s much more supported

[long rampart]

velocity arrows should have an option for all ships if its on all ships for dc

literally me complaining about everything except the thruster changes because i like it

[wicked spade]

well many probably thought it was cool on a baseline level but now that its actually being released people are realizing it isnt rly in a playable state

also plaus is a no vote

so thats a very solid majority of pvp players against the change

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19APBizSBwj7W6m0u9c7P9bcOyHDZg6bUrOQhgtrwctk/edit?gid=0#gid=0

fixed some mistakes in the spreadsheet

https://forms.gle/auPFT2jTazRJSXXPA

short form for everyone to answer

a few questions on ur thoughts on rampdown

[long rampart]

im not in this yet

[wicked spade]

go ahead and give me the information then and i will add you to the sheet

[lucid stream]

arent you on there as juno?

[long rampart]

nah das not me

[lucid stream]

who tf is juno then lol

this is supposed to be pure pvp players

so we gotta get them out the ramp down yes

[long rampart]

mun
better to list what i dont play: cg & tb ion

[long rampart]

now how do i explain this

[lucid stream]

yea i misdirrected at you @wicked spade un deafen

[long rampart]

heres the thing tho
juno is also a pvp player

[long rampart]

btw @wicked spade is it rampdown for non mrt or in general
you have to clarify that

[lost mural]

They've always (probably not literally, but relative to this RC) followed different rules in this regard.

It's also not about the ship's allegiance, it's about whether the part was constructed by the player or not. It's why taking over ships and deconstructing them gives less resources than needed to reconstruct

[lost mural]

I'm a little confused by what you mean

[rancid grove]

an option for the new arrows that show direction and rotation that has them visible on all ships, rather than just ships you have selected

i think is what they're getting at

[long rampart]

what theta said

[broken burrow]

It's the thing I said earlier
I bring that up so you arent alone asking for it

[lucid stream]

I’d like an option for the arrow to be still shown when weapons / control groups are selected or the option to be able to see them I think they are cool

[rancid grove]

yeah

as someone who has hotkeys selected like 90+% i would love to be able to see the arrows

[lost mural]

I hadn't considered that selecting the parts wouldn't draw the ship overlays. It probably should count as the ship being selected for velocity arrows at least, yeah

[tidal urchin]

stuff being hard to salvage when you don't know how it was built exactly makes sense, but stuff you built being destroyed less doesn't

I get why the change was made but I think insurance for taking missions would be a better and more career 2.0 interesting solution

[iron stag]

Yeah, I could see it being better too, and definitely more immersive. This solution requires a fraction of the dev time though, so I get to work on other stuff. Plus it's already been 50% thus far, which never made sense. Now it's just 85.

[tidal urchin]

yeah I understand that it takes way more dev time than just changing a number

but I think it would be worth it

[hexed wharf]

I have to say, I don't like the change. I am a career player, certainly not pvp. I just like to play it that way. I also have a big lists of mods. It is how I get my enjoyment out of it. A lot of the mods involve thrusters which are not affected (luckily). Just to get a good idea of the changes, I loaded up a flanker frigate with vanilla trusters. 3 rear HT's, 2 rear LT's, 4 side LT's, 2 standard front trusters. The ship now really feels sluggish when quick changes in direction are required, especially when suddenly having to stop. Normally the 2 front trusters were enough, but not anymore.

I just hope the changes do not get incooperated into the mods. I can already imagine my ships just pinballing off when in the asteroid belt.

[versed cove]

I absolutely love the prospect of an EMP buff, but buffing reload time specifically (especially this radically) on a weapon so reliant on burst damage to enemy shields is... Very weird, to say the least. It makes stunlocking enemies a far more interesting possibility, however it's still a very strtange decision.

Here I present to you 2 modules, one pretty radical and specifically designed for the change, able to almost keep up with the missile spam (crew only have to do one sortie, but it's still unable to 100% upkeep off of one factory alone, at least in my testing), and another one from before the change, optimized for the 6 second cooldown. Both have roughly the same raw EMP output, except the left is 30K cheaper. The compromise is greately reduced burst potential, which is the thing that EMP thrives off of thanks to the nature of how shields work.

Here's a gif demonstrating this very well.

30k cost save might be worth it, plus the new module can be optimized much further (this is just a test demo) whilst the old one had reached its limit. Plus it is so much easier to armour up for the chunkier builds.

Here both

@iron stag I'll ping you just in case (sorry for bothering)

.,.,

[ornate monolith]

he

[bold token]

could boost also have rampup/down added but for like .25 sec and it ramps from 50% to 100% instead of 0% to 100%?
yeah nerfing stuff isn't as nice as buffing but boost is currently a bit too responsive compared to other thrusters

also for other thrusters could try something that ramps down to something other than 0%

[carmine jay]

Wouldnt that just mean its always producing thrust

[bold token]

piecewise function

ooo now i'm interested in other curves..

holding w for red line
release for blue line

values can be changed but the thruster is outputing 90% thrust after .5 secs (example)
or 10% .5secs after releasing

just 1-e^(ln(0.01)t) and e^(ln(0.01)t)

[unkempt briar]

this is a great curve

[bold token]

it's more responsive and the drawbacks can be tuned a lot more

[rancid grove]

i think what salephz is saying is that it goes from 0% to 50% instantly and then takes time to ramp to 100%

Suggestions:

HT rampdown: from 1 sec to 0.5 secs. This is the original number i suggested back when preview 1 was being discussed, i think it would make HTs responsive enough while still making them be distinctly less agile than the smaller thrusters

Standard, Large, and Boost thruster rampdown: set to 0. it's just not really necessary to have rampdown on them, tbh

MRT thrust: increased by somewhere in the range of 15-25%. MRT's rampdown and overall maneuverability feels about right to me, but it is struggling in competitive gameplay, i think this would allow ships to have lower investment in MRT for the same benefit and be able to actually afford other thrusts for turning purposes

Boost: after boost mode finishes, require boost to be fully recharged before it can start producing thrust again, sorta like shields. would maintain boost's power and agility while boosting, but give more consideration to their intended downside of having downtime, in a way that doesn't punish good logistics

TB: hopefully the thruster changes would make fighting against TBs reasonable with the 20% thrust nerf, but in case it doesn't, nerf TB's cost rather than its force. an increase of 5-10k (in steel, hypercoils, and possibly hyperium) would have minimal effects on career where such resources are relatively plentiful and cost isn't much of a factor, but reduce the ability to have loads of TBs while still having a load of other stuff

[wicked spade]

20% or so buff to mrt thrust wont make it worthwhile really. youd need something drastic since it forces you to invest into a whole nother thrust type to have playable maneuverability

cost nerfs are a big no no imo

for tb

[rancid grove]

why?

[wicked spade]

forces rebuilds of whole ships

[rancid grove]

not necessarily rebuilds, but some cutting of costs would definitely be necessary

[wicked spade]

i think tbs need to have rampdown/rampup when they switch between push/pull and thatll make them much fairer, though they need more nerfs still

[rancid grove]

i also don't really see why people are so against rebuilding ships in this ship building game

[wicked spade]

im only offering the same courtesy that others did not offer me

i dont like being forced to rebuild my ships for no reason

its a pain

[rancid grove]

like, most pvp people are already reworking ships a lot as they optimize them

[rancid grove]

i would count balance as a reason, but i do see where you're coming from

[wicked spade]

if balance is the intent other nerfs would work fine

[rancid grove]

i'm not sure if there would be another good balance solution that nerfs high-TB-count ships like TB rails while keeping ships with lower TB counts (and TB in career) still viable

giving TB ramp time going between modes would be something but you said yourself they'd need more nerfs

[wicked spade]

force nerf? low tb counts arent flipping anyways so it doesnt matter if they can flip less

[rancid grove]

flipping isn't (and shouldn't be) the only consideration of what TB can do, i mostly use mine for stabilization and as reverse/turning thrust on my own ship rather than as a tool to flip my opponent. i still use it to try destabilize them or exacerbate a bad movement from them, but it's only relatively rare cases where i'm actively trying to flip someone from them just piloting normally

[wicked spade]

well they are xd but thats a separate issue

[wicked spade]

well a small force nerf shouldnt make that much harder

[rancid grove]

too much force nerf would mean TB stops being able to flip as effectively, yes, but it would also make TB even less useful in career and in low counts, and i'm not sure if there's a sweet spot where flipping is difficult/resistable but the other uses are still useful

[wicked spade]

force nerfs will mostly just impact complete flipping and make it harder

[wicked spade]

nobody really uses tb in career anyways

[lucid stream]

Please for the love of god no cost / logi based nerfs

[rancid grove]

yeah hence why i'm trying not to make it less useful there

[wicked spade]

and anyone that knows well enough wont care about force nerfs because the ai cant even resist against it at all

a small force nerf wont make it any worse in career

[lucid stream]

If ht ramp down is removed tbs aren’t going to need the nerfs btw lol

[rancid grove]

having a part that could be useful in a mode but just isn't, isn't great game design

yeah well i did say that i didn't think much if any TB nerfing would be needed if the other changes work how i think they'd work

[wicked spade]

ht with 0.5s rampdown probably still gets abused by tb

[rancid grove]

also if people are really really against flipping there is also the nuclear option of making TB not able to target individual parts (being limited to targeting a whole ship instead) but i don't think that'd be a great idea

[wicked spade]

lol be my guest

delete tb

[lucid stream]

Now this is absolutely awful air balance that got us in this mess in the first place

Remove all thrust but small thrusters so they are meta

[wicked spade]

same guy that suggested mrt rampdown btw

[rancid grove]

hey i said myself that this wouldn't be a good idea

also what do you 2 think of the proposed boost nerf?

[lucid stream]

May have some merits but ideally it’s irrelevant once we get ramp down removed from all non mrt

I’d love to get it removed from mrt as well but it’s simply not supported enough

[wicked spade]

not a fan personally, the whole point of boost is instant maneuverability and ruining even that is not ideal imo

[rancid grove]

it... would still have instant maneuverability?

[wicked spade]

could just give it a hard cooldown or do the shield thrust idea where it cant produce thrust after boosting until it hits max power

[rancid grove]

the shield thrust idea is exactly what i suggested

[wicked spade]

oh i misread

[rancid grove]

maybe i just didn't word it properly

[wicked spade]

yeah no thats fine probably

would make pure boost a lot harder

which is kinda stupid that it works

[rancid grove]

can actually mostly thank kelsia for that one, her and i had a discussion a bit back

[robust skiff]

Suggestion to Support Additive DecalLayers Modding:

Hi Walt & Team, Thanks for adding DecalLayers in the latest release candidate— I’ve run into tiny issue, though: there doesn’t seem to be a way to make changes to DecalLayers additive.

For example, if my mod adds +1 layer and another mod adds +80, my override can overwrite theirs depending on load order. This could cause some issues for people mixing and matching mods. It would be amazing if we could adjust DecalLayers relatively (e.g., +=) so multiple mods can contribute without conflicts. It might not be possible but figured I might as well ask.

Thanks for considering this, and apologies if I’m missing an existing solution!

[carmine jay]

https://tenor.com/view/yippee-happy-celebration-joy-confetti-gif-25557730

[rancid grove]

oh yeah that'd be good

[lost mural]

I've suggested insurance before (no clue if it was a novel idea haha), and I think it's a cool idea, but it's a longer-term solution to the problem, and we do want to incentivise dealing with damage rather than save-scumming.

[lost mural]

In the case where your mod adds +1 and the other +80, is there a practical reason to want +81 instead of just +80?

[meager mural]

i think they mean if one of their mods ass +1 and another adds +80 and the +1 overwrites the +80 then it can be frustrating

[rancid grove]

oh yeah also, and probably predictably

Configurable Thrust Inputs: add this. please.

to walt, i know you want MRT balance to be in a good place without this, but i don't really think that's a good reason to not have it. i see configurable thrust input as more of an 'advanced player tool' much like you've said you think of direct control, it's fine if it's necessary or nearly necessary to be used on competitive pvp ships, much the same as it's very difficult to successfully fly something like a UL nuke or rammer without using direct control. it would allow for a lot more granularity in how thrust setups can be made, and overall just be cool

[robust skiff]

@lost mural - Yeah Elliot nailed it. Really the +81 just ends up being better than it being limited to the +1. I guess if I were to take my dev hat off for a minute and try not to do the solutioning for you 😆 ... As a modding user, I want the game to automatically choose the greater value when multiple mods overwrite the same DecalLayers value, so that mods can coexist without conflicts and users benefit from the most expansive changes.

[lost mural]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, what I meant was "is there a practical reason to want mod1Value + mod2Value over max(mod1Value, mod2Value) in this case"

The former is probably easier to implement, though, so it's more of a curiosity thing

[slate pond]

My issue with the boost change is that it would affect dom a lot. Probably more than thrust ramp down. Boost really is a complicated issue and I admit that I dont really have a good solution.
Giving mrt more thrust is really dangerous concidering that its the best choice on some ships, but its worth trying.
We should wait with tb nerfs until we tested the current version.
I like the other changes for testing.
Also i dont wanna come off as too critical. I really like that youre one of the only onces to actually suggest concrete changes.

[spice kernel]

@lost mural @robust skiff @raw idol
Couldn't we just do an "official" workshop mod(s), which add like specific set x Amount of decal layers and mods then can add dependencies for the same mod(s) and won't cause inconvenience

also indexed Part Stats when.

[robust skiff]

Ah yes, no practical reason to want option A over option B (it was only my assumption that option A might be easier to implement). I think my preference would be max(mod1Value, mod2Value)

[robust skiff]

This sounds a bit more complicated to manage tbh. Would be nice for people to just set it and forget it (without causing frustration to people with a lower value that overwrites a larger)

[bold token]

someone said exponential function is bad and just used arcs instead https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/508055533949812737/1308084513330430004/image.png?ex=673ca823&is=673b56a3&hm=f67e8fadac0c7c5432a869c733f4929ddeae4682e65834e8e85a1717df590ffe&
imo this would be pretty nice if implementable

diff colors are diff thrusters

also i'm still interested in boost thrusters having rampup but over a really short period and with a "headstart"

[rancid grove]

i also agree with an MRT thrust buff

hey @steep cloak, @broken burrow and @lucid stream i recommend moving the discussion here so as not to clog up the looking for game channel

[broken burrow]

I consider the discussion closed, thank you though

[slate pond]

No please dont spam this channel lol

[steep cloak]

🏓

[broken burrow]

It's a shame we cannot make a thread inside another

[lucid stream]

we arent being productive its just have you done X / have you tried " broadening your horizons like im not being baited" / restating points ive made 100 + times

[wicked spade]

literally every preview discussion atp

it gets tuah point 💔

[spice ivy]

I'll say one thing here. I like the idea of this update, but it's causing extreme backlash in some people in the pvp community (I'm sure everyone can notice it in this chat) so I think it needs a few changes before releasing it.

I've never seen backlash like this, and I'm not new to the usual drama

[steep cloak]

worth noting that this discussion ended in both parties blocking each other

[carmine jay]

lmao

[misty steeple]

I still think that my gut feeling and salephz' concrete outlining of the ramp behavior should probably make it way better in terms of pure feel, despite achieving mostly the same goals

I have no idea how to mod that into the game though

[lost mural]

I'm not sure the curve of thruster ramp is data-driven. I think it's a hardcoded lerp

[versed cove]

You could just make a sister thread of sorts.

[warm zinc]

Thanks for the suggestions, I am going to try these for the next RC.

[rancid grove]

leave the TB suggestion out to start with, it hopefully shouldn't be necessary with the other thrust changes

[warm zinc]

yup that's the plan

[rancid grove]

and it is the hardest one to test for pvp as it would require ship rebuilds

[rancid grove]

aight good, thanks

[warm zinc]

trying a 25% MRT buff because 8000 * 1.25 = 10000 and I like round numbers!

@everyone Thanks for all your help testing RC1 and for providing all your feedback! Believe it or not, I read this entire thread! RC2 is now ready for testing!

• (Balance): Increased M.R.T. thrust by 25%. (8000->10000)
• (Balance): If a Boost Thruster runs out of power, it now must be powered up fully before turning back on. (This applies regardless of whether it is in boost mode or not.)
• (RC Balance): Halved ramp-down for Huge Thrusters.
• (RC Balance): Removed ramp-down from Standard, Large, and Boost thrusters.
• (Bugfix): When loading a saved game, the activation levels of M.R.T.s (and other thrusters if powered by engine rooms) would be loaded at a lower value than when saved.
• (Bugfix): The recently-added "magic thrust" could cause ships to slowly oscillate around their intended destination.
• (RC Bugfix): Crash when creating a new ship from scratch when using a mod that increases the number of decal layers.
• (RC Bugfix): It wasn't possible to click on a ship/asteroid icon with the updated salvage/mine tool to target it.

[wicked spade]

hm

alrighty

[frank cloud]

peak

[meager mural]

I'd say all of these are actually quite good besides the boost thruster change. I don't know what the rampdown was for HT but its good to see it getting some buffs

[wicked spade]

mrt is probably op now in a bad way

[wicked spade]

not a fan?

[rancid grove]

HT rampdown was one second, now is half a second

[wicked spade]

i think its a good idea to nerf boost

though "we should buff other thrust instead" i agree with for sure

[rancid grove]

didn't you say a ~20% buff wouldn't be enough earlier?

[wicked spade]

i mean not enough to make it good in an interesting way. now its (theoretically) insanely good on ships like morbiters/kites and hit and run ships while still being boring and unfun

will test

i think the boost nerf makes it so you dont want to run them as turning thrust on rammers tho

since they will be offline for way too long

[warm zinc]

My only request for y'all is that you actually test before passing judgement.

[wicked spade]

i am currently yes

but theres only so much a value change can do that cannot be predicted

[wispy heart]

NICEEEE
i think this is very helpful for mp elims!!

i am soooo thankful

[rancid grove]

HT ULnukes will probably play somewhat close to stable, though with a bit more forethought going into a fling

[meager mural]

Only worry is that it'll make boost thrusters niche-r in career as I haven't seen many boost thrusters but I really don't know if that's an issue since a lot of things are kinda niche for career

[rancid grove]

true, that is a worry

something kelsia's been wanting and i see no issue with is changing boost to not use tristeel, and instead having more of its cost into like hypercoils and steel

wouldn't do anything to pvp balance but would make them a bit easier to get in career, especially in large amounts

[meager mural]

I saw the ER and HT change with tristeel and I'm in full support of it

[meager mural]

Actually a small concern I have with this is stuff taking too many hypercoils as usually in career I notice the bottleneck for most of my ships is usually only hypercoils

[carmine jay]

interesting

[lucid stream]

I like the intention of these changes and once I test them I’ll get back to you in how the numbers feel

[wicked spade]

This was my take on an actually playable preview cg rammer, afaik no other layout with mrt really works (this one isnt really good either but it barely works). on the left is the boost version i ran last rc and the right a version i hastily refit with a mix of ht and lt for a mix of better top speed and turning rate while not relying on the now inconsistent boost.

Speeds have both gone up to a decent extent (10 ms or so, pretty big amount even if it doesnt sound that high). These are heavily armored ships so im not expecting blazing speeds. combat testing is needed

[carmine jay]

Once you get a HC factory tri-steel becomes the issue

[lucid stream]

I think tbs are still overtuned off pure numbers tho

[meager mural]

Unless im doing railguns, tristeel is never an issue for me

[carmine jay]

anyways on another matter
THE SHIELD THRUSTER IS REALLLLLLLLLLLLLL

[unkempt sinew]

Agreed

[meager mural]

I heavily disagree abt the tractorbeam thing as they're already super niche in career

Or rather

[carmine jay]

I think I have found the core of thrust imbalances

and its quite funny gimme a sec

[meager mural]

Its more of a concern that they're gonna be too niche in career or not woeth

[unkempt sinew]

They are very op in pvp

[wicked spade]

now what im worried about:
the thrust buff is pretty crazy regardless. this ship barely was below 200ms on stable and breaks 210 now. i worry stuff like this will make speed meta resurge but in an even less interesting form as just speed checks with zero agility or responsiveness. testing is still required though

[meager mural]

I've heard and I used bad wording. Its just a concern since I thihk walt cares both about career and pvp

[wicked spade]

theyre worth if you try to make them work

[unkempt sinew]

They worth it both in pvp and career id imagine, you just need to make ships that support them well

[lucid stream]

Ok so this is a primary PvP specific update as it affects that group the most

[wicked spade]

no matter how good tbs are while still being balanced i doubt career players will actually use them widespread because theyre inherently a higher depth and very niche option which usefulness isnt even immediately apparent to the average career player

[unkempt sinew]

Indeed

[lucid stream]

Most career and non optimal player don’t fully understand how to utilize tbs well in the first place

[wicked spade]

tbs are already overpowered in career due to thrust counts being very low and ai not knowing how to counter them. if you want to make them work they can trivialize the entire career

[lucid stream]

They are difficult apm and logi wise career players lack both

[ornate monolith]

meanwhile

Me: wtf is a tbs

[wicked spade]

in career u can just spam pause

apm doesnt matter

[lucid stream]

Tractor beams

[wicked spade]

one of the reasons i accy like career

[ornate monolith]

i am a avid modded career player. That should explain a lot right?

[lucid stream]

Don’t ppl not like to do this for immersion

[wicked spade]

takes focus off apm

[wicked spade]

well its their fault then

but apm isnt the consideration there

[carmine jay]

lmao what

[lucid stream]

It’s not an insult either if I took 600 hours and taught you the PvP meta you’d agree tbs are busted on r.c

[lucid stream]

No clue ignore it I’ve never opened career

[carmine jay]

c r i n g e

[ornate monolith]

[meager mural]

I see. I didn't know this actually, thank you for the info

I can also see where everyone else is coming from since I did try TBs recently and they're definitely strong but it felt more silly than actually decent but I also literally just tried them, so my opinion isn't very weighted. I figured they were niche so I'm gonna take peoples word on it that they're op

[ornate monolith]

[frank cloud]

it is a pretty common sentiment. Using tb’s breaks immersion pretty quickly cause you can just put ships or stations into the sun and the npc’s won’t fight back or care

[carmine jay]

wha-?

it was about pause not tbs