Nerf the jetpack in survival

anonymus anonym shared this feedback 3 months ago
Submitted

There are some issues with jetpacks, which are not pointed out in other posts yet, and I dont wanna repeat them.

To get to the point: Jetpacks are also overpowered because you can abuse them with suizide. There is not even a reason (beside its irritating) to spend ice in getting hydrogen (or oxygen) for your jetpack. If it is empty you can just suizide and you will respawn with a full amount of hydrogen without any death punishment. So you really have to implement serious death punishment (and/)or let people spawn without hydrogen to have at least some balance. People still have ice and a h2/o2 generator in their startingship, so its not even causing trouble in the earlygame if you spawn without hydrogen.

At the moment (especially in combination with the jetpack being just OP - look at other posts), there is often no point in building vehicles to, for example, get some unnokwn signals or traveling to another point (because you are even faster with a jetpack than you could be with a vehicle). And isnt that the main gameplay we actually have in Space Engineers? Building stuff to make other stuff possible. So give players reasons to build and nerf the jetpack. I mean you dont even have to build a rocket or spaceship if you wanna get in space because you are can do (+you are faster) with your freakin jetpack. All you need is to grab some bottles of hydrogen and you will never need a rocket! Thanks for your attention. Love <3

Comments (6)

photo
1

True, I flew to the other side of the earth with 6 h2 bottles

photo
1

While playing in survival I'm actually not a fan of suicide just for refilling jetpack hydrogen (unless in case of emergency, like ship floating in the air and I'm on the ground without hydrogen) maybe because I'm kinda lazy in some ways LOL.

If it must be nerfed I'd prefer just to reduce respawn hydrogen by 2/3.

photo
2

This makes little sense. Vehicles serve more than one purpose (larger tools, way more storage space, bigger guns, better ore detectors, etc.) so you points are invalid, unless you are messing with the custom settings to the point where making a "fix" like this already would be invalid. I don't know about you, but even with a "starter" vehicle, I can transport 90k+ kg of ore, where as using the jet pack I would have to make over 90 trips.

photo
1

It's extremely unrealistic and immersion breaking.

photo
photo
3

I'm with SirGouki on this one, it doesn't make any sense. In fact there is already a way to nerf jetpacks at the start of the game, just set your game configuration to start without a jetpack. There is also several mods to nerf jetpacks with too. So this is completely unnecessary.

photo
4

There are several mods to nerf jetpacks because vanilla jet packs are OP. Visually they make no sense. They are clearly for zero G maneuvers. On ground side they shouldn't be able to get you off the ground at all as their engines are small as to not allow someone to kill themselves in space. Also the engines are the type that only work in space. They should never them to 10 percent strength and introduce a personal parachute for recovering from atmospheric mishaps.

photo
1

Agreed. Make jetpacks behave like Ion-thrusters. Low effect on planets with gravity while working better in zero-G.

photo
3

Then run with those mods on your game, this request to nerf jetpacks is completely unnecessary.

photo
photo
1

Hi KHS,


One implementation of a solution is having a Game Setting for each world that toggles two jetpack modes: original and reduced (i.e. an ON/OFF setting like Wolves, Progression, In-Game Scripts, etc). For players who like it the way it is, this changes nothing. But for players who want that level of immersion/difficulty/limitation this will make a world of difference (pun intended).

Specifically, the limits of a jetpack strength reduction could be defined by the thrust/fuel ratio of the individual character fully loaded with hydrogen bottles (on normal inventory settings) not being large enough to break the gravity boundary of a planet.


The main issue is integrating a game built around zero-gravity physics with large-scale gravity systems (planets) introduced after the main engine was created. The speed limit of 100m/s is a hard limit that creates a top-end barrier for the extreme cases of the game mechanics, so calculations like deformation don't take 5+ minutes to render a collision.

Next to that, the character speed limit of 107m/s is a key design idea: I'm sure we've all accidentally hopped out of our small ship traveling at 100m/s through space with our space suit inertia dampeners on, then crawled our way at a relative 7m/s to recovery.


Assuming I'm not missing another purpose of the 107m/s speed limit (which I probably am), that means this mechanic is **only required in space** since ships that "get away" in atmosphere will eventually crash (or hover for fuel time). As such, the jetpack strength in atmospheres/gravity fields (which one is the limiting mechanic is another topic) can be reduced to maintain the thorough and complete utility of machinery for most non-micro tasks on planets.


Personally, and as an example, I find it irritating that it's easier (the purpose of engineering, in a game with Engineering in it's name) to travel from a planetary base to a mining site 5km away by zipping over with a jetpack rather than requiring a vehicle. That being said, any sort of cargo transport (etc) still require a vehicle. But for a game about "engineering," at least on planets, I wish that projects required more logistic management of your individual character. In space however, zero-G is a different ballgame where the lack of damping forces allows for easy individual traversal.

Again, I strongly recommend this be implemented as a setting toggle or series of options, with the original settings still remaining possible.