This object is in archive! 

Solution for Hydromanning and the Jetpack overpowered issue

Ethan A Bunch shared this feedback 2 years ago
Not Enough Votes

With the Warfare Update 2 in full swing one issue that I've seen the community talk about alot is hydromanning. For those of you who aren't informed that's using a character's jetpack to move around the defenses of a ship and to board the vessel. Destroying it from the inside out. This isn't very balanced and since you can change directions so easily you can easily avoid all weapon's fire ( a tactic I'm sure all of us have used on random encounters) People have come up with various solutions to this issue. One I've seen is a kill zone around the ship with a block however I think this has the potential to be abused by the commnity by making missles to move these. My idea will not only eliminate the issue but also balance the jetpacks in solo survival as well. Here's my list of changes and ill be adding how I envision them helping out the multiplayer experience. I'll touch on how this will help the survival later on in my summary.

________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Limiting jetpack speed to 25 m/s : This change alone could help both aspects of the game. In the obvious hydromanning issue it would allow weapons to track targets more effectively and for them to kill the players that are attempting to board.

2. Fuel consumption is determined on thrust amount: With Hydromanning the tactic is based on quick movements to avoid oncoming gunfire. As far as I've seen the jetpacks just consistently drain fuel unless you run them really hard for a long time. Balance them to consume more fuel with sudden changes in movement or for hard and long burns. It's possible that they do this already but in space the difference is barely noticeable.

3. Limit hydrogen bottles you can carry to one: This one is somewhat debatable since the speed would basically ruin hydromanning anyways but this would mess up a counter to my number 2 change to the jetpack. Simply put this would make long distance journeys impossible. Having multiple tanks would still allow you to travel great distances and manuver very quickly around turrets. This would also balance the jetpack in solo survival so that players can no longer reasonably fly to stations without a ship.

4. Allow these changes to be reverted in game options: Similar to the progression system and other configurable options in the menu these allow you to customize the game experience. This should be the same in case you want to have 100m/s and more powerful packs of before this hypothetical update.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

My goal with these changes is not only to nerf hydromanning in multiplayer combat, but to make the jetpack to what it's supposed to be: a utility tool. Space Engineers work in a multitude of environments and the suit is designed to cope with those including zero G or low gravity environments. However I think these tools are too powerful and turns the engineer from an average human into a superman of sorts. Simply put: why built a ship to get to stations when you can just fly in your suit to them? The goal of the jetpacks is to allow you to do simple one man tasks in space and low gravity and to get yourself unstuck however they have (in my opinion) ruined the progression by allowing a quick way out if you need to get somwhere whether thats planet gravity or space. Ships are our vessels that allow us to do things we normally wouldn't be capable of as engineers whether thats welding or scounting for resources or fighting other players. The fact that the engineer can do major things on their own detracts from the scale of the planets and the work keen has made in making such a large universe to explore. Looking into the real night sky I've always been fascinated with the unimaginable scale of the universe and how truly small we are in the scheme of things. I hope these changes will not only balance combat and make this update even better than it is, but to make the game feel even bigger than before and being that wonder of real space and the scale and challenge of things into Space Engineers.

Replies (2)

photo
1

While it would be ideal to reduce jetpack speed (it makes sense) as many have said before; the jetpack needs to be faster than grids so that it can catch them/move around on them while they're moving. That's just the way they made the game. You can still achieve the same nerf by powering down acceleration and not top speed.

https://support.keenswh.com/spaceengineers/pc/topic/22586-2-glaring-pvp-issues-simple-solutions

I tried to make a similar suggestion but there's simply not enough traffic on this board for 99% of issues to gain any traction.

photo
1

I think is not a matter of top speed but acceleration.

Top speed is required as the comment above said, but high acceleration is what lets you dodge bullets by quickly changing direction. Slow acceleration would not let you dodge bullets, because you wouldn't be able to change direction quick enough, while still being able to catch up your grids

photo
1

Enter a planet with gravity stronger than that nerfed acceleration and you won't be able to fly at all. And no, magically knowing when in gravity and when not in gravity and dictatorially giving you only the acceleration you're "entitled to" at any point of gameplay would be dumb, arbitrary, and suspension-of-disbelief-unsuspending.

photo
1

With a gravity stronger than nerfed acceleration our regular ships wouldn't be able to fly at all.

Your concern makes no sense because max vanilla gravity is 10,8m/s^2, and current jetpack could easily fly under those conditions even at 60% of the current power.


There's a middle ground here, where you can give jetpacks enough thrust to be useful but not enough to dodge bullets, which is the sweetspot we should aim for.

photo
1

Fly, yes. Climb at ~10 m/s² instead of 25 m/s²? Meh, I guess.

But, you know, that doesn't really help you much with the barrel-rolling upon close-in. In fact, it just makes the circles larger.

photo
1

Exactly, larger enough so they are anticipated by the turrets, almost as easily as if it was a straight line, at least that's my point

photo
1

But turrets don't anticipate curves at all, so you're still relying on a lucky hit from a shot deviation. Perhaps you make those hits more likely, but that's about it.

photo
Leave a Comment
 
Attach a file