It's because there is a better way that can be simply implemented, which alleviates the dead-thrusters-forces-self-destruct problem entirely:
Later down the line FDev can implement a thruster-repair gameplay mechanism.
Should destroying thrusters count as a kill?
- Thread starter spacejumbofudge
- Start date
No, but there should be a way to recover from it also even without any repair modules. Perhaps some sort of emergency repair you can do to patch it up into a working state, takes a few minutes to complete and operates at half power or something like that.
Also bring back and flesh out the distress beacon so you can call for help.
Also bring back and flesh out the distress beacon so you can call for help.
Ah so really the poll question should have been 'with the current consequences, should...'
Otherwise looks like people are happy with the current setup.
Personally I'm happy with dead thrusters being death, although I'd also be happy with having to get out of my ship and fix them. Would force the attacker to finish me off and get a bounty for my murder.
I like the humiliation aspect of it. Floating around without thrusters is undignified.
But it would be nice if there was a mechanic in place to be rescued by, well, a mechanic.
Actually the fact that the repair module will repair everything but thrusters and powerplant, arguably two of the most crucial systems, would suggest that, far from being an oversight, it is a conscious design decision.
If somebody can destroy your thrusters and leave you dead in space without destroying your ship in the process then you obviously didn't do enough to prevent it. Straight out killing you would be much easier to achieve. The extra effort is rewarded by the player not having the larger bounty that killing you would bring.
How about another commander stopping by and giving a "jump start" to get that 1% to get you on your way. The strain of which causes the benefactor's engines to degrade.
Would be an interesting social experiment if nothing else...
It isn't a kill, so it can't be considered a critical component.
The main issue here is FD still didn't bring back the distress beacon that should bring an NPC vessel to refuel or repair the ship.
If there was an "other, please explain" poll option I think a few of us would have voted that instead of no. No harm done as it's created a great discussion of ideas
How on earth is it a reward for extra effort? Destroying thrusters is generally the easiest way to kill. I thought we'd actually managed a thread on this forum for once where someone didn't come along and say 'because dangerous!!'
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
If there was an "other, please explain" poll option I think a few of us would have voted that instead of no. No harm done as it's created a great discussion of ideas
+Rep
Shame I can't add another poll option though...
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Currently, while it is not a kill, it necessitates the self-destruction of the ship (as the ship is totally unable to move).
While a distress beacon might work for refuelling, repairing a "destroyed" thruster system seems to be a bit of an ask from the equivalent of the AA/RAC/Triple-A in space. As the FSD and thrusters are critical to ship operations and as onboard repair tech for other modules can be added by buying a module, it is not too much of a stretch of the imagination to envisage the thruster and FSD systems to have a built-in self-repair system.
How about a tow, mate? Nearest repairing outpost will do. How much? Crikey!!!
To answer the original question, yes i think thrusters should count as a critical component.
Without them you can't accelerate to engage your FSD and are stuck. It makes perfect sense to me.
Is it good or bad game design though ?
It's absolutely brilliant game design in my opinion.
Apart from the tactical possibilities sub-system targeting offers, it introduces a rarely (if ever) seen form of gaming death.
Not blown up into a million particles or butchered into a pulpy mass (and the instant realization that comes with that). No, the game gives you time to realize that you lost, and on top of that
forces YOU to put an end to yourself.....in a "well, how badazz are you NOW, Commander ?" way.
That is a truly cynical and brave design choice as far as i'm concerned.
Without them you can't accelerate to engage your FSD and are stuck. It makes perfect sense to me.
Is it good or bad game design though ?
It's absolutely brilliant game design in my opinion.
Apart from the tactical possibilities sub-system targeting offers, it introduces a rarely (if ever) seen form of gaming death.
Not blown up into a million particles or butchered into a pulpy mass (and the instant realization that comes with that). No, the game gives you time to realize that you lost, and on top of that
forces YOU to put an end to yourself.....in a "well, how badazz are you NOW, Commander ?" way.
That is a truly cynical and brave design choice as far as i'm concerned.
Or a game mechanic to call for a tow from the space equivalent of the Roadside Assist Agency, you then get a charged according to your distance from the nearest habitable system port with a repair station!
Maybe a proper Escape Capsule is needed as boundary between self-destruct and disabled ship? Penalties could be intermediate too, and the possibility of a Nostromo salvage ship coming to pick up your pieces somewhere down the line?
I'd like that...
I'd like that...
Maybe a proper Escape Capsule is needed as boundary between self-destruct and disabled ship? Penalties could be intermediate too, and the possibility of a Nostromo salvage ship coming to pick up your pieces somewhere down the line?
I'd like that...
You do eject though don't you? I'm sure in the ironman mode discussions you also needed to manually eject before being destroyed.
Read again what I wrote.
So you are refuting my comment "If somebody can destroy your thrusters and leave you dead in space without destroying your ship.....[snip].... Straight out killing you would be much easier to achieve. The extra effort is rewarded...."
with
"Destroying thrusters is generally the easiest way to kill."?
I have bolded the relevant parts that show your post to be nonsensical. You are saying I am wrong and then refuting it by stating exactly the same thing as me. Looks like somebody is just in a hurry to be argumentative.