Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What should be done about random engines
#16
So basically put... we need omni engine room to make this work.

...Or a station with an omni engine room. Or a station with all 3 being there.
Reply
#17
I just feel like it makes maps more distinct for them to have their own standard engines
Reply
#18
Clearly we are going at this all wrong. We should instead add geothermal to the random Cog1 engine instead.  Sleeping bee

On a more serious note, I like the consistency of Cogmaps having TEG and Donut maps having singularities. Following that logic I wouldn't mind seeing Kondaru go nuclear, so we get to play with the NTBMK elsewhere than Nadir, which is a bit of a weird map for many reasons, and while Clarion exist, its not a very popular map, especially during high pop season.
Reply
#19
I think the whole random engine concept should be removed and reworked until it‘s in a better state. It‘s never made sense and usually directly results in at least one engineer cryoing/not contributing to the engine, from what I‘ve seen.
Reply
#20
(06-12-2024, 11:05 PM)Decarcassor Wrote: Following that logic I wouldn't mind seeing Kondaru go nuclear, so we get to play with the NTBMK elsewhere than Nadir, which is a bit of a weird map for many reasons, and while Clarion exist, its not a very popular map, especially during high pop season.
Someone tried to code different engines for kondaru in the past, and Kubius made it clear that they were not interested in that being done.  Furthermore, the TEG on kondaru is considered by most to be the best TEG setup that we currently have available -- Removing it would be an absolute tragedy.  Clarion is a lot more popular now given the rework, and Nadir is BUILT for the reactor.  Kondaru should not lose the TEG, imo.
Reply
#21
Honestly I haven't really played with random engines so take this opinion lightly nor do I have strong opinions on them, but personally I never felt like random engines were a good idea. I feel like their main selling point is they increase the variety when youre playing the same map, however you can get that variety by just playing a different map instead. Maps are very much built around their engine (to varying extents) and just swapping a different engine in kind of ruins that.

I'd be fine with a solution that makes the console the standard option (though there should probably be some flare there about "nanites constructing the engine" to make it more lore friendly), however as is the current solution feels like the worst of both worlds
Reply
#22
(06-13-2024, 06:35 AM)JOELED Wrote:
(06-12-2024, 11:05 PM)Decarcassor Wrote: Following that logic I wouldn't mind seeing Kondaru go nuclear, so we get to play with the NTBMK elsewhere than Nadir, which is a bit of a weird map for many reasons, and while Clarion exist, its not a very popular map, especially during high pop season.
Someone tried to code different engines for kondaru in the past, and Kubius made it clear that they were not interested in that being done.  Furthermore, the TEG on kondaru is considered by most to be the best TEG setup that we currently have available -- Removing it would be an absolute tragedy.  Clarion is a lot more popular now given the rework, and Nadir is BUILT for the reactor.  Kondaru should not lose the TEG, imo.

If anything the Kondaru TEG is a little TOO good: Isolated air bridges, clearly demarcated and clean pipe lines, that little gas exchange conveyor belt? Plentiful supplies in easy reach, the fact you can just barely peek the engine cabin from really far away to make sure  It's almost like it was built by a competent engineer who had safety in mind or something. Tragic! 

(I love Kondaru's TEG) 

But I feel there's two separable issues here:

- How do people feel about COG1's engine variability?
- How would people feel about extending that to other maps?

It's great to discuss both, but I also just want to say that it would be easy to assume these ideas have to be twinned together when I would guess (and it is a guess) the latter idea is a lot more work and potential impact than considering or changing the former. Definitely still worth talking about though.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)