Oxygen tanks should be able to be told to not take oxygen from generators.

Zachary Paradis shared this feedback 22 months ago
Submitted

This would allow tanks connected to the rest of the conveyor network to be used to depressurize rooms.

Best Answer
photo

TLDR: above/below is a really long, pointless and stupid circle jerk, but I had to grind through it because I wanted to openly and fairly understand the details of the idea and submitted opinions. So to save you from that here's simply what it said:

When an O2 tank fills because it's connected to an O2/H2 Generator (because that's what it does), it doesn't have enough volume (it's full) to later decompress a large room like a Hangar Bay. Instead the massive quantity of air must be vented into space when the door is opened. One argument suggests that players should simply turn off the O2 tank when it's empty or conceive of an automated/engineering way to do that (e.g. with a PB or Timer, Group management, etc). The OP would like a toggle button on each O2 tank to optionally refuse O2 from all Generators. The ugly debate was about whether the toggle should be added because of, poorly delivered but possibly ok reasons (namely a toggle like that would eliminate some of the engineering from the game). Nonetheless, I voted for this idea.

Comments (6)

photo
1

Shut them off

photo
3

And then you can't use them. So what's the point?

photo
1

The point is to engineer solutions to this. Shutting them off was the clue.

photo
3

Aside from the fact that you would then have to turn them on, which would then fill them up. Your 'solution' doesn't work.

photo
1

It wasn't a 'solution', it was a 'clue' as to why this idea is unnecessary.

Here's another: Timerblocks and groups.

photo
5

And again, this is a unnecessary work around to what I want. As soon as the tank is on, it starts filling from the oxygen generators. If the room I am trying to decompress is sufficiently large, the tanks will be full before decompression is complete.


So again, your 'solution' doesn't work, and your clues are unhelpful.

photo
3

I.E. on Earth/Alien planets the generation of O2 from ice is wasteful - getting enough O2 is just 'decompress the planet' (not to mention that on Earth you just take off the helmet).

Or when your Oxygen Farm array is big enough - it will fill O2 tanks albeit slowly.


Most of the time you want to generate H2 from ice, not O2 - that is for statups and emergencies. Otherwise it is just waste of ice.

photo
1

@Zacharay

Oh my solution definitely works, and is no more difficult than setting up the airlock to begin with. I would not be pointing it out if it didn't. I'm not here to play the game for you, just to point out this idea is unnecessary. Figure it out.

photo
4

Yes, it works for small rooms. Not the big ones I want.


Figure it out. So again, your 'solution' is unhelpful.

photo
1

It is helpful. It's helping you to help yourself.

photo
3

@ Zachary Paradis I had gotten into the habit of creating "air dumps" just a few tanks with a vent that was completely segregated from the conveyor system at large, and using them to de-pressurize along with normal vents. This is a valid workaround for your issue, though it would be ideal to be able to control the flow of O2 through the conveyor system... you can sort for everything else... why not gas?

photo
3

@No Thanks Me too, but I would like to not have to make a workaround to something that really should be in the base game.


@Burstar Do you have any argument against this that isn't "You can do this workaround"? As I've already said, that is not what I want, and thus, it is unhelpful.

photo
1

And I've already said it is helpful. Helping you to help yourself.

photo
4

Jesus fucking Christ, yes you have dear. You've also completely ignored everything I have otherwise said, repeating the same thing over and over as if that changes anything.


I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. How is that not clear yet?

photo
1

You don't want to help yourself? So you want to delay development on other useful things, for something that as I've said is unnecessary, all because you can't be bothered to engineer the solution? I think maybe this isn't the game for you.

photo
4

My point is I shouldn't have to do a workaround for something that should already (and just so happens to) exist in the game. We can already sort other things, so why are gases getting the stick? This would literally just be a single Yes/No box on the tank, that I can almost guarantee would not take a lot of time.


What points do you have? Do you have any argument against this that isn't "You can do this workaround"?

photo
1

Now I'm sure this isn't the game for you. The system I use is easier, requires no plumbing headaches or additional blocks. It cuts out the middleman. It's only called a workaround because you're seeing a problem that isn't there. I've clearly explained my quite valid argument. Your inability to see the solution or my valid points only invalidates yours.

photo
3

>The system I use is easier, requires no plumbing headaches or additional blocks.

You never mentioned it not requiring conveyors. Bullshit. You said it requires timer blocks. Bullshit.

>It's only called a workaround because you're seeing a problem that isn't there.

Or, ya'know, because it's a workaround to what I have suggested, and should already be in the game. Are you really that against QoL fixes?

> I've clearly explained my quite valid argument.

BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHA, mother-fucking-bullshit. Cryptic answers that hint at the possibility is not explaining.

>Your inability to see the solution or my valid points only invalidates yours.

That would require a) Me to not see the solution, and b) You having valid points.


Now, if you would like to continue this, quit ignoring what I'm typing, say whatever the fuck you mean (I'm pretty sure I know already, but I am curious to know if I am right on that), and maybe actually try to rebut the argument for this change, instead of arguing that it isn't needed because your solution works well enough, when this would be better. Or, just fuck off, since you wanna be cryptic, vague, and then claim you explained everything clearly.

photo
5

Keep it civil, please.


I think this debate is a misunderstanding because of the way how O2/H2 generator is implemented.


In reality you split water by electrolysis, and from 1kg of water (Ice) you should get around 11l of O2 AND 22l of H2 (at 1bar pressure).

But for propulsion you should use BOTH O2 and H2 at the same ratios, thus no O2 left to breathe.


With current implementation of O2/H2 generators I think it would be sufficient to add 'Generate O2/Generate H2' checkboxes to each generator, by default both checked on.

photo
1

The issue with adding a checkbox to the generator is that when the ice is broke down you'd be getting the oxygen and hydrogen regardless. So while the checkbox would in theory prevent the gens from starting to fill oxygen tanks it might waste oxygen when the gen is filling hydro tanks.


Zachary Paradis:


">The system I use is easier, requires no plumbing headaches or additional blocks.

You never mentioned it not requiring conveyors. Bullshit. You said it requires timer blocks. Bullshit.

>It's only called a workaround because you're seeing a problem that isn't there.

Or, ya'know, because it's a workaround to what I have suggested, and should already be in the game. Are you really that against QoL fixes?

> I've clearly explained my quite valid argument.

BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHA, mother-fucking-bullshit. Cryptic answers that hint at the possibility is not explaining.

>Your inability to see the solution or my valid points only invalidates yours.

That would require a) Me to not see the solution, and b) You having valid points.


Now, if you would like to continue this, quit ignoring what I'm typing, say whatever the fuck you mean (I'm pretty sure I know already, but I am curious to know if I am right on that), and maybe actually try to rebut the argument for this change, instead of arguing that it isn't needed because your solution works well enough, when this would be better. Or, just fuck off, since you wanna be cryptic, vague, and then claim you explained everything clearly."


I'm just going to rest my case here. You're clearly not worth discussing this any further. Your idea is a myopic solution to a problem that isn't there. It consequently wastes time on its development (regardless of how little you 'guarantee' it would take, it's still wasted).


You either see what the solution is, in which case you understand the futility of your argument (which explains your repugnant behaviour), or you don't. If you don't, see the previous paragraph.


I bid you good day sir.

photo
2

@Burstar: AFAIK current implementation is that Generator can produce 9l of gas from 1kg Ice.


So any of:

- 9l of H2 per 1kg of ice, if there is only H2 demand

- or 9l of O2 per 1kg of ice, if there is only O2 demand

- or 4.5l of H2 and 4.5l of O2 per 1kg of ice (both O2 and H2 demand)


Thus the 'checkbox on O2 generation' can help to save ice for H2 only - if you get your O2 from other sources, or think there is enough of it in O2 tank.


All engineers using Hydrogen Thrusters needs much more H2 than O2, and in small craft every kg of mass counts ...

photo
1

In it's current implementation it's 10L/kg. I was using proper H2O logic as you had brought that up. It's one of those things that I hope gets fixed during polishing. Along with things like the density of ice currently being ~2.7kg/L....

photo
3

@Burstar

I already have a solution. I want it to be made easier. That was the whole fucking point of making this thing. But you decided that you needed to just keep repeating the same thing(Even after I said I had a solution, the same one as @No Thanks) over and over instead of actually reading anything I typed. And I could say the exact same things about you, that actually have more weight, because you added literally nothing to this post.


Maybe if instead of focusing on your workaround, and actually discussed the idea itself, you may have gotten somewhere. Two things I would like to point out though

>Now I'm sure this isn't the game for you.

My ~1500 hours say otherwise, and

>it's still wasted

Why are you so certain the dev time would be wasted? Are you saying this feature would be literally useless? In that case, why is it being asked for? Why are you being so arrogant instead of open-minded? Is there really something wrong with a suggestion, which is all it is, that you feel the need to arrogantly assume it would not only be a waste to implement, but also that the person suggesting it is somehow less of a person because they don't want to switch to your workaround? Cause that is what you have been doing.


I bid you a good day, and hope I never have to meet you in person. You sound like a horrible one with no social awareness.

photo
3

@Domingo

I'm not sure what he is arguing. I just want more control over where oxygen goes, and he is suggesting I set up something to work around the problem, which doesn't really get rid of the problem.

photo
1

I can't believe it. 1500 hours and you're REALLY staring at an O2/H2 Generator consuming ice to fill an O2 tank with NO IDEA how to stop it.

No. don't take the bait Burstar he's not worth it....

photo
3

I have plenty of idea how to stop it. I want an easier way to designate which ones are to get it. Having to turn them off every time I want to use the tanks, and then turn the tanks off when I need the generators on (Which is all the time, BTW) is not an acceptable workaround.


Separating them from the conveyor system is a decent one, and works well enough. But I want a better option. Is that too much to ask?

photo
1

and there's the rabbit hole I was trying to avoid.

BS, of course you do, (BS), yes it is because groups.

The game is called Space ENGINEERS, not CAD for 8 year olds. You're saying setting up a group and using on off switches is too hard. If that's the case give up on airlocks, use an airlock door mod and stop trying to dumb the game down for the rest of us.

photo
4

How the fuck...?

That's not an acceptable workaround. I should be able to automate everything (or near everything). Which this does not fall under.


How is this 'dumbing the game down'? Is there something wrong with having more features that allow you to control the flow of resources easier? If that's what you call 'dumbing down' the game, then I am near certain that this is not the game for you. You can take your needless complexity elsewhere. There is a difference between depth and complexity, and while complexity can give depth, it does not always do so, and in some cases is even detrimental. This is one of those cases. I can control the flow of literally every other resource, why not this one?


I never said it was too hard, it's just an extra step I shouldn't have to do, but of course you can't appreciate that because you would prefer to have to do everything manually. And a) I have an airlock block mod, but only because it's smaller, so it fits better into my current design. And b) I've setup airlocks before, and they do work well. They could just work better, which you seem unable to appreciate.

photo
4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVL4st0blGU


Here you go. Watch this. Then tell me the more complex way of doing something as simple as not losing your air is good complexity.

photo
1

So you think setting up a group and using on/off switches, a core mechanic in the game, is too hard. I'm sorry that this is your reality. Again, use a sealed door mod to solve your non-problem, or perhaps colouring books would be more your style?

photo
4

Sigh. You don't understand that having to set this up for your survival is bad? I shouldn't have to use complex things to simply survive in the game. Again, complexity is not depth. What you want, is depth. You seem to think that it and complexity are the same thing, hence why you are arguing so vehemently against the removal of anything the gives even a modicum of complexity, but you're wrong. So, go back to your hole where you came from, where there are uninteresting things to do in the name of 'complexity'.


If you want to keep insulting me, how about you do so with more finesse and substance than "HA, you suck!"

photo
1

If you consider using groups and on/off toggles complex you are ineligible to evaluate other peoples comprehension level. This is not an insult, it's an unfortunate truth.

I will continue to argue against this unnecessary 'idea' if it will increase the chance that Keen will delay wasting time on it until all other more useful ideas have been implemented.

photo
4

I don't consider it complex. I consider it complex to be doing for basic survival. You can't seem to wrap your head around that.


I have no problem doing it, if it wasn't for the fact that you have to do it for basic survival.


And you have yet to explain how it would be a waste of time, aside from you not wanting it.

photo
1

You don't consider it complex, you consider it 'complex'... Clearly you have an issue with logic as evidenced by this contradiction.

I've explained it clearly. You not understanding the explanation does not mean it wasn't given. Good thing to, because it's not you I need to convince.

photo
4

Sigh. Again, you are not understanding it. I shouldn't have to do something like that to simply survive. That is the end of the discussion, unless you can come up with some reason why simply surviving should be complex for no fucking reason.

photo
1

Yes, I know. Switches and groups are hard. Poor you. Guess you don't survive. Yay Darwin!

photo
3

Useful idea if implemented on hydrogen tanks. Shame this discussion had to turn into a circle jerk.

photo
2

Right? Just a pointless argument now.

photo
3

@Zachary Paradis


Usually best to just ignore these single minded type of people. I think I get what you are trying to say and that is a request for an easier officially implemented method to doing what you are trying to do, instead of having to resort to a "work around" regardless of how easy it is to set up too.


There is nothing wrong with making that kind of suggestion and often times little QoL additions to a game can legitimately make big differences to the over all flow of a playthrough. I'm not saying this particular issue is one of those but I am also not a game developer nor use that kind of function in game anyways so I can't make that kind of judgement.

photo
3

@Pyrald Lystent


Anything you want to add? And, I'm not sure how this would be useful on hydrogen tanks?

@No Thanks

I'm disengaging from it. He's one of those that won't be convinced.

@Prior of the Ori

Thanks for that.

And to all three of you, if there is something you want to discuss about it, I'm open to it.

photo
1

Nice try. If you made a cogent argument, or even argued civilly I would have entertained you, and if you were really disengaging you'd shut your pie hole and not even refer to me.

Pay attention to Prior. His second paragraph is an example of a good counter argument. He's dead wrong about me being single minded however.

photo
7

You are shutting someones suggestion out purely because a "work around" solution already exists and started off being incredibly snippy just because he wasn't accepting your solution to begin with. You didn't even start off presenting a counter argument in an appropriate way. You just wen't to straight to using vague answers in the guise of basically saying "deal with it". That kind of attitude can be detrimental to the development of a game that relies on community input. Dumb ideas are better than no ideas, at least you might be able to get something out of them, or part of them, OR know what NOT to do.


This particular kind of idea is similar in essentiality to the popular ladder suggestion. It is a small QoL feature that is highly requested and is finally being answered in a future update. There is a current solution to the lack of ladders right now that most use through grav gens, pistons, mods, etc (ie: "engineering a solution"). So this kind of suggestion should deserve some merit, if for nothing more than an appropriate exchange of dialogue on the matter.


Instead of someone responding in a stuck up defensive manner indicative of someone defending a piece of masterwork art. You didn't know if he's played long enough to devise a work around or not. You could have been more positive and asked him what he has done and present a counter perspective. Your first 4 comments are literally you starting off not providing a cogent argument, you were being short and rude. You can't expect anyone to give you a cogent argument after that.


Now his response back may have gotten out of hand as well, but it is clearly a reaction of someone who was passionate about this idea and was possibly interested discussing it properly but was met with a toxic response from the "community". Unless you are going to provide an appropriate perspective, you should probably avoid commenting on threads you don't like.

photo
1

My reasoning for seeing a purpose in this feature on the hydrogen tanks is for those grids that use hydrogen, but are too small for an oxygen tank. In those cases, having ice may be the only way to fill the suit's oxygen tank and/or any oxygen bottles.

I ran into a design that would've benefited from this feature when I was running a some time ago. I got by by limiting the oxygen generator's 'on' time to one second. But, it was not attached to a cockpit, so I did not have any reason to leave it 'on'. If it were attached to a cockpit, I would desire to leave it on so that I can go far longer distances without having to constantly check my suit oxygen supply.

photo
1

I don't really do a lot of complex builds as most of my grids were designed for a PvP survival server so my knowledge may be a bit limited here but what I am envisioning with this idea is a large air tight hangar bay with it's own designation O2 tanks either lined along one of the hangar bays walls or behind a window (for aesthetics) and these O2 tanks are set to ignore O2 gens via the proposed "check box", and suck up the air in the hangar when it needs to be depressurized and opened and etc etc when closed without the use of timer blocks and so on.


Basically with helping condense builds and otherwise avoiding setting up annoying complex systems, though I only see this necessary if you still want to keep the O2 tanks conveyored to the main conveyor lines instead of having their own dedicated conveyor setup separated from all other conveyors in a grid. I can see this for dealing with emergency air leaks. The tanks should be set to hold a specific amount of air that is appropriate for a specific room, if that room has a leak while pressurized, you will need a way to refill the lost air when the tanks have depressurized a room so keeping a connection to the O2 gens could come in handy. Once properly filled they can be "disconnected" from the O2 gens again and return to normal operations.


I don't know if any of this makes sense or if I am even on the right purpose, I am just shy of 2k hours my self and surprisingly I have never messed with this kind of stuff or air pressurization in general so what the fuck do I know. lol But a proper discussion on this matter could be important to me if I want to get into something like this.

photo
3

@Zachary Your first mistake was engaging that guy at all.. he has a bit of a history of making pointlessly detrimental and combative arguments both here and on the forums previously. I was dumb enough to engage him once and it became a pointless mess, much like this. And I realize saying this is just going to trigger him again, which is fine with me since he literally can't stop himself from being a trollish contrarian. My advice, if you ever see him pop up on your thread again with anything... just ignore it. He seems to have a particular hate fetish for any attempts to control oxygen through conveyors. Which is nothing if not hilariously dumb.

https://support.keenswh.com/spaceengineers/general/topic/oxygen-control-on-conveyers

photo
1

Here's how I see it. At the start I saw an unnecessary solution that would waste dev time and risk adding more bugs to the game. I gave hints as to the work around without spoiling it so that the apparent novice would figure out the solution himself and not have the game played for him. As with No Thanks, immediately it is ignored or rebuked even though I have 3x his game experience and instead of it being considered, told it won't work. Could have said "I dont see how it would work, I won't mind if you spoil it by explaining it to me" but clearly was the kind of person that doesn't behave that way. That is why this 'conversation spiraled'. Because when you don't deserve respect you don't get it.


Grouping the Tanks and Gens together, and offsetting their on status so only one type at a time is on, is core game play. You must know how to create groups and use the g-bar to play this game at the level of designing airlocks and hangars, so it's not more difficult. It keeps with the theme of the game.

Using a group is also expandable. It would work fine for your large hangar setup. And, I might add, save power. I think the underlying issue is that for some reason the games state as it is fosters the idea that O2 gens should be running all the time. Asking someone to consider shutting a generator off is like asking them to pull off their arm.


Bottom line: There is already a method to do what is being asked that requires no added PCU cost, is a mechanic you already know and use all the time, and spending ANY development time on this is therefore lost time that would be better spent working on ladders, or a better inventory UI, or fixing bugs, or considering water, or feeding clang, and on and on, and does not risk adding yet more bugs to the game or possibly dilute the reinforcement of core game mechanics.

It's not that the idea has no merit at all. It's that it doesn't have to be implemented, and if it is, should be done last (or among the other cosmetic changes that can wait until polish).

photo
2

@Pyrald Lystent

That seems to be an issue of the generator attached to the cockpit more than this? On small grids, oxygen generators have 2 small ports that line up nicely with the two on the back of the cockpit, and on a large grid, I just put the cockpit on the generator. Maybe I'm missing something here?

@Prior of the Ori

Yep, that's basically it. A large hangar that I currently have 4 oxygen tanks with 8 air vents that have to be inside it to depressurize so I can open it. Those tanks could be elsewhere, with the air vents placed more out of the way.


@No Thanks

Your username is appropriate for arguing with @Burstar. I checked out that link, and wow burstar, what the fuck is wrong with you? You call him condescending, and then put the onus on him to apologize for it when you are not only the only one that thought so, but then refused to point it out? Seems like he wasn't, so that's why you couldn't point it out, and you decided to be an ass for no reason.


Here's an idea, you shut up, and let the grownups do the talking. Then when you have learned some basic human decency by observing, you can join us.

photo
1

I'm decent to humans, and that's good enough for me.

photo
4

See? Told you. He literally can't stop himself. Far too easy to trigger to be any fun really. At any rate O2 control through conveyors on a game about engineering, to me seems like just one more bit of "engineering" that can be done, but the Devs are too busy preparing DLC to be bought after the games "release" so I suspect most, if not all the functional changes are already in place, sad to say.

photo
3

Being delusional is not a reason to be a dick.


Well, they've marked airtightness as in-progress, and that's no small task. Maybe we'll get this before then, maybe not. Given that everything else is already controlled by conveyors, it doesn't seem like it would be hard to make gasses affected too.

photo
1

Hardly triggered No T. Amused that you're still salty over a post a month old. A good thing came of this though. You found a friend to cry into each others drink with.

photo
3

@burstar


Then leave this thread. Clearly you don't care for the topic and want to provide anything in an appropriate positive manner. You only care about making snappy comebacks and dragging someone else's thread down.


@No Thanks


lol, I see it too. I didn't see you get condescending first. But he did use his short snippy advice as usual then resort to a typical insult when you provided a proper counter argument. Interesting tidbit, he even posted seemingly pointless suggestions himself, even regretting one of them yet has the audacity to go into someone else's thread and be a condescending dbag. Wish there was a report function.

---


I'v been playing a lot of Oxygen Not Included lately and messing around with the gas flow/sorting mechanics and having something similar in SE would be pretty rad. If for nothing more than just aesthetics in bases for me. But I can see a lot of practical uses for this.

photo
1

@Prior I respond in kind. For example I have not been uncivil with you because you have yet to behave like an animal. As for your point regarding me having a bad idea and wanting to retract it: What is your point here? That I'm human and sometimes let my enthusiasm get the better of me, until I acknowledge rational arguments and concede there is a better way? Do you expect me to be superhuman, not acknowledge good arguments, or both?


Not having played ONI I can't comment on its game mechanics. I will comment on the fact that it's advertisement picture leads me to believe that it is exactly what I'm trying to avoid: a kid's game.

photo
3

I pointed out that you are being hypocritical. I actually liked the idea of the player character holding their breath for 30 seconds at least while in the suite. Many a mad dashes for O2 I have made in my old PvP server because I wasn't paying attention to my O2 levels during intense moments. See, people can still like your idea and have some positive feedback even when the idea isn't entirely practical, even if I they are beginning to not like you as a person.


As for your behavior, I stated 12 posts ago in my first paragraph. As for ONI, it definitely is not a kids game. I take it you tend to judge things by their covers too much? If high complex engineering interests you, I highly recommend it, as it is far more challenging than SE. So long as you don't mind a 2 dimensional game.

photo
3

This isn't the place for this discussion and quite frankly it was old before it even started. I'm going to end my side of this here.


As for the OP, my vote is in favor of the suggestion. I personally can see many practical uses for this and even though my knowledge of coding is severely limited, I do know that adding something as simple as a checkbox that enables/disables O2 Gen use would be incredibly easy and quick to implement. As for sorter gas flows, that is out of my scope but would be interesting to have. I have always been interested in more gas types too, though i'm not sure what other gases would be used for SE. Most of that idea was from a discussion I had with a few friends about flooding a compartment with toxic gas to kill boarders lol. But that is off topic. xD

photo
1

See, I'm not being hypocritical. My issue isn't with the sharing of an idea, it's with the idea itself, and refusing to acknowledge or refute valid premises contradictory to the idea, and using critique as a reason to attack the person. There's a difference.

Which brings me to your shameful ad hominem. Making assumptions about how I judge books based on how I perceived an ad specifically intended to be judged, only reveals your poor reasoning skills. Especially after I went out of my way to point out that I wasn't judging the game, but it's appearance. Despite this evidence that your opinions are based on flawed reasoning, I will still take a look at it when it's out of EA.

As for being liked: Not here to make friends, just to keep this game from being bollocks.

"They hated him, for he told the truth".

photo
3

Ugh. It's not an assumption, it was a question. And you again resort to insults. Your comment about the games appearance and statement about it being a "kids game" was entirely irrelevant and didn't even need to be mentioned for it would serve no purpose towards any kind of discuss on it. It is literally impossible to perceive it as nothing more than a condescending comment. If you continue to desire to get the last word in, we can take this elsewhere. I find arguing with stubborn pessimists to be intriguing.

photo
1

Facts aren't insults, they are unfortunate truths. Saying 'you don't know what rhetorical questions are' is a fact supported by evidence. If I called you 'stupid' for not knowing that, that would be an insult. Calling me 'stubborn' after showing you know I concede to valid arguments is an insult, and a poor one at that. I don't know how to make this clearer: I don't care what you find intriguing. I care that this game not become CAD for 8 year olds.

photo
2

>I respond in kind. For example I have not been uncivil with you because you have yet to behave like an animal.


The irony here is hilarious.

photo
1

I think it's more amusing that you don't know what irony means.

photo
2

I suppose it would be more hypocritical, but still


>Irony, in its broadest sense, is a rhetorical device, literary technique, or event in which what appears, on the surface, to be the case, differs radically from what is actually the case.


You're claiming everyone else is 'acting like animals' and conveniently leaving out the fact that you yourself are acting like the worst one. Irony. And massive hypocrisy. I will restate a marvelous idea that I'm sure you could benefit from, plus an observation on your state of being.


Being delusional is not a reason to be a dick.

And

You shut up, and let the grownups do the talking. Then when you have learned some basic human decency by observing, you can join us.

photo
1

Congratulations. An attempt at self-correction. Perhaps there's hope for you yet, however, I have not claimed 'everyone else is acting like animals' just a select few.

You're deluded if you think the rest of your statement does anything but prove my point.

photo
2

You know what? Fuck it. Self righteous assholes like you will never change.


@Domingo

Since you seem to have power here, why is a) there not a report function, and b) Burstar still here? In just this thread he has displayed incapability to communicate with his 'lessers' as he puts it, without resorting to insults, assholery, and general rudeness. Given his behaviour, ie, blaming everyone except him, he is not fit for human interaction, anonymous, in person, or otherwise. Please do something about it.

photo
1

Really? YOU are going to request moderation regarding vulgar behaviour? See thing is, not liking what I have to say doesn't make it rude or any other of your choice terms. I'm here to give my opinion on the idea and respond to its criticism. If you can't do that in a civil manner, that is not my fault.

photo
3

@Zachary I am too just ordinary user, my powers on this board aren't different from you (and I wouldn't have time nor energy to do policing anyway in the case somebody from Keen notices this :p )


===> But guys ... could you just agree to disagree, move on and stop to respond to each other for a while ? Nobody but you really read this thread anymore, for everyone other it is just another of the circle-fucks. This "conversation" does not bring any new/interesting informations.

photo
4

Burstar oh god plz get grown up. The Request is totally valid and plz stop dragging it down by useless assumptions, insults or discussions which are away from the topic itself.

photo
3

Seriously people, engaging him is both pointless and detrimental. Just cut him out of your discussion. Rise above. Continue to support this idea if you so choose, but don't keep acknowledging him. There are a decent number of people that agree that control of gases through conveyor systems is a helpful idea... Focus on that. I for one think that the fact this game claims to be an engineering game is cause to add more options, not less. Being able to determine what gases pass through what areas of your grid is nothing if not another engineering option.

photo
1

See No T. has the right idea, but not the capacity to follow through. Just stop referring to me or using the same discredited logic. That's it. Keep your metaphorical mouth shut. You've said your peace, just don't. But you can't. You have to say something. Just let it go and be so proud of yourself that you could do what you demanded others do for once.

photo
2

@Domingo

I'm of the opinion that assholes should be reported whenever they are being such. Do we have moderators on this forum?


@Burstar

Stop trolling.

photo
1

Just couldn't help yourself could you?

I'm not trolling, I'm responding.

photo
2

troll2


trōl/


verb

gerund or present participle: trolling


  1. 1.
    INFORMAL
    make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

Stop trolling.

photo
1

I'll say it again. Slower this time:

I. Am. Not. Trolling.

It's all responses. It's not my fault you haven't either posted anything relevant for me to reply to, or did so without some amount of rudeness. I've given you the solution if it really bothers you. It's right there a couple posts up.

photo
6

Hi Everyone,


Thanks for all time and effort you've put into this feature/conversation.


However, @Zachary, @Burstar and everyone else who has commented here, please remember to be respectful of one another and avoid cursing or using any derogatory terms.


Cheers! :)

photo
photo
4

TLDR: above/below is a really long, pointless and stupid circle jerk, but I had to grind through it because I wanted to openly and fairly understand the details of the idea and submitted opinions. So to save you from that here's simply what it said:

When an O2 tank fills because it's connected to an O2/H2 Generator (because that's what it does), it doesn't have enough volume (it's full) to later decompress a large room like a Hangar Bay. Instead the massive quantity of air must be vented into space when the door is opened. One argument suggests that players should simply turn off the O2 tank when it's empty or conceive of an automated/engineering way to do that (e.g. with a PB or Timer, Group management, etc). The OP would like a toggle button on each O2 tank to optionally refuse O2 from all Generators. The ugly debate was about whether the toggle should be added because of, poorly delivered but possibly ok reasons (namely a toggle like that would eliminate some of the engineering from the game). Nonetheless, I voted for this idea.

photo
3

TLDR:

>Room gets pressurised

>Oxygen Tanks gets filled

>Nowhere for Oxygen to go when you want to depressurise the room

>No choice but to vent Oxygen out into space

>Need way to set a "reserve" volume / tank to be able to depressurise rooms without farting around in control panel turning things on & off and without needing half a dozen timers


Voted!

photo
2

separate vents and tank, not connected to the main conveyor network

photo
3

Yes, but there is a better way, which is what this suggestion is for.


If they are on a separate conveyor network, you can't use them for anything else. And you have to have the extra tanks specifically for that.

photo
2

Oh, so THAT'S why in my airlock experiments in a survival (Crashed Red) my room doesn't depressurise!! My O₂ tank is simply full! –

Thanks for the clarification, Boromir and CptSavarus, that was what helped me understand this request. I understand the use case, and can see why and when this would be useful, but I personally have yet to use so little hydrogen in my gameplay that I can even remotely use the oxygen that is created along the way in an appreciable ratio, meaning that there will always be waste of either product: It's not like the generator stops dissociating ice into H₂ or O₂ as soon as just one of the respective tanks is full, or is it?

tl;dr I do not think that an additional toggle would significantly improve the efficiency (read: reduce waste) of an oxygen system unless the source of oxygen is slow and expensive.

photo
1

There is an even better way where you can connect the tanks to the conveyor network and control whether it gets filled by toggling the tanks on and the generators off as needed. Idea is unnecessary.

photo
2

Or, get this, we could have this implemented and not have to do those unnecessary clicks.


You've already explained how you feel, I've explained how I feel. We will never agree, so how about we just not? You stay out of here, cause there's nothing more to say.

photo
1

You could take your own advice, and there is definitely more to say. It took KSH 5 months to add things like a reskinned/resized battery, 2 years for blocks previously teased, they're all bugged in one way or another, and you want to add another switch? Do you see why I would be concerned?

I for one would like this game finished before 2020 without Marek metaphorically washing his hands of it.

photo
2

Yes, cause that's the only thing they did in that time.

photo
1

and that makes it ok.

photo
2

This Burstar guy just can't leave it alone …

photo
2

@Burstar And why not? The results does not give the circumstances.


@andersenman Ikr? At the very least, this is still my suggestion, so replies from me are to be expected.

photo
1

An unnecessary idea that wastes time needs to be contested. I'm happy to continue to do so as long as is necessary. And every time someone says "wow this is a good idea" I'm gonna point out how that is not the case and hope reason trumps pride.

photo
2

It's only unnecessary in your eyes. Not objectively. Kindly shut up, and let people decide for themselves.

photo
1

Kindly do the same and I will.

photo
2

This is my suggestion. I'm not going to stop responding just because some stubborn troll wants me to. If anyone responds, and actually has something to add, I will respond to that.


You, on the other hand, have said nothing new.

photo
1

If anyone responds and has something to add, I will also add my reasoned critique of it whether you like it or not.

photo
2

Oh why shall one bother.

photo
2

Best entertainment ever!!!

photo
3

@Burstar... you & I get on ok on Steam and I don't want to throw a spanner in that but really bud, why not just let it drop & be content for the votes to speak for themselves. That's what this platform is for & that's why there's no downvote button. The tally will do what it'll do regardless of how vehemently you disagree with it, so surely it's easier not to spend the energy on it, right.

It's not neccessary to agree with @Zachary's suggestion - If people want it they'll vote for it. If they don't they wont. All this bickering does is get tempers flared; and if anything, by continuing to argue the point, you're just giving further exposure to the suggestion by keeping it relevant & bulked out with comments. If you hate the idea that much & want it to die then it'd make more sense for you to walk away & let it.

No hard feelings ok - I'm just saying it as I see it.

photo
1

@CptSavarus precisely because there is no downvote button, and because someone can bump a 3 month or 1 month old idea and immediately make it relevant again. I've said that I don't take this personally, and have been happy to keep quiet in the meantime.

There is a subset of the community that wants to take what little engineering there is out of the game. I consider this similar to requesting elevator blocks, or Nanite Factories as vanilla. I understand wanting these things because if you don't want the hassle, fine., but use a mod. Don't dumb the challenge out of it for those that want it. This is literally the only puzzle in the game other than reaching space from the surface. Something you'll recall is also constantly complained about.

photo
3

How about you stop being a dick, and condescending to everyone that doesn't agree with you, hmm?

"There is a subset of the community that wants to take what little engineering there is out of the game."

That is so amazingly condescending.


You've said your piece. Repeating it in the way you are helps nobody, and I'm willing to bet actively detracts from your argument.


"I consider this similar to requesting elevator blocks, or Nanite Factories as vanilla."

And you have that right. Does not make you right.


"I understand wanting these things because if you don't want the hassle, fine., but use a mod."

Yes, I don't want to have to use more space and power when it's already at a premium in my builds, thank you very much.


"Don't dumb the challenge out of it for those that want it."

How on earth would this remove any challenge? Clicking is not a challenge. Setting up timers, and finding a script on the workshop, is not a challenge.


"This is literally the only puzzle in the game other than reaching space from the surface."

Setting up airlocks is not a challenge.


So again, how about you stop being a condescending dick to everyone that doesn't agree with you, hmm?

photo
1

If it's not a challenge, why did I have to spell out my solution to you? Also, if it's not a challenge then your idea is also unnecessary so you're arguing against yourself here.

Bottom line, this idea renders many peoples creative solutions pointless and removes gameplay for those of us interested in it. Use a mod and leave us alone.

photo
3

@Burstar... Who is the "us" that should be left alone? I'm not sure who it is you think you're representing with your argument. There are no subsets in the community - there's no "us vs them". It's not "defend the flag". Every player has his / her own individual thoughts on what's a good idea & what's not. Sometimes players will agree with other players and sometimes they wont but it's not a collaborative effort of one group against another, defending what's "right" at all costs. We don't buy the game & pick a "side".

Personally I'm in the game for all the challenges I can possibly create for myself but often what I would consider a light challenge, others will see as an outright impossibility. The other side of that coin is that what some might consider a challenge, I might consider boring, tedious & an annoying obstacle to what I want to build & how I want to play.

What's being suggested doesn't detract from any engineering challenges at all. Turning a block on & off isn't a challenge, it's an inconvenience. Building a separate Oxygen system isn't a challenge when you've done it 100,000 times, it's a waste of resources & space that could otherwise be occupied by something more practical. Setting up a bunch of timers & an airlock isn't a challenge the 50 millionth time you build one, it's just another thing you can choose to do if you want to.

If people want to consider those things as challenges then that's fine - having the option that @Zachary's suggesting doesn't remove the possibility to do those things & make your own challenge out of how you do them. All this suggestion does is add a convenient option for those of us who don't necessarily want a bulky secondary oxygen system in their ships and would rather not ponce around in a menu setting up timers & sensors or turning things on & off when there's a perfectly reasonable alternative being suggested.

The solutions you & others have described here are old hat to me - I've found a million ways to build all of those things & would now just like the option to not have to build them in every ship I create. It's needless & boring and it means that all ships end up needing a ton of unnecessary stuff in order to pull of a simple function that should be achievable by way of a toggle setting.

I have no interest in trying to change your mind but honestly, I don't understand why you'd be so dead set against this suggestion for those who want it. It wouldn't ruin the game for you - you'd be free to ignore it & build some huge contraption to do the same job. It would however improve it for the likes of me & @Zachary, who don't want to have no choice but to build that stuff.

In any event, you've said your piece & keeping on with the same argument over & over wont reduce the number of votes or stop people voting if they like the idea.

I've also said my piece in support of it now, so I'm out. Unless you're just here to troll the topic, I'd politely suggest that you save your energy & follow suit.

@Zachary... to you I'd just say ignore and don't continue to bite. You wont change @Burstars mind & the more you engage the more he'll respond / the more the topic will degenerate / the more the conversation will go around & around in circles.

Good luck with the topic @Zachary. I hope it gets a ton of votes.

Peace guys. I'm gone!

photo
1

I'm sorry, but no. You're framing this opposite what would actually happen. Enacting this idea removes the need for any solutions. You'd be taking a problem that needs solving away. It may be old hat to you, but that's what projectors are for. If it's something that you don't want to have to deal with, you should be using a mod instead of putting this in vanilla to take it away from everyone else.


This game has engineering in the title. People are going to buy this thinking there will be puzzles to solve. That is what I mean by 'us'. If everything has a one click solution, what's the point of playing? Put the legos together in a shape that pleases you and smash them together? That is not what I want and I know I'm not alone.


Are there people that this kind of problem is too frustrating to figure out? Sure. Mods, or in MP they can work together with people like me who might not share their artistic skill, but love problem solving. That's why I enjoy this game as that's where the teamwork shines.

This idea takes gameplay away whether you like that gameplay (now or ever) or not. As a mod, I'd definitely support it 100%. Vanilla? No, thank you kindly.

photo
3

"You'd be taking a problem that needs solving away."


And you're actively trying to keep busywork in the game.


Again, you already explained your position. More ranting is not going to change anything, especially with how you're acting.

photo
1

At the level of building pressurizable hangars the entire game is busy work. Survival mode is busy work. Piping is busy work.. Fuel and power concerns are busy work. Heck why not just remove pressurization in the first place because that would improve the games performance and make it easy enough for you. You want boring? Lets talk mining as a tedious unnecessary make work project.

No, there are SO many reasons to not implement this idea that at this point you're the one trolling for sticking with it. You're just making excuses for your stubbornness.


As for behaviour, people in glass houses and all that.

photo
2

"No, there are SO many reasons to not implement this idea"

List them then. And they cannot be opinions.

photo
2

I'd rather not Burstar lists them. After all, this is a proposal to the entire game, not to his playstyle, and I'm getting sick of notification e-mails for this thread that only document how this thread is going nowhere. At the end of the day, Keen are the ones who decide what's a waste of dev resources and what isn't, not BS.

photo
1

You can click 'stop following' @andersenman at the top, if it's really bothering you that much.

@Zachary how about you pay attention to what was said this entire post. Proves my point. You're not listening to reason, just defending your pride.

photo
2

"You can click 'stop following'"

583e4a226de7e086559512886979d1bf

photo
2

"@Zachary how about you pay attention to what was said this entire post. Proves my point. You're not listening to reason, just defending your pride."

The pot is calling the kettle black. And I said no opinions.


You should stop following, since you can't seem to keep your unwanted opinions out of other people's business. You have already clearly stated your opinion. And further discourse from you is useless.

photo
1

Your inability to recognize facts does not make them opinions. This will take away gameplay. "not for you" yeah, not good enough.

No no, you it's correctly pronounced 'further discourse with you is useless', except it isn't. You already know the solution. But you can't do it so round and round we go.

photo
2

"Your inability to recognize facts does not make them opinions."

You saying they are facts does not make them not opinions.


No, I shouldn't have to use more space, and programming time to do something that should be able to be done at the click of a button. You are literally arguing to keep busywork in the game.


Now, again, stop responding. There is nothing more for you to say. You've been saying the same things over and over, and getting nowhere. But at least you aren't as big an asshole now.

photo
1

If only it could be said the same for you.

So you don't even understand the difference between truth obtained from valid argumentation, and the illusion of truth borne of poor reasoning and personal beliefs. Why am I not surprised. Here let me boil it down for you in words you can understand: Fake news, people play this game in ways you do not enjoy:Fact. Implementing this idea removes that gameplay for them:Fact. Using a mod would solve your problem and not remove this gameplay for other people:Fact. Poggers! A fundamental truth that your disagreeing with, or not caring about, does not change!

photo
2

Stop trolling, or prove you aren't.

photo
1

Ah the last gasps of a lost cause. Nice try.

photo
2

Fine. What would you lose by this being implemented? You can still do all those solutions you are so fond of. Does having this as an option not allow you to do them?

photo
1

Already been explained. Save yourself the time in the future, and just say 'bump'.

photo
2

Except that would not be lost. You wouldn't have to use it. The fact that you think you would have to is absurd, and is a problem with you, not the suggestion.


So again, what would you lose? This would be in addition to, not replacing.

photo
1

Already explained. You not understanding is not my problem.

photo
2

just have a depressurising tank on a separate conveyor loop, engineer the solution :)

photo
2

This thread is like the Energizer Bunny. It just goes on and on and on...

photo
2

@Burstar

No, you gave unrelated reasons. There is nothing wrong with adding more options. Your argument is not based on this feature by itself. As far as I can tell, you have nothing against the feature itself. So why are you arguing?


Humour me. What do you lose by this feature being added, gameplay wise?


@Nikolas March

Yes, that has already been suggested, and is what I'm doing now, but it takes up a lot of space, especially with all the air vents that need to be connected to pressurize and depressurize at a decent pace.


@Spaceman Spiff

New power source in SE?

photo
1

How about you humour me, find and actually consider the answer(s) I've already given you instead of dismissing them because they hurt your feelings. If you'd do that, you'd have your answer.

photo
2

Because none of them are relevant to the feature itself. You are complaining about dev time, sure. And there's the "But it will remove engineering!", except it won't, because it's only an option, and you can still do your engineering if you want to.

So again, what argument do you have against the feature itself? Nothing else, the feature.

photo
1

See, I know you're being intentionally obtuse, because you've already used the same reasoning to defend your point of view, so I'm not going to entertain your willful ignorance. Figure it out, you've already said the words. Now say them to support my point instead of yours. Ta da!

photo
2

No, you use them to support your point. Give an argument against the feature itself. You're not, because you don't have one, so you just dance around the question, being a condescending asshole while thinking yourself oh so smart for doing it.

photo
1

No, you smarten up like I know you can, and stop playing imbecile just to setup another pointless argument.

photo
2

Popcorn, anyone?

photo
2

Then how about you stop responding? If there's nothing more to discuss...

photo
1

Let’s talk about popcorn!

photo
1

Well, now that you have smartened up and concede that I'm right and there's nothing else to discuss I can assume you will stop promoting this suggestion and so I will.


Spiff, it's impolite to talk with your mouth full :P

photo
3

good grief, Burstar, stop acting like a dick! You are most certainly NOT right, but you are also not wrong...

the very existence of the depressurising feature makes people confused that they can not depressurise into a tank connected to an active o2/h2 generator, i can see the sense in this, and i can see the huge benefit in this too, i for one would welcome this addition, as i prefer compact large grid builds, and having a separate conveyor loop is a pain in the ass for compact builds, due to the fragile nature of conveyor tubes and the bad performance impact of using excessive conveyor blocks. If this feature gets added, there is nothing to stop you from continuing to have a separate conveyor loop for your depressurising hangar bays, and it certainly wont affect existing ones

that being said, there are far more important ideas that i personally would like Keen to consider over this minor one, there are also far worse ideas to try and prevent! Go and harass the dude that wants all components simplified, so all blocks use components called 'stuff' or 'random parts' just so he doesnt have to remember all the different types and quantities of components that various blocks need!

photo
2

Enabling more flexibility would generally (excluding BS, of course) be a welcome thing because in SE, every independent loop of conveyors requires a new set of conveyor tubes to be installed, with the associated space cost, whereas it would be colossally absurd to require 2.5 metres of distance between independent pipes or cables or whatnot to be kept in real life! Considering the amount of real cables, wires, pipes, hoses, conductors, conduits, tubes, channels, lines, and whatever the hell else, all physically independent, one could fit into a real 6.25-m³ cross section makes it only natural to request a little bit more flexibility from the game's implementation of Connect-A-to-B.

Seriously, live and let live, ffs.

photo
1

That's not even the argument I'm making so you both would be smarter to keep out of this as you're not helping. You're actually supporting my argument that there are engineering solutions that are truly dazzling to simpler minds apparently that would be rendered pointless by this.


Basically "It's a witch, drown it!".

photo
2

Nobody is supporting you. Nobody.


And I still don't see an argument against the feature. I'll continue to wait.

photo
1

News flash, There is no argument. Anymore. Your bad idea has been proven bad and any continued support of it only demonstrates stubbornness, pride, and an inability to reason. Sad to see it wasn't an act. Oh, well. At least now I know why you think I sound condescending.

Take solace that a select few believe as you do, but no matter how many people hold hands and argue the Earth is flat, none of them will ever fall off it.

photo
2

"That's not even the argument I'm making" - News flash: I have long stopped considering you to be making any sort of argument whatsoever in the first place in your tiresome, self-absorbed responses over what you personally think ought or oughtn't deserve official dev resources, what you personally think ought or oughtn't be considered categorically good or bad, or what you personally think ought or oughtn't be the true, one and only, official way to solve particular challenges inside the game, so don't flatter yourself inferring that I, personally, were still regarding your objections and involvement in this thread in an even remotely non-sarcastic manner.

photo
2

By what authority was it proven bad? All I've seen from you is condescending smugness that gave vague reasonings.


And even if it was, then why are you still here? You have nothing left to prove, in your own words.


And even if it was, why are people a) Voting in favour of it, and b) Giving sound arguments in favour of it? That wouldn't happen if you had actually proven it bad. Hell, the "Best Answer" even says that he did read through the whole thing, and came to the conclusion that it would be a good idea.


And also, if that's your idea of proving it bad, I can see why you're the way you are. Bitterness and resentment at everyone else for not accepting your conclusion.


And then we come back to: You're still not giving any argument against the idea, because you don't have one.


Is it really that hard to just not be such a condescending asshole? You lost this a while ago. Nobody is agreeing with you. Even the guy that says he's your friend (or as close as one can get when you're involved) argued against you. Let it the fuck go, and go harass someone else.

photo
1

See what you mean is 'nobody of merit' as Anders clearly demonstrates (thanks for that btw). By the authority of sound reasoning that you refuse to acknowledge because you have no counter. This is why you've failed so spectacularly. It's easy to not be condescending except around you, then it's impossible. Babble on, it's not going to help you.

photo
3

No one has failed here, @burstar. This feedback still holds the status of Submitted. You'd be wise to avoid logical fallacies if you're trying to accomplish anything. You have a tall hill to climb with what you're trying to argue. Seems pointless to me.

photo
2

"Babble on, it's not going to help you."

The pot is calling the kettle black.


If you were right, in any way, someone would have commented and said so. That hasn't happened. And nobody is upvoting your comments. What does that say about you and your entire regurgitation of bullshit here?

photo
1

Fallacies like straw mans? Failed here is in regards to the cogency of his argument, not the status of Submitted, which cannot be undone anyways.

How high a hill feels when climbing it is subjective to the climber.

photo
2

"Fallacies like straw mans?"

Yes, like the ones you have used.

"Failed here is in regards to the cogency of his argument"

You are remarkably self-aware given the rest of your responses.

"not the status of Submitted,"

Actually, it does matter. It could be set as 'Declined'.


"How high a hill feels when climbing it is subjective to the climber."

And now you're using useless metaphors instead of actually contributing.


Hi troll.

photo
1

Still can't come up with a valid retort to my argument. Keep avoiding it. You're fooling nobody worthwhile.

photo
2

Burstar, if you have read my post you will see there is a very good argument there, how can you read it and NOT see it???

Also this is NOT your website, you have no right to tell others to stop commenting here, you CAN suggest that this is not an idea you would like or dislike very much, and please refrain from implying people have simple minds, that is insulting, you do not now other people, stop this continual belittling/insulting behaviour now or i will report you!


so once, again, this is an OK idea, not a great one, not a bad one, it be nice if it was implemented, though i wont cry if it doesnt, there are benefits either way, im not going to repeat the entirety of my earlier post you can just scroll up!


To sum it up, not needing a separate conveyor loop for depressurising rooms will benefit compact large grid builds, how is that for an argument 'for' this idea?????

photo
2

That requires you to have an argument in the first place.

photo
1

@nik your entire point was argued months ago which is why I'm not addressing it again. I've weathered much worse abuse in this conversation so my advice is for you to grow a tougher skin.

@Zach Your inability to acknowledge the argument does not mean it doesn't exist.

photo
3

its still a valid point. im not scrolling through months worth of comments, so if you could sum up the argument against the point of this idea being a benefit for compact large grid builds, that would be great.

photo
1

Sorry Nikolas, but no. It's up there if you really want to see it. All this would do is restart the same argument again and I'm pretty sure nobody wants that. If you really want to discuss this rationally, we can take it to PM's or you can take my word that your research will not be in vain.

photo
3

its just summing up the arguments stated back in months worth of comments, you really are a dick!

photo
3

Burstar: any arguments you have against this previously are irrelevent, because if you are not willing to sum them up and save me the effort of looking through months worth of comments then i am not interested in them, im not wasting my time looking through your moaning, you are just being petty at this point...

lets get down to the facts


FACT1: adding this feature affects NO-ONE negatively... ok maybe the devs that would have to code this and add the option on the block's terminal

FACT2: choice is always good, if added, this will not prevent people from choosing to have separate conveyor loops for depressurising rooms, and actually there will be a minor benefit from still using a separate conveyor loop, i will let you figure this one out.

FACT3: if added, this feature will not affect any existing separate conveyor loops for depressurising rooms

FACT4: compact large grid builds ARE a thing, and it is difficult to do them with the need for separate conveyor loops for depressurising rooms, as conveyor tubes are fragile and not airtight but less costly on performance than a shit load of conveyor blocks that are airtight and more sturdy with mount points everywhere!

i have been following this a little just through my emails, but i have not seen any decent reason to counter these points. all i have seen you do is insult and belittle people that want this idea!

photo
1

Ok, so now we know what category you fall under. Lines to the left.

photo
2

No, you need to have a argument against the feature. You have arguments for other things related to the feature, but none against the feature itself. That's why you have no argument.

photo
1

Zach Your inability to acknowledge the argument does not mean it doesn't exist.

photo
3

I rest my case!

photo
2

Basically, yeah. He's just trolling now instead of trying to actually have constructive discourse.


Burstar, arguing is a two way street. You cannot expect one side to do everything, and your refusal to sum up your argument in a couple sentences instead of making people read it gives a very dim view of you as a person. Beyond that, the fact that you are belittling and mocking the opposing side says even more about yourself, and how you really shouldn't be interacting with society, let alone an internet forum where your anonymity lets you 'get away' with this behaviour. If you do act this way irl, then I wish you the best of luck in your sad, lonely life. If you don't, then there is no reason to act that way here, and you're being an ass for no reason.


Check your own behaviour before you try to condemn others for theirs, hypocrite.

photo
1

I'm not wasting my breath to start the argument all over again. If you care, you'll read what's already there. If you don't, sod off.

It is a two way street. Balls in your park though as I'm not playing your game. You still haven't put forth a valid counter argument so it's not my problem. Until you do, you're the one that's failing at the discourse.


I could care less what view you have of me as a person. Or have you forgotten that as well? Am I arguing with a goldfish? Apparently, as I need to feed it every 12 posts or so.

photo
2

"I'm not wasting my breath to start the argument all over again." - "But I'm certainly continuing to waste breath on pointing out how superior I am to everyone."


(And for completeness' sake: "I could care less" - So you're still caring at least to some extent?)

photo
1

The important part is you didn't have an issue with the statement that I'm arguing with a goldfish. Thanks!

photo
2

You check off all the boxes Burstar!


-Egotistical asshole

-Narcicistic behaviour

-Refusal to see the opposing side's argument

-Personal attacks on the opposition

-Personal attacks on anyone else that gets involved

-Refusal to even entertain the idea that you could be wrong, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary

-Continuing to respond, despite saying 'I don't care' and 'I'm not interested', just so you can continue insulting everyone.


You're a troll, whether you want to admit it or not. You are literally following the definition. On top of that, you're completely disregarding logic, basic thought processes, and basic etiquette. The only thing left for you to do is murder someone, then your miserable excuse for an existence will be complete.


Now, quit it with your 'crusade', and put them back where they belong. In the past. Maybe put yourself there too, you'll fit right in with either side of them.

photo
1

So you're just going to continue with pointless ad hominems instead of conceding you don't have a valid counter-argument. I'm wrong. You're not a goldfish. They are at least capable of learning.

photo
2

MUST HAVE LAST WORD - Burstar

photo
2

"So you're just going to continue with pointless ad hominems instead of conceding you don't have a valid counter-argument."

You're one to talk.

photo
1

Still not a counter-argument. Are you just going to keep bumping this to everyone's annoyance or will you finally concede you've got nothing?

photo
2

Oh the irony of everything you're saying. There have been plenty of counter arguments that you have just dismissed. Acknowledge them, and I'll acknowledge your arrogant whinings.

photo
1

Nice try. But the evidence is all up there plain as day. Clearly, all you're doing now is padding the thread because you're unable to come up with anything intelligent to add to the argument and don't want anyone to bother looking at your pitiful attempt to justify this selfish idea. Hence, we're done here.

photo
2

A setup action on tanks based on percent full. When fill level is >%75; turn off H2/O2 generator <group>. When fill level is <%15; sound holy hell alarm on bridge.

photo
2

Stop trolling burstar.


Scott, that would be a great alternative to this.

photo
2

actually that wont be any help, a hydro powered ship will need the generators on to make the h2 all the time, and not turned off just cos o2 tanks are above a certain level

photo
1

oops i wanted comment not reply

photo
1

Please read the whole conversation, which mentioned this, and why it was not the best option. And the fact that it wouldn't disallow engineering solutions anyway.

photo
photo
3

After a week of consideration, I've chosen to remove my vote. Here's why: about a month ago I finally faced the challenge, for the first time in anything I've built in SE, of making a large Hangar Bay survival ready. This involves making sure that people don't have to vent manufactured air to space. I wanted an easy solution like a switch, one for which this post requests. So I spent time thinking over possible solutions and decide to build buffer tanks. This involved engineering and conveyor network pathing so that the continuous air generation wouldn't interfere and could be shut off separately. I also had to find space for routing new conduits in an already tight space.


In the end I solved the problem and I had a lot of fun doing it.


Then came the ME 0.7.1 major update. When I saw the siege equipment blueprints coming with the base game I was sad. I had been looking forward to building those from scratch just with my own ideas. I felt like the blueprints had robbed me of that opportunity to engineer my own. Don't get me wrong, Keen siege equipment is really cool but that's now a set of goals I don't have anymore in ME.


I don't want to be robbed of engineering different kinds of air conservation solutions in the future which I think a simple switch would do. Sorry, Zach. Peace out, bro.

photo
1

My usual response to this has been "You'd still be able to do that." I'm still confused as to why you think you won't be able to do it the fun way if an option like this is present.

I see this as a fallback option for when you don't want to do it the long way, not as a main replacement. Am I the only one?

photo
2

It's a matter of laziness, I think. I honestly was sad they put in the pre-built siege equipment. If the option to do it the easy way is very accessible people will do that and not take the long way. Engineers always look for the simplest solution that works. Why do work for works sake?


Here's another example. In ME if I want to build a ledge that hangs off the side at the top of a tall wall, then to do that you can fix a timber to the floor of the top block then walk to the edge of that block (which if you're afraid of heights is exilerating) turn and face the timber and place another fixed timber against the first so that the second extends out over the side of the wall. Then carefully walk out on that second timber, carefully turn and face the wall and build your ledge. The learned experience of falling to your death (and the effort of walking halfway around the world if the game puts you back at the Engineers Guildhouse rather than your bed) comes rushing back in and is a major adrenaline rush while doing this. It's incredible.


In the last major update 0.7.1, there's no need to do that anymore. You simply face the surface on which you want to build on the opposing face of and click the ledge into place. No timbers required. Very disappointing.


Can I still do it the old way? Yeah probably but it's so much easier and safer to just get the block I want and click it into place. Without this, the timber was the only way, other than constructing a scaffold on the wall face. Which still came with a death threat. Honestly, 0.7.1 has been the most disappointing release of ME for me.


They nerfed the game and this was unwanted and unnecessary.


Both SE and ME exercise out-of-the-box thinking. This is part of the joy of the game. Simple fixes from Keen encroach on that. We need this kind of thinking in the game - a kind where the same solution every time isn't best.

photo
photo
3

Perhaps the elephant in the room is, why doesn't Space Engineers have a conveyor valve block? That was the first question I had when I first read this idea. A valve is just basic engineering but I probably already missed that discussion on the forums long ago.

photo
2

Agreed. I suggested having Setup Actions available on tanks, but a valve would be along the same lines. And along those lines, I don't think enabling additional capabilities on blocks, particularly fundamental logic capabilities (which are part and parcel of any infrastructure fluid or electrical) can be considered a shortcut.


I would like to see a block, like the Programable Block, that enables a GUI workflow system that lets you select constructed blocks and apply if;then rules to them. The current option is to learn the scripting and that is not accessible for some of us.

photo
2

We 'sort of' have sorter, but it doesn't seem to work for gasses( Would be nice if it could.

photo
photo
2

you must enter the setting "irreducible balance". As soon as it becomes smaller, the generator will turn on.