snap points etc.

[J.D.]

i find it extremely annoying in the ssc when i try to build ships with all the little problems i find building. the snap points we have a terrible. beams, plates, all of it. its very very hard to make a ship that isnt boxy. I look up "low poly" ship designs on the web as a reference to what i want to build, but i always find massive problems because nothing lines up the way i want to. Id like to see the devs really crack down on these issues. ive seen some people make some interesting ships, but those are few and far between. everytime i have an inspiration, i run into these issues in one way or another.

I do not build with any technique remotely similar to that of what the community calls "heresy." My building has always been straight forward. connect one, to another, where its supposed to be connected, nothing complicated what so ever. but, plates, for example, often dont sit right on beams. the curved beams, and plates, as well as special beam and plates are especially bad for this.

So i find myself in ssc for a a little while, and then quiting the project due to these issues, and just trashing the ship. This is one of the most annoying things about my experience with the game, other than a lack of a designer for stations, and cap ships, in spite of my great love for Starbase.

 

[Xylch]

Do you have an pictures showing examples of the problems you're having? Snapping has been working well for me, so I'm curious what you're trying to do.

 

[DivineEvil]

Snap points are done that way for a reason. For example, beams have snap points on their sides, rather than edges, because that allows plates to be placed and bolted to either side, rather than only being able to place one such plate straight on the beam or off-side where it cannot be bolted. It also makes it easier to connect beams to one-another without a requirement to have correct intersections everywhere. To circumvent that, you simply need to introduce more snap points by using small plates, perpendicular beams or any objects that have snap points suited for what you're trying to do. Pretty much all ships you've seen were designed with that principle in action. Snap points are convenient guides, not strict limitations on what you can place where.

If there were snap points for every possible situation, that would severely impede the accuracy of the feature and could even impact performance, as it is already difficult to move-snap modules and separately-built compartments together, exactly because the game have to consider all existing snap points and collision meshes of the combined objects to decide where you want to move something and whether there's conflict in place.

 

[Recatek]

To circumvent that, you simply need to introduce more snap points by using small plates, perpendicular beams or any objects that have snap points suited for what you're trying to do.

This is a crummy, tedious, and unintuitive workaround and the game can do better. For example, a toggle option that temporarily enables more snap points would be much better than the clumsiness of using small plates as a hack.

 

[J.D.]

Snap points are done that way for a reason. For example, beams have snap points on their sides, rather than edges, because that allows plates to be placed and bolted to either side, rather than only being able to place one such plate straight on the beam or off-side where it cannot be bolted. It also makes it easier to connect beams to one-another without a requirement to have correct intersections everywhere. To circumvent that, you simply need to introduce more snap points by using small plates, perpendicular beams or any objects that have snap points suited for what you're trying to do. Pretty much all ships you've seen were designed with that principle in action. Snap points are convenient guides, not strict limitations on what you can place where.

If there were snap points for every possible situation, that would severely impede the accuracy of the feature and could even impact performance, as it is already difficult to move-snap modules and separately-built compartments together, exactly because the game have to consider all existing snap points and collision meshes of the combined objects to decide where you want to move something and whether there's conflict in place.

ok, for one, you went really deep with this... if you read my message, you see that my building style is extremely simple. like, absolutely no heresy. not the slightest notion of it. in fact, i dont even hardly connect beams together without the intersection because i like using ducts. speaking of, thats another annoying thing i see. like having this tiny gap sometimes when i try to meet ducts, and there isnt a duct small enough to connect the two ends. i just want a 45 degree beam to fit on a 45 plate without being all janked. like, when i try to shroud my triangle thrusters with plates, and try to put a 45 angle to fit the profile of a single triangle thruster. janky as hell. and even if i do make it work, it looks like shit. im not trying to invent anything. im trying to fit a plate to a beam that has the same shape. i mean, elementary stuff is what im talking about. making things look flush, and clean. another problem with some of these attempts is having this little gap in places that i cant fill. its hard to explain in text. But, i dont mean the gaps you see in peoples ships because they tried some crazy ass shapes and there isnt parts we have to make it work, im talking about some plates just dont meet together in some designs, leaving like, idk, a 6x6 gap or some shit.

 

[DivineEvil]

ok, for one, you went really deep with this... if you read my message, you see that my building style is extremely simple. like, absolutely no heresy. not the slightest notion of it. in fact, i dont even hardly connect beams together without the intersection because i like using ducts.

I don't assume that you do heresy. I'm saying the moment snap points are fighting against you, just use the plates to make more snap points where you need them.

speaking of, thats another annoying thing i see. like having this tiny gap sometimes when i try to meet ducts, and there isnt a duct small enough to connect the two ends.

All duct pieces are perfectly fit for specific beam sizes and shapes. If there's gaps, then it can only mean you're using wrong duct pieces to fit the beams, for example you may have a 36+72 beams making up a straight rail, but you place a 96cm duct piece into them, which leaves a gap, or you're trying to connect two duct pieces via a corner beam part, while there are duct pieces for inner and outer beam grooves to do that.

i just want a 45 degree beam to fit on a 45 plate without being all janked. like, when i try to shroud my triangle thrusters with plates, and try to put a 45 angle to fit the profile of a single triangle thruster. janky as hell. and even if i do make it work, it looks like shit. im not trying to invent anything. im trying to fit a plate to a beam that has the same shape. i mean, elementary stuff is what im talking about. making things look flush, and clean. another problem with some of these attempts is having this little gap in places that i cant fill. its hard to explain in text. But, i dont mean the gaps you see in peoples ships because they tried some crazy ass shapes and there isnt parts we have to make it work, im talking about some plates just dont meet together in some designs, leaving like, idk, a 6x6 gap or some shit.

Something being "jank" doesn't tell me anything really. You'd be better off sending screenshots or trying that in official Discord channel where people will help you resolve the issues.

 

[DivineEvil]

This is a crummy, tedious, and unintuitive workaround and the game can do better. For example, a toggle option that temporarily enables more snap points would be much better than the clumsiness of using small plates as a hack.

If it was that, then there would be much more feedback for that, but apparently almost nobody have issues with it, and again, all the ships in ship shops were designed with that principle in mind. From my experience, there's a single instance of such lacking snap-points in 100-150 plates, and it can get worse only when you're going into cursed designs.

 

[Recatek]

If it was that, then there would be much more feedback for that, but apparently almost nobody have issues with it

Mostly because the game only has a small number of very long-term players right now (all the short-term players have long since left) that have already internalized these hacky workarounds to the point they no longer realize that they're hacky workarounds. The feedback from most players has been that they just stop playing the game, in part due to all the hacky workarounds that long-term players are now blind to.

 

[Cavilier210]

Mostly because the game only has a small number of very long-term players right now (all the short-term players have long since left) that have already internalized these hacky workarounds to the point they no longer realize that they're hacky workarounds. The feedback from most players has been that they just stop playing the game, in part due to all the hacky workarounds that long-term players are now blind to.

Whoa! I resemble these remarks!

 

[DivineEvil]

Mostly because the game only has a small number of very long-term players right now (all the short-term players have long since left) that have already internalized these hacky workarounds to the point they no longer realize that they're hacky workarounds. The feedback from most players has been that they just stop playing the game, in part due to all the hacky workarounds that long-term players are now blind to.

Interesting. So the only thing that matters is right now, and all the time the game was in Closed Alpha (in which some of those players have became "long-term") is irrelevant? Are those "long-term" players are somehow a different kind of animal compared to new players?

Seriously what is it with people that they are complaining about the player numbers and bring up THEIR OWN problem as part of the situation?

 

[kiiyo]

Interesting. So the only thing that matters is right now, and all the time the game was in Closed Alpha (in which some of those players have became "long-term") is irrelevant? Are those "long-term" players are somehow a different kind of animal compared to new players?

I'm really confuzzled by these couple of sentences, so let me pick them apart and try to respond appropriately. Please tell me if I misinterpreted a statement of yours.

So the only thing that matters is right now, [...]

I assume this questions what timeframe of feedback we're working with, as Recatek's comment replies to a portion of your own post that reads "I don't see much feedback about it". Recatek's post mentions that "there's only a small amount of long-term players left over", implying that if there were an influx of new players right now, we would see much more feedback about snap points and other things that are intrusive and counterintuitive in the new player experience. I assume this means we're looking at feedback in the "right now" point of time, right?

and all the time the game was in Closed Alpha (in which some of those players have became "long-term") is irrelevant?

Well, it isn't irrelevant. The rest of the game changed quite a bit, but the SSC has remained fairly consistent, only getting a few new features here and there during CA. The people who have been there since CA have a LOT more experience with the SSC and its infamously persistent scuff - they've found workarounds, and have practiced them to the point where they don't really count as workarounds anymore - just implicit rules you abide by when working with the SSC.

Actually this whole post is pointless, I literally just reiterated Recatek's point. Can you please reiterate on what you mean by "people bring their own problem into the situation"?

 

[Recatek]

Are those "long-term" players are somehow a different kind of animal compared to new players?

Yes, that's why "fresh eyes" testing is important, and why most major games test in graduated phases. Long-term players acclimate to flaws that alienate new players, and tend to give less useful feedback about those issues over time.

 

[DivineEvil]

-snip-

All I'm trying to point out is that there's no difference between players playing the game in Closed Alpha and players playing the game now.
If the snap-point issues were a substantial problem, it would be addressed. Given that it wasn't, and that SSC was one of the fundamental features of the game, and that testers haven't really seen a problem with using temporary parts to circumvent limitations (and I was one of them). and the sheer amount of ships that were and are still designed despite the current discussion, it isn't really a big deal.

Again, more doesn't immediately means better, and there are technical drawbacks that would come with just slapping snap points everywhere. What might have mad it easier to place individual parts in place would as well might spell a disaster for the rest of the process. Assuming that FB were just "lazy to add more snap points", is naive.

As for feedback that matter more (in my opinion of course, I don't want to appear arrogant), both old and new players feel that the game lacks things to do, and they both feel the EBM was rushed without appropriate testing, even if the former didn't need that feature with their SSC experience. Those are the primary issues right now, and I don't really think adding more snap points would change a situation nearly as much.

 

[Recatek]

If the snap-point issues were a substantial problem, it would be addressed.

There are certainly remaining issues from CA that have yet to be addressed. Just because something hasn't been addressed (yet) doesn't mean it isn't perceived/reported as an issue, including F1 feedback.