Component volatility review

Discussion in 'Suggestions & Feedback' started by MrTwister, Oct 9, 2018.

?

Does block volatility need a review?

  1. Heck no, keep em blowing, I like it rough...

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Please tone down this explosivity madness!!!

    4 vote(s)
    100.0%
  3. Can you fly, Bobby?

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. MrTwister

    MrTwister Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2017
    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    659
    Hi team, just wanted to give you some feedback on block volatility in this game.

    The amount of volatile blocks in any functional and armed tech seems to be too much and overbearing.
    Don't get me wrong, some of these are logical and ok for balancing reasons - like batteries and fuel tanks should probably stay like they are. (However it is still a point of contention with with the way area damage and explosive damage in general works in this game)

    Problem is - there are lots of other blocks that are volatile as well - cruise missiles are very heavily volatile (basically you get a cruise hit when the very fragile launcher is destroyed). The armored-looking large hawkeye rocket engines are extremely volatile - and they weren't when they were introduced I think.

    To be honest - the amount of volatile components in this game is simply overbearing. Any good, speedy, well-armed and functional tech basically turns into an explosive device waiting to go off. Sometimes even repair bubbles cant stop it and riding without repairs is certain death in nearly all cases as chain reactions will start from the lightest touch.

    There are two key game mechanics that really make volatile components frustrating:

    1) There is no concept of armor or protection layers in the game - since area damage (both from weapons and volatile components themselves) penetrates innards of the tech to it's full explosion radius without limit, there is no way to shield or protect stuff - some relief is only provided by repair bubbles. You can neither "hide" volatile stuff behind a layer of armor, nor can you even partition volatile components from each other by putting a separation wall between thbem.

    2) Since there is no ammo in the game - you cannot launch and exhaust your missiles or ammo-depended weapons to prevent damage to your own tech. And also - the launch animation itself is purely decorative for self-damage purposes - an empty cruise rack between reloads explodes just as hard as a loaded one.

    An additional side effect of #1 is that the game in general greatly rewards usage of larger blocks compared to their smaller siblings. For example - a 2x2x2 GeoCorp battery likely to still be superior to the advanced and "armored" 1x1x2 hawkeye battery for a simple reason that it will take 4x less area damage for the same volume occupied.




    Suggestion - since the deeply flawed area damage model in the game is not likely to change, please greatly reduce the amount of volatile tech blocks in the game during the planned weapon damage review. Please completely remove volatility from all weapon and engine blocks and only leave energy and fuel blocks as volatile.

    Additionally it would be good if battery volatility was reduced too - both damage and radius, to at least prevent or reduce self-sustained chain-reactions for Geocorp and Hawkeye batteries in the absence of additional external damage.

     
  2. Soviet_Samuelson

    Soviet_Samuelson Getting a permit to life in a jolly box

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,189
    Likes Received:
    867
    yes, all of its good.

     

Share This Page