Unparented debris decays over time

[Lurkily]

So some suggestions regarding weapons, TNT, etc have been spurred by scrap drone parts littering the landscape, seeking a way to self-destruct subdrones or clean up the litter.  I think it could be solved by any unparented debris decaying until it's destroyed. That will leave debris around long enough to still be a factor in decoupled material being an obstacle, and all the various ways you must deal with it.  It will also clear it, though, after it's been laying around long enough to no longer be a worry.  More than that, it will clear it part by part instead of all at once, as every single part with 500 HP reaches that limit at once.

[Garheardt the Black]

One of my fonder propulsion devices utilizes interactions with unparented debris to generate thrust. 

Naturally, I must object! 😆

[ManTheMister]

I think that finding ways to destroy your excess bits is part of the challenge of the game.

[Lurkily]

Is it, though?  The excess bits are mostly cosmetic.  They don't typically hurt much if you just leave them.

[ManTheMister]

Then why do we need to destroy them?

[Lurkily]

We don't, really.  But we have had a friendly-fire-upgrade suggestion, a fire-element TNT suggestion, and a suggestion for a part that causes a fire-like degradation, all that seem to have been spurred by the desire to be able to cleanly self-destruct sub-drones.  I thought that if it was a common desire, that new parts were the wrong approach to the problem.

[ManTheMister]

I like the friendly fire suggestion, though it wouldn’t make a difference in clearing debris.

[Ookami-sama]

It does not make much sense in terms of engineering.

Either you let it happen « naturally », with materials rotting or being chipped away by elements and that means you must use an equivalent to cardboard instead of a resilient material, which will cause a few problems for thrusters, struts, ore collection, sensors, combat... the list goes on; or you load every part of your drone with a way to self-destruct, with acid or any other chemical means, which will be highly dangerous when you are hugged by some nasty boombug (chemicals leaking means your whole craft being endangered, for example).

Transporting batches of TNT in the open might be less dangerous than either of the only two ways I could see it done. Also, laser-powered movement.

[Lurkily]

On 11/24/2018 at 7:35 AM, Ookami-sama said:

It does not make much sense in terms of engineering.

I missed this, somehow. 

A simulation if decay is EXACTLY what this is supposed to be. The timescale is too short to be realistic, but degradation of lost parts is more or less the decay you mention. 

As for engineering, heaters seem to be a favored method, except in that it leaves a heater behind. That's what spurred the acid block suggestion from one other player. 

It all seems like an artifical way to deal with something that gameplay mechanics could just handle. 

[ManTheMister]

56 minutes ago, Lurkily said:

It all seems like an artifical way to deal with something that gameplay mechanics could just handle. 

You often say that we shouldn’t give players any pre-built contraptions, for example a grappling hook, but they should build them out of simpler parts.

To me this sounds like another “just hand them a pre-fabricated solution to the problem” situation. The heaters can be destroyed with a little bit of engineering. Just add a tnt onto a decoupler that gets decoupled when the heater gets activated and explodes after it falls onto the ground on top of the heater.

[Lurkily]

Yeah, but look back to air resistance. We get a lot of suggestions for propellers, and it's not because people really want propellers - it always comes back to people being frustrated by high air resistance. People don't really want the part, they want relief from a problem they have with gameplay mechanics. That's why I suggested limiting air resistance, and instead ratcheting up weather effects in dense atmosphere. 

I think adding a niche part to support a niche need is not worth it. But the PART isn't actually what people really want.  If a trivial change to mechanics can soothe the OCD with near - zero impact on other players... it might still be a bad idea, but I think it's worth considering. (Is it not zero - impact to players unconcerned with debris? It seems like it should be, but am I wrong?) 

As for engineering solutions, TNT is a clumsy and ugly solution; I've found a few better. I just think that so many suggestions focusing on one gameplay mechanic are a sign that this mechanic is not fun, or rewarding to overcome. I could be wrong and the suggestions come from lazy or casual gamers, but I'm not convinced that's the case. 

[ManTheMister]

But air resistance doesn’t provide any engineering problems. You have two options: tack on more thrusters, or just be content with being slow. Debris don’t force you to choose between two unsatisfactory solutions. They don’t impact most people, and for those that they do, they can challenge themselves to find an engineering solution.

[Lurkily]

The engineering solution to that is what you described - more cowbell.  I mean, more thrusters.  The engineering problem to this is strapping bombs to yourself.  Both seem a bit clumsy to me, especially as TNT is weaker than any other part.

I'm willing to admit it may not warrant a change to fundamental mechanics, but I do think that these requests speak to something more fundamental than "I'm missing a part I need."