Space Propellers

[Dui Mauris Football]

I was just thinking about how inconvenient it is that you have to have a LOT of thrusters to even move at a decent pace on high air resistance planets, so why not have a type of thruster that is better when air resistance is higher? The best option that logically fits is propellers. Obviously, there wouldn't be a jump version, as... that doesn't make any sense, and making a propeller stronger usually means making it wider, so rather than getting longer with greater power like regular thrusters, they become wider. (longer = bigger along direction of movement, wider = bigger against direction of movement) As stated before, they would NOT replace regular thrusters, as they would, logically, be really horrible on low air resistance.

[ManTheMister]

The issue with that option is that threre is a “correct”choice, and not a strategic one, and you would probably end up have two identical drones except one uses thrusters and one uses propellers. There should be something that makes high air resistance more tolerable, but it shouldn’t  be something where each planet has a “correct” choice. There should be some strategy involved in what type of thruster/propeller to use.

[Dui Mauris Football]

Yes, that is why they are different shapes; One is wider than the other. However, I can still see where you are coming from, and I totally agree. After all, we don't want the game to be too easy.

[Lurkily]

It's not really a matter of easy.  It's more a matter of wanting players to have meaningful,  strategic choices.  Any choice that has a right and a wrong answer isn't really meaningful or strategic - just correct or incorrect.  In this case, you'd have a 'correct' engine for worlds of high air resistance, and the dominant strategy would be to duplicate your drone, replacing all the engines with props.  I'm not really a fan of that, because it feels like adding busywork as a barrier to efficient design.

I'd like to see more engine designs that require you to make a choice in a balance of efficiency versus power, or other factors, something that forces you to balance what you lose against what you gain.

[notsew93]

But on the other other hand, the game is about making drones. A variance between planets, environments, and missions would be essential to prevent the game from being boring. For instance, I had a drone that could do every mission quite handily until they came out with the "light fires to retrieve artifact" jungle mission. 

I see you point about props vs. thrusters being the same, maybe tedious, and having right/worngness attached to them, but what other variety would you propose instead? The game needs to have differences on the planets to avoid repetition, so we are encouraged to keep making new better drones. 

Alright, so if what we want is to try and make the choice more strategic, then how about making these different in a few other ways: 

Size of props could vary width-wise, not lengthwise like thrusters as @Dui Mauris Football said; Maybe it could be made so that in addition to air resistance varying from planet to planet, it could also vary with altitude - this way there is almost always the trade-off "strategic" factor; Perhaps when they develop the ice planets there could be liquid water underneath an ice crust that you'd have to dive through, and props would work in water but thrusters would not; There could be an asteroid field mission where props don't work at all and thrusters would do great; there could also be a fuel usage difference, where props are really fuel efficient, but thrusters are easier or work in more situations.

Are any of these differences starting to sound strategic yet? I agree that props and thrusters should have more to set them apart than just low air planets vs. high air planets, but I disagree with the notion that all drones should work everywhere and you never have to make new ones. Its a drone constructor game - the Nimbatus should fly around mission to mission, planet to planet, and the staff (player) on board makes new drones to meet new challenges. 

[Lurkily]

Altitude would be a strategic decision; it has advantages and disadvantages you have to weigh.  I'm not sure why thrusters wouldn't work in water; "equal and opposite reaction" is what it is, in space or in water.

At the moment though, I keep feeling like props are one of those "Let's make the challenging parts not challenging" things.

As for all drones working everywhere, I suspect that when progression mechanics are implemented, and we can't built massive 400-part beasts that can factory-manufacture six different purpose-built drones on level one, we'll see more players with more than one drone in their roster. 

I don't think a lack of diverse parts are the problem; I think no progression mechanics are the problem.

[Ookami-sama]

As Lurkily stated, the only differences between a propeller and a rocket engine lie in their inner workings and application, not their actual effect. A rocket will work just as well in space as in the Earth's atmosphere, or any denser one. You will notice a decrease in top speed because of increased friction on the whole craft, but that will not change with a propeller.

A space rocket's thruster and a propeller operate in the same way, that is: they push matter back (the transformed fuel vs the propeller's environment, air or water for example) to make the craft advance. However, a rocket engine has extreme advantages over a propeller: it can be absurdly simple (e.g. hydrogen and oxygen to make steam), is limited only by the speed at which it can take in fuel, works well even at higher velocities (basically and as far as I understand: the craft is moving, and so are the propellants; so when these are expelled, they have the same speed as the craft and accelerate it from there), and is extremely lightweight, among other things I forget or do not know of. A propeller is way more intricate, limited by technique and own weight, turns in almost immobile air and thus becomes entirely ineffective over a threshold speed, does not work in space, is usually optimised for one use and fails horribly in all other (less dense matter makes the craft lose propulsion entirely; denser matter makes it difficult for the engine to even function).

All-in-all a rocket engine seems better in all cases but the ones that require the engine to be well-protected from invasive stuff, like water when under the sea (high pressure, keeping it out proves difficult). I see no reason to have any sort of component that is heavier, less powerful, and larger than our current thrusters. Except if you really want to throw out the window any sort of logic and implement, in a futuristic game, techniques that are currently subpar, in which case I will ask for steam engines to be added as well, with steam and all that jazz.

[Lurkily]

I can see atmosphere, really; you could make the argument than a very good propeller would be better in atmosphere than an inefficient thruster.  I just don't feel like they meet a need.  It obviates a challenge.  But we get this request a lot.

I think we need to consider lowering the maximum range for air resistance, and when environmental effects are applied, (on the roadmap,) we need to angle for wind as a challenge on high air resistance planets, not resistance to motion.  What I'm getting from these propeller suggestions is that high air resistance isn't fun.

If that's the case, eliminating the challenge it poses probably isn't the best way to address it; I question if we need it at all.  High air resistance planets should have unique conditions, but wind and weather are coming.

As the Devs who comment on Nimbatus most, I would like to tag @Micha and @Markus to ask what their thoughts on the subject are.  Also, let me know if tagging you guys for an opinion is annoying.

[Markus]

@Lurkily You can tag us if you think we can give good input. But of course we can't comment on everything or maybe we don't have time  

There is a really good discussion here. I'm with the opinion that we increased the air-resistance so that you are forced to build different drones - not just to make your normal drone less effective. So adding a thruster-type which would circumvent the different air-resistance does not coincide with our vision. But I agree that different thruster types in general would be very interesting - maybe some will come with the next Race upgrade. We're also thinking about adding parts for which you can alter physical properties like changing drag (air-resistance).

Maybe we even have to increase the amount of air-resistance for the "high air-resistance" planets so that you really are forced to build different ships  Of course only as long as it is still fun to play and we have parts which makes building such drones fun enough  

[Lurkily]

4 hours ago, Markus said:

Maybe we even have to increase the amount of air-resistance for the "high air-resistance" planets so that you really are forced to build different ships  Of course only as long as it is still fun to play and we have parts which makes building such drones fun enough  

1

I guess my worry is that these propeller suggestions are a symptom of high air resistance just no being fun.  Everybody seems to want a way to negate it.

My feeling is that wind and weather might be more fun, contentious, and interactive than just high air resistance.  After all, more wind, more weather, right?

I don't actually mind having the capacity to build a massive drone that can do anything, but it should be an endgame project, enforced by progression mechanics.

[Markus]

Interesting. The way we have scaled everything, it seems that everything is simply "slower", instead of more challenging. We have to check and balance that when we're working on the planets again. Keep up the good discussion  

[Lurkily]

 

2 hours ago, Markus said:

Interesting. The way we have scaled everything, it seems that everything is simply "slower", instead of more challenging.

Exactly.  It's challenging in design but not in gameplay, and design is tedious when its just tacking on thrusters.

It might be more interesting later, when we have limited resources for parts, or a part limit, and we have to redesign more fully to be functional. I know that if I have a 20-30 part limit, I'd have a whole damn roster of drones.  I still think merely slowing things down isn't the most interesting way to address it, though. 

 I think winds and gusts,  with updrafts, downdrafts, and tornados that scale up in force with air resistance would be the kind of thing you could struggle with and fight, and maybe even ride to your advantage, if you're smart. (I'll post a detailed set of feature requests soon.   Ideas are happening.)  

[Dui Mauris Football]

If HAR planets had maybe, a wind current that always went clockwise/counter-clockwise, then I can imagine a whole lot of possibilities. Imagine, you see the last snake egg that you need! But, you realize it's unreachable because of the gust pushing you away from it. So, you have to either: 1. Build a drone that can work with the gust, or 2. Build a drone that can work against the gust. I think that while still tedious, it would add diversity, and I would no longer ignore HAR planets. Instead, they might be my first choice to play on!

As for the whole "Why wouldn't thrusters work underwater," I'd have to both agree and disagree with Ookami, it doesn't really make sense, but at the same time, how the heck do you explain this game's magnets? Obviously, the game should be realistic, but I don't think it should just be a physics simulator. The strange little quirks are what brought me to this game in the first place. I can totally see something silly like a propeller in this game, just because it doesn't really seem too out of place.

Before I go, I'd like to say a few things. Many people in this thread have suggested great ideas to balance the propellers, but the one that I really like the most is the AR gradient. It'd require the use of both propellers and thrusters, but at different levels and on different planets. Alright, last thing! As I said before, i feel like there's no real reason to play a level that's not fun. I'd still like a level to have a use, even if it's not fun; I'd still play it, and I would likely get so fed up with it that I just adapt. This 'reason' I think that everyone would like, even if they don't know it, is the return of green resource. You could get it from planets and from sumo arenas, but only once, after you complete the mission. The amount you get would scale to the difficulty, and it could be some tiny amount or a ton. If the drone part limit Is added, then green could be used to expand the limit, bit by bit. If it isn't, then it could be used to unlock upgrades in your techtree that can't be unlocked any other way.

Well, that's all I have to say.

[Lurkily]

But of course thrusters would work underwater.  They don't need air to burn, it's in the fuel. 

As for a level not being fun; I agree.  Dense atmosphere, as me and Markus discuss above, seem to slow things down, not make it challenging.  I posted some thoughts on a weather model here, (weather is on the development roadmap,) that would provide weather that is changable, has updrafts and downdrafts, tornados, hurricanes, storms, rain that can cool or heat your drone.  

The idea here is to reduce resistance's influence entirely.  If it's not fun, propellers are just a band-aid.  Let's reduce it's influence, instead, and have air resistance work into weather more than it works into resisting movement.  Wind and storms are things you can struggle with, power against, or even ride to your advantage.  Strengthening weather effects in dense atmosphere sounds like a lot more fun than slowing drones down.