Factorio Forums

mmmPI wrote: Fri Apr 18, 2025 7:28 pm

konage wrote: Fri Apr 18, 2025 4:26 pm Now if you are going to argue 99% resistance is Wube-intended specifically so that players have to deal with the targetting algorithm being affected in ways you may not expect, then I highly doubt they planned/predicted that. It was probably done for "aesthetic" reasons as 100% may have felt too unrealistic, but I think even that argument is somewhat meh.

Have you noticed how asteroids have 100% resistance to Tesla turrets ? And yet they fire on them ? your assumptions that 100% resist would solve the problem you describe aren't correct imo.

You did not understand. Try again... The problem isn't a waste of rocket ammo, its the damage itself...

Anyway I think I'm done responding to non-devs who haven't even understood or have never even made a prom ship. At least a couple understood the issue but think it shouldn't change but didn't give any meaningful reason besides "this is what the game happened to be released as". If the game was released with 100% resistance, and I made a post asking for 99% for realism they'd be arguing the other side. I made my case, I think boskid and/or Rseding are aware of the issue and hopefully I explained it in detail enough for it to make sense to them. I'll just mod it.

konage wrote: Fri Apr 18, 2025 7:37 pm You did not understand. Try again... The problem isn't a waste of rocket ammo, its the damage itself...

My understanding is that you propose changing a resistance from 99% to 100% thinking it would impact targetting algo, but i don't think it would, if something has 100% or 99% it doesn't change.

konage wrote: Fri Apr 18, 2025 7:37 pm I'll just mod it.

That way you can verify for yourself !

mmmPI wrote: Fri Apr 18, 2025 7:43 pm

konage wrote: Fri Apr 18, 2025 7:37 pm You did not understand. Try again... The problem isn't a waste of rocket ammo, its the damage itself...

My understanding is that you propose changing a resistance from 99% to 100% thinking it would impact targetting algo, but i don't think it would, if something has 100% or 99% it doesn't change.

konage wrote: Fri Apr 18, 2025 7:37 pm I'll just mod it.

That way you can verify for yourself !

sigh. its not the resistance that changes the targeting algo. with 99% resistance they get damaged by explosive rockets AOE damage, and lower HP changes the targeting algo. Changing it to 100% would mean the HP won't lower, and therefore your railguns will ALWAYS shoot at the closest, top priority list huge asteroid that no other railgun is actively targeting.

I'm pretty sure I explained all this in previous posts...

konage wrote: Fri Apr 18, 2025 7:47 pm I'm pretty sure I explained all this in previous posts...

You did with increasing amount of clarity, but it doesn't mean i share your explanations, a mod would definitly allow to verify, i may be the one who's wrong !

konage wrote: Wed Apr 16, 2025 3:10 pm Instead of turret 4 switching to the damaged huge carbonic which is now the closest to it, it switches to a different huge carbonic further to the right and further away, even though nothing else is aiming at the nearest damaged huge carbonic one.

To me there's no guarantee things are any different with 99% or 100%, a railgun that has "no target" would have selected the damaged one and destroyed it, you make it sound as if it's a priority problem, but others point out that you're operating on a very very slim margin anyway, all your rails guns must have been all constantly busy firing, which is not the case when many players design their spaceship as you pointed out yourself.

Plus i see no reason why huge asteroids be immune to nukes !

mmmPI wrote: Fri Apr 18, 2025 8:00 pm

konage wrote: Fri Apr 18, 2025 7:47 pm I'm pretty sure I explained all this in previous posts...

You did with increasing amount of clarity, but it doesn't mean i share your explanations, a mod would definitly allow to verify, i may be the one who's wrong !

konage wrote: Wed Apr 16, 2025 3:10 pm Instead of turret 4 switching to the damaged huge carbonic which is now the closest to it, it switches to a different huge carbonic further to the right and further away, even though nothing else is aiming at the nearest damaged huge carbonic one.

To me there's no guarantee things are any different with 99% or 100%, a railgun that has "no target" would have selected the damaged one and destroyed it, you make it sound as if it's a priority problem, but others point out that you're operating on a very very slim margin anyway, all your rails guns must have been all constantly busy firing, which is not the case when many players design their spaceship as you pointed out yourself.

Plus i see no reason why huge asteroids be immune to nukes !

Unless you think I'm wrong about lower health being de-prioritized (which you can verify for yourself in the editor), I can't see how you'd think things would not be different at all. Turret 4 in that example would have chosen the damaged closest asteroid and shot it.

As for the ship being in the margins, yes thats how you megabase, everything is pushed to the limit and also is to some degree a non-argument. As I told the other poster, if my ship still got equal amount of damage with 100% resistance or it got destroyed all the time, I'd agree. It managed to kill ~7 million huge asteroids before getting destroyed like that. When the chance is ~1 in 7 million to get hit and it seems so far to only happen when its a damaged huge asteroid and you also check and see that the algorithm specifically chose not to pick that asteroid to shoot even though it was closer, and you know why it gets deprioritized, what more evidence do you need?

konage wrote: Fri Apr 18, 2025 8:07 pm Unless you think I'm wrong about lower health being de-prioritized (which you can verify for yourself in the editor), I can't see how you'd think things would not be different at all. Turret 4 in that example would have chosen the damaged closest asteroid and shot it.

I think if you make a mod, it would be easier for me to demonstrate wether or not it's possible to have a laser turret damage a huge asteroid, and then make sure there is not enough railguns to destroy it because they'd all be busy shooting at other huge asteroid which would show a similar problem than without the mod.

konage wrote: Fri Apr 18, 2025 8:07 pm As for the ship being in the margins, yes thats how you megabase, everything is pushed to the limit and also is to some degree a non-argument. As I told the other poster, if my ship still got equal amount of damage with 100% resistance or it got destroyed all the time, I'd agree. It managed to kill ~7 million huge asteroids before getting destroyed like that. When the chance is ~1 in 7 million to get hit and it seems so far to only happen when its a damaged huge asteroid and you also check and see that the algorithm specifically chose not to pick that asteroid to shoot even though it was closer, and you know why it gets deprioritized, what more evidence do you need?

That's the same argument as saying, my base produce enough power, the batteries are at 0.00001% at the end of the night every night because i'm megabasing, but 1 day out of 7 million days, biters attacks trigger all at once, and that particular night i run out of power. The problem is not the biters attack triggering all at once, the problem is you don't have any safety margin on your base.



And i still see no reason why huge asteroid would be immune to nukes, that seem a big cost in "fun potential" for solving something that otherwise happens once every 7 millions huge asteroids and that has other solutions as you said yourself !

mmmPI wrote: Fri Apr 18, 2025 8:18 pm I think if you make a mod, it would be easier for me to demonstrate wether or not it's possible to have a laser turret damage a huge asteroid, and then make sure there is not enough railguns to destroy it because they'd all be busy shooting at other huge asteroid which would show a similar problem than without the mod.

Lost you there a bit, but what I was recommending was having the same ship and running it with the mod on or off for a few runs and see if there is a difference in how frequently it gets damaged.

As for the simple editor test, you just need to spawn 2 huge asteroids, reduce the health of one (you dont need to shoot it first, you can reduce the health directly) while being pause and place the damaged one closer to the railgun. It will always select the further one

mmmPI wrote: Fri Apr 18, 2025 8:18 pm That's the same argument as saying, my base produce enough power, the batteries are at 0.00001% at the end of the night every night because i'm megabasing, but 1 day out of 7 million days, biters attacks trigger all at once, and that particular night i run out of power. The problem is not the biters attack triggering all at once, the problem is you don't have any safety margin on your base.

Way too contrived of an example... Also the biter attack triggers are manageable in multiple ways.

mmmPI wrote: Fri Apr 18, 2025 8:18 pm And i still see no reason why huge asteroid would be immune to nukes, that seem a big cost in "fun potential" for solving something that otherwise happens once every 7 millions huge asteroids and that has other solutions as you said yourself !

FWIW as I said before the only reason I suggested 100% resistance is cause its easiest to implement. Ideally I'd want a blacklist for targeting priority or groups of targets (e.g. priority all types of huge asteroids, but thats an even bigger change) + a checkmark option on turrets "always prioritize closest target regardless of health"

konage wrote: Fri Apr 18, 2025 8:44 pm Lost you there a bit, but what I was recommending was having the same ship and running it with the mod on or off for a few runs and see if there is a difference in how frequently it gets damaged.

Yeah but that is not a proper test to me, you propose a change to solve a problem alledgedly , and i think the problem may still be there, if you propose a change that only works to solve the problem for your particular ship that is not convincing to me, and if despite the mod i can make the situation you described in the first post occurs again with a slightly different ship ( engineered to fail the test on purpose) then it would just show that the problem is the ship design and the proposition wouldn't solve it.

konage wrote: Fri Apr 18, 2025 8:44 pm Way too contrived of an example... Also the biter attack triggers are manageable in multiple ways.

Your example is a problem that occur 1 every 7 million huge asteroid on certain ships designs and is also manageable in multiple ways (more turrets , slowing down, different ammos, different priorities , ship design and so on ). That makes it a proper analogy to me.

konage wrote: Fri Apr 18, 2025 8:44 pm

mmmPI wrote: Fri Apr 18, 2025 8:18 pm And i still see no reason why huge asteroid would be immune to nukes, that seem a big cost in "fun potential" for solving something that otherwise happens once every 7 millions huge asteroids and that has other solutions as you said yourself !

FWIW as I said before the only reason I suggested 100% resistance is cause its easiest to implement. Ideally I'd want a blacklist for targeting priority or groups of targets (e.g. priority all types of huge asteroids, but thats an even bigger change) + a checkmark option on turrets "always prioritize closest target regardless of health"

I know i read the thread, that's not a reason to make huge asteroids immune to nuke, you asked for a single "valid" reason, i provided one !

a check mark to "prioritize closest target regardless of health" would not work well i think, because it could happen that the closest target changes very fast and the railguns need time for rotation, they could end up not firing at all , or firing on a wrong target anyway.

mmmPI wrote: Fri Apr 18, 2025 9:04 pm

konage wrote: Fri Apr 18, 2025 8:44 pm Lost you there a bit, but what I was recommending was having the same ship and running it with the mod on or off for a few runs and see if there is a difference in how frequently it gets damaged.

Yeah but that is not a proper test to me, you propose a change to solve a problem alledgedly , and i think the problem may still be there, if you propose a change that only works to solve the problem for your particular ship that is not convincing to me, and if despite the mod i can make the situation you described in the first post occurs again with a slightly different ship ( engineered to fail the test on purpose) then it would just show that the problem is the ship design and the proposition wouldn't solve it.

konage wrote: Fri Apr 18, 2025 8:44 pm Way too contrived of an example... Also the biter attack triggers are manageable in multiple ways.

Your example is a problem that occur 1 every 7 million huge asteroid on certain ships designs and is also manageable in multiple ways (more turrets , slowing down, different ammos, different priorities , ship design and so on ). That makes it a proper analogy to me.

konage wrote: Fri Apr 18, 2025 8:44 pm

mmmPI wrote: Fri Apr 18, 2025 8:18 pm And i still see no reason why huge asteroid would be immune to nukes, that seem a big cost in "fun potential" for solving something that otherwise happens once every 7 millions huge asteroids and that has other solutions as you said yourself !

FWIW as I said before the only reason I suggested 100% resistance is cause its easiest to implement. Ideally I'd want a blacklist for targeting priority or groups of targets (e.g. priority all types of huge asteroids, but thats an even bigger change) + a checkmark option on turrets "always prioritize closest target regardless of health"

I know i read the thread, that's not a reason to make huge asteroids immune to nuke, you asked for a single "valid" reason, i provided one !

a check mark to "prioritize closest target regardless of health" would not work well i think, because it could happen that the closest target changes very fast and the railguns need time for rotation, they could end up not firing at all , or firing on a wrong target anyway.

How is that not a proper test? in any case you could do your own tests. Tests in science try to control for every variable other than 1 if possible. I cannot possibly test every single ship design?? Im not even sure what your point is. "you propose a change to solve a problem and I think the problem may still be there"? What problem? The ship WILL take damage less frequently... If you can't understand that without I don't even know what test you want since the one I said doesn't make sense to you, I think its a lost cause debating this with you...

Still bad analogy but I cba anymore to explain

Idk why you repeated the "nuke" reason as I said I'm fine changing other stuff ideally... and its already a meme reason. Sure lets make the game worse in normal gameplay so we can keep the ability to meme.

As for the last point, it ALREADY works based on closest target. the health part would be the new thing, which again is IRRELEVANT for huge asteroids! They NEED to be shot by a single shot by railguns. This shows how little you've understood how things work or how the game currently is, cause if you were right about this, then it would ALREADY be a problem. The health change would not impact it negatively in ANY way.

I'm tired of repeating obvious things so, im sorry but I'm not gonna keep explaining things that make sense...

konage wrote: Fri Apr 18, 2025 9:13 pm I'm tired of repeating obvious things so, im sorry but I'm not gonna keep explaining things that make sense...

Just make a mod that'll be easier for everyone to demonstrate !

It won't change the fact that your proposal affect nukes and that alone is a reason for me to think negatively of the proposition.

It won't change the fact that you have already multiples ways to solve your problem.

But possibly then i can reproduce the situation you mention in your post with a contrived example to show that what you propose is changing the game to fix your particular ship while the proposition doesn't adress the general case, and that the same problem could still occur even with the 100% resistance. ( in the case where the damage to the huge asteroid isn't done by explosive rockets but something else ).

konage wrote: Fri Apr 18, 2025 5:45 pm Just cause something isn't game-breaking doesn't mean it shouldn't change.

True. But in the meantime, try adding some more railguns

Made the mod (thankfully someone else had already made a mod altering asteroid resistances) and ran the EditorPromethiumShipBig4 savefile (both attached) for ~18 hours with the mod enabled.

With the mod enabled you can see below what happened. Anything after the crosshair in the "losses" is after the mod got enabled (I ran it for 3 more hours after the screenshot was taken, there weren't any more losses). Anything before the crosshair was before I made the mod, but the ship wasn't running all the time before the 31 hour mark.
As for with the mod disabled, I wanted to run it also for 18 hours from the same timestamp/savefile (as comparing to previous hours where I was still making some changes, albeit very minor to the ship could affect results a bit), but the ship got hit twice on the next promethium run/trip, both times from a damaged huge asteroid, with the 2nd hit becoming catastrophic. After getting in the editor and deleting those two huge asteroids, I kept running it and it got 2 more hits within a couple hours.

Interesting, thank you for posting.

I think you should publish the mod that makes huge asteroid immune to explosions, because although i don't expect it to be popular, it may be and thus demonstrate how useful the change could be.

mmmPI wrote: Sat Apr 19, 2025 10:25 am I think you should publish the mod that makes huge asteroid immune to explosions, because although i don't expect it to be popular, it may be and thus demonstrate how useful the change could be.

I guess all the tests and reasoning didn't demonstrate it, now its about popularity.

I wouldn't expect it to be popular either, I'm not a big youtuber. The people who would download this would be limited to the overlap of: megabasers + people who somehow learnt of the mod + people who understand the targeting priority issue + people who won't consider this "cheating" just cause its a mod (or who prefer using nukes in space, which I guess all your prom ships do).

If this was an actual game change rather than a mod, it wouldn't be a popularity contest

konage wrote: Sat Apr 19, 2025 6:11 pm I guess all the tests and reasoning didn't demonstrate it, now its about popularity.

Yeah since my first post on this thread i thought this was not a good idea because it was a niche case you want to solve, when there are as you say yourself many method that could work, and your proposal isn't even covering all cases, and it removes the fun potential of using nukes for huge asteroids.

The fact that you can solve your own problem using a mod that suit what you want is exactly what mods are for, and if it was popular it would show the devs that this is not something only you want because it fixes a problem on your ship that happens 1 every 7 million asteroids but more people are interested in something.

There are many suggestions players are absolutely convinced that it would be a net positive for the game, and they make a mod, and like 2 K people download it , so it helps demonstrate that it's not a niche case, but it's not like 20K or 200K which allow to quantify somehow.

konage wrote: Sat Apr 19, 2025 6:11 pm I wouldn't expect it to be popular either, I'm not a big youtuber. The people who would download this would be limited to the overlap of: megabasers + people who somehow learnt of the mod + people who understand the targeting priority issue + people who won't consider this "cheating" just cause its a mod (or who prefer using nukes in space, which I guess all your prom ships do).

If this was an actual game change rather than a mod, it wouldn't be a popularity contest

The popularity is not the #1 argument, with your mod you shown that your reasonning about the cause of your problem is correct, and the proposal "fixes" your case that's a good point, i wasn't too sure of this in the first place but now it's demonstrated.

Consequently , now you have hopefully a better situation than before, ( minus the annoying experience of arguing on the forum maybe x), where your ship is fixed.

Still though, the initial reserve i had on this was that it would remove the possibility to use nukes for huge asteroids, at this point, the popularity i think matters, it is not a rationnal true or false statement, but a personnal preference, mine is just 1 person's preference, you have another preference.

Your mod would probably cause some other ships to start failing because they relied on the 1% damage that was still done by explosive rockets, and this would be "visible" with "popularity", considering a large number of players and statistics, that's another "step" to battle against if you want your change proposal to be successful somehow because otherwise what could happen is devs makes the change because it seem mundane, but wasn't thoroughly tested at large scale, or to "popularity", and then another group of person starts to complain " i relied on nuke", " my ship now start crashing every 26 hours " , and so on.

"popularity" is maybe not exactly what i meant, but
1) Who/do people search for such kind of fix ?, megabaser ? then that's great because people can use your mod to develop their base, publish it !
2) if your mod was "forced onto everyone" who would complain and why ?

I don't use nuke for prom ship, i don't megabase, i have used nukes on spaceship though, i was really eager to try it x), i was anticipating and quite excited about it, and it didn't work at all at first, and i had to spend time trying to make it work, which i enjoyed as puzzle solving and rewarding at the end when it works and is one of the reason i'm bothering you with my counter-arguments, not for the sake of it !

mmmPI wrote: Sat Apr 19, 2025 7:20 pm

konage wrote: Sat Apr 19, 2025 6:11 pm I guess all the tests and reasoning didn't demonstrate it, now its about popularity.

Yeah since my first post on this thread i thought this was not a good idea because it was a niche case you want to solve, when there are as you say yourself many method that could work, and your proposal isn't even covering all cases, and it removes the fun potential of using nukes for huge asteroids.

The fact that you can solve your own problem using a mod that suit what you want is exactly what mods are for, and if it was popular it would show the devs that this is not something only you want because it fixes a problem on your ship that happens 1 every 7 million asteroids but more people are interested in something.

There are many suggestions players are absolutely convinced that it would be a net positive for the game, and they make a mod, and like 2 K people download it , so it helps demonstrate that it's not a niche case, but it's not like 20K or 200K which allow to quantify somehow.

konage wrote: Sat Apr 19, 2025 6:11 pm I wouldn't expect it to be popular either, I'm not a big youtuber. The people who would download this would be limited to the overlap of: megabasers + people who somehow learnt of the mod + people who understand the targeting priority issue + people who won't consider this "cheating" just cause its a mod (or who prefer using nukes in space, which I guess all your prom ships do).

If this was an actual game change rather than a mod, it wouldn't be a popularity contest

The popularity is not the #1 argument, with your mod you shown that your reasonning about the cause of your problem is correct, and the proposal "fixes" your case that's a good point, i wasn't too sure of this in the first place but now it's demonstrated.

Consequently , now you have hopefully a better situation than before, ( minus the annoying experience of arguing on the forum maybe x), where your ship is fixed.

Still though, the initial reserve i had on this was that it would remove the possibility to use nukes for huge asteroids, at this point, the popularity i think matters, it is not a rationnal true or false statement, but a personnal preference, mine is just 1 person's preference, you have another preference.

Your mod would probably cause some other ships to start failing because they relied on the 1% damage that was still done by explosive rockets, and this would be "visible" with "popularity", considering a large number of players and statistics, that's another "step" to battle against if you want your change proposal to be successful somehow because otherwise what could happen is devs makes the change because it seem mundane, but wasn't thoroughly tested at large scale, or to "popularity", and then another group of person starts to complain " i relied on nuke", " my ship now start crashing every 26 hours " , and so on.

"popularity" is maybe not exactly what i meant, but
1) Who/do people search for such kind of fix ?, megabaser ? then that's great because people can use your mod to develop their base, publish it !
2) if your mod was "forced onto everyone" who would complain and why ?

I don't use nuke for prom ship, i don't megabase, i have used nukes on spaceship though, i was really eager to try it x), i was anticipating and quite excited about it, and it didn't work at all at first, and i had to spend time trying to make it work, which i enjoyed as puzzle solving and rewarding at the end when it works and is one of the reason i'm bothering you with my counter-arguments, not for the sake of it !

tl;dr as I stated before, maybe 5 times, the 100% resistance isn't the ideal change. its the easiest to implement to fix a less than ideal targeting algorithm in this specific case (and by case I don't mean my ship, I mean railguns + huge asteroids). please stop debatebroing, you have 4200 posts on this forum and who knows how many hours in the game and you didn't even bother to understand what the real issue is before debating for the sake of it.

you say 'niche case' yet you argue about nukes for prom ships? I guarantee you there are at least 100x more people who would forgo nukes for huge asteroids over less damage to their prom ships so that they can push the game closer to its limits.But again this is irrelevant, cause im not tied to the 100% resistance.

As for the "many methods can work". Its another irrelevant point cause you never addressed my other hypothetical. If the developers had made railguns to prefer shooting whatever was about to leave their FOV (the reasoning being that if it leaves the FOV there is no guarantee there is another railgun to take care of it), then they would probably shoot less frequently and spend more time switching targets and rotating. Would you still just say 'just make more railguns, it can fix the problem'. Sure it can, but its an IRRELEVANT point. Its the same as people discussing policy about homelessness and you just say 'just tell them to get a job'.

Its not just my "own problem". Every prom ship that gets good enough but is at the edge of SPM/update time would prioritize as few railguns as possible to make room for more collectors. Eventually you'll run into the sweet spot of taking a bit of damage, but its still low enough to not destroy the ship and you have enough backup items to rebuild instantly.

"Your mod would probably cause some other ships to start failing because they relied on the 1% damage that was still done by explosive rockets"

This alone tells me you have NEVER made a (half decent) prom ship and what bugs me about people responding like this. please, stop debatebroing, you dont know what you are even talking about but you go to such lengths to keep making your points. Now I see why you thought testing with my ship was somehow insufficient (the original post was sufficient enough in the first place but whatever). If your entire point was "I like to use nukes" and it stayed at that, I do think its a valid point, and hence the following:

FWIW ill say it again for the last time since you keep repeating it. Nukes are cool too, ive never done it, it would be fine for the memes and I'd enjoy it too, but guess what, a) maybe the game should be 100% resistance to help with the case more people would care about and the mod should be what changes it to 99% for people who want to meme with nukes, b) I would prefer (in case I haven''t been clear about it yet), that the devs change the targeting algorithm itself, or better yet give us tools to blacklist in the targeting list and the checkmark option I mentioned before. That is a lot more work for the devs for a REAL issue, but hardly the biggest one in the game currently.

konage wrote: Sat Apr 19, 2025 7:50 pm tl;dr as I stated before, maybe 5 times, the 100% resistance isn't the ideal change. its the easiest to implement to fix a less than ideal targeting algorithm in this specific case. please stop debatebroing, you have 4200 posts on this forum and who knows how many hours in the game and you didn't even bother to understand what the real issue is before debating for the sake of it.

You asked for a reason not to change, like you couldn't see them, and i provided the one i had, and another one later.

konage wrote: Sat Apr 19, 2025 7:50 pm you say 'niche case' yet you argue about nukes for prom ships? I guarantee you there are at least 100x more people who would forgo nukes for huge asteroids over less damage to their prom ships so that they can push the game closer to its limits.But again this is irrelevant, cause im not tied to the 100% resistance.

You cannot guarantee, you can just give your opinion on what you think is popular.

konage wrote: Sat Apr 19, 2025 7:50 pm As for the "many methods can work".

Those that were suggested by no less than 5 or 6 players on this thread ? Seem like a good indication on the "popularity" to me , but waiting to confirm.

konage wrote: Sat Apr 19, 2025 7:50 pm Its not just my "own problem". Every prom ship that gets good enough but is at the edge of SPM/update time would prioritize as few railguns as possible to make room for more collectors. Eventually you'll run into the sweet spot of taking a bit of damage, but its still low enough to not destroy the ship and you have enough backup items to rebuild instantly.

But then why don't you expect your mod to be popular ? surely many people will design failing ship that need a mod to stop failing because that's how you make a prom ship good enough x)

konage wrote: Sat Apr 19, 2025 7:50 pm

"Your mod would probably cause some other ships to start failing because they relied on the 1% damage that was still done by explosive rockets"

This alone tells me you have NEVER made a (half decent) prom ship and what bugs me about people responding like this. please, stop debatebroing,

Why don't use demonstration and argument to proove me wrong instead of personnal attack ?

konage wrote: Sat Apr 19, 2025 7:50 pm a) maybe the game should be 100% resistance to help with the case more people would care about and the mod should be what changes it to 99% for people who want to meme with nukes

Yeah so overall you agree that popularity in last resort matters ?

mmmPI wrote: Sat Apr 19, 2025 8:00 pm .

I'll only address your last point and then I'm done with you.

So your point is people have railguns that oneshot huge asteroids, but they rely on the 50-250 damage the explosive rockets do to a 5k/10k health target. If this sentence doesn't make sense to you, either think for an hour before responding till it does, or you just have never made a prom ship.

But then again, maybe you are talking about the super popular case of people using only rockets and lasers to kill huge asteroids, and my mod would ruin that too. I bet that's even more popular than the nuke.

In that case sir, I protest, I think every resistance should be 99% maximum, so that I can use flamethrowers to burn the big asteroids too.

konage wrote: Sat Apr 19, 2025 8:11 pm So your point is people have railguns that oneshot huge asteroids, but they rely on the 50-250 damage the explosive rockets do to a 5k/10k health target. If this sentence doesn't make sense to you, either think for an hour before responding till it does, or you just have never made a prom ship.

My point is that if your change is pushed onto the game, there will be ships that start failing because their average output damage will be lowered.

And then those players will come and explain to you that you must be someone who never made a half decent prom ship, because to make a good prom ship you have to be at the very edge of failure, and they were, but now someone that had a bad ship design that was not at the edge of failure but actually failing consistently proposed a changed for its own ship.

That's mathematical, your argument is saying "uhhh nooo think of it one hour", that's ridiculous.

konage wrote: Sat Apr 19, 2025 8:11 pm I'll only address your last point and then I'm done with you.

If you can only adress this one, and still not convincingly for me, i imagine there's not much more to say