Honestly, and I'm not saying this just to draw fire, I haven't had a problem with it. Yes, going from "invulnerable titan of the deeps" to "sub that can be destroyed" is a bit of an adjustment, but it really doesn't seem unduly fragile. And this isn't just open-water maneuvering, this is going into the Lost River by way of the Blood Kelp trench. I can still get the Cyclops in and out of there without smashing into walls, and the few little clips I have had with rock haven't put an ungodly amount of damage to it - truth told, a little less than I would expect from banging a full-grown sub into rocks.
For reference, in 2005 the USS San Francisco (SSN-711) smashed into a seamount while underway. Yes, a US Navy attack sub hit a mountain head-on at 35 knots. Here's what happened to her:
/snip
That's a great find but two things:
1) We're not usually smashing into rocks whilst moving at 35 knots.
2) Our technological level is far advanced. We have modules which rearrange the density for goodness sake!
Pitch, yes, but AFAIK, they try to avoid rolling and maintain roll balance as much as possible (but I could be very wrong in that, @ApoNono ?)
Pitch is a must to be able to control if you expect to get a boat down and up with more control. On a sub, this is all done via controlling the 'bubble'. When you make the decision to dive deeper you determine A) speed of decent Angle of decent C) Final Depth.
Both A and B have a big factor on how you arrive at C. If you go down too fast with too steep of a bubble you run the risk of overshooting your depth. Also, the Cyclops, if they want it to function like a true submarine, should not stop on a dime when you left off the button.
For bonus points, we should be given a way to do an 'emergency blow'. Let's say you are 800m down and get slammed hard by a Reaper. Your boat catches on fire and is close to exploding. Being able to push a button and have your boat do an uncontrolled ascent to the surface to escape that threat would be amazing.
I will end with saying that I am fully aware that Subnautica is not trying to be a Submarine Simulator but they have a great opportunity with some of these mechanics of making this a really enjoyable part of the game.
On the roll front, you really have no way to control the roll of a boat without trim tanks. You normally only use the trim tanks to maintain the attitude of the boat and not for roll. You can achieve roll when doing evasive maneuvers by using the dive planes.
So I probably said to much without actually saying enough - I hope this helps from a real world perspective
Having a greater number of standard submarine features like pitch control and fast ascent would be reasonable even for a research sub like the Cyclops. Especially now that it can take damage.
Honestly, and I'm not saying this just to draw fire, I haven't had a problem with it. Yes, going from "invulnerable titan of the deeps" to "sub that can be destroyed" is a bit of an adjustment, but it really doesn't seem unduly fragile. And this isn't just open-water maneuvering, this is going into the Lost River by way of the Blood Kelp trench. I can still get the Cyclops in and out of there without smashing into walls, and the few little clips I have had with rock haven't put an ungodly amount of damage to it - truth told, a little less than I would expect from banging a full-grown sub into rocks.
For reference, in 2005 the USS San Francisco (SSN-711) smashed into a seamount while underway. Yes, a US Navy attack sub hit a mountain head-on at 35 knots. Here's what happened to her:
It was a mess. Smashed in her sonar dome, forward ballast tanks ruptured. Several accounts state that they almost lost the boat because of the loss of buoyancy control. One man dead, 98 injured. The pressure hull wasn't ruptured, thank God, but it was still enough damage to cripple the sub and leave her barely able to limp back to port.
I bring this up because building something to withstand pressure does not turn it into a juggernaut. You smash it into something hard and it's going to break. More intuitively, it's built to withstand squeeze, not smash. The Cyclops is hardly more durable than a Los Angeles-class attack boat; given the amount of materials used to build it, I'd expect its hull to be less able to handle impact damage, titanium notwithstanding. (You'll feel no difference ripping titanium foil versus aluminum.) A thinner titanium hull may have comparable pressure-handling characteristics but still be weaker on impact resistance.
Bottom line, if I'm too reckless to avoid smashing my boat into stuff and stirring up hostile wildlife, then I deserve to lose her. Everything about the game orbits the central concept of "you're not in charge in this environment, so don't go around with an 'I'm gonna kick your fins' attitude."
But... that's from a mountain. Not a shark biting into it, or a collision with a dolphin-sized creature or a piece of drifting debris - it was, by your own admission, a head-on collision with a solid mass of hard rock.
No offense, but comments like this are what irk me the most, because you clearly didn't even get what the OP's point was; it's not that the sub can be damaged that's the problem - it's that it can be damaged so easily by such comparatively small means. You can actually take like 3-5% off the thing just by striking it with your knife - that a sub can be wrecked if you smash right into something is basic knowledge; that it can be sunk by knifing it is something else altogether. The amount of damage to the ship from threats and hazards shouldn't be this big is what the OP is saying - just like you don't have to worry about bleeders ripping your seamoth apart anytime soon, so to should you not have to be so frightened of the Cyclops being totally destroyed by anything smaller than a Leviathan, let alone an idle pack of bone, sand or stalker sharks.
Likewise, the DSV Alvin comparison feels completely inadmissible to me because scale-wise it's more in line with the Seamoth or Prawn suit than it is the Cyclops - and in turn, the former two suffer damage that can be considered proportionate to what the swordfish did to the Alvin. The Cyclops is another story - it shouldn't be so easy to damage that you have three holes in the thing plus risk of sudden fire just by passing through moderate-sized creatures; scratch-damage would be realistic, but damage like what they do now should be saved for something that it'd match for size-wise like the Crabsquid. As it stands, it's far too easy for the sub to get whittled down to like 70-66% just from a trio of sharks - that kind of damage, I'd expect from a Leviathan attack.
By that statistic, the Cyclops is nowhere near as durable even compared to a Los Angeles-class attack boat, because last I checked a shark couldn't easily tear a hole in the side of those whereas the stalkers, sandsharks and just about everything else of that size can do so with relative ease. Hell, if anything, I'd almost say you shot yourself in the foot with that argument in that you proved that damage to the Cyclops isn't balanced in that it should take impacts like a mountain (or rather, a Reaper charging it head-long) to actually damage the thing - especially when you take into account that, considering the massive time-difference between the date in Subnautica and modern times, construction of subs ought to have gotten at least somewhat sturdier. Not necessary a ton, but at least noticeably more-so than today's subs - hell, as was already mentioned, human tech in Subnautica can rearrange particle density for heaven's sake, so it's not exactly a stretch to say that Alterra humans can make a sub that's a fair bit stronger than anything we have today.
In-game I'd argue that the cyclops is considerably more durable, at least where headbutting mountains is concerned. One of the first things I did with my shiny new cyclops was charge into the floating island at flank speed. I'm not entirely sure how fast flank speed actually is, but it certainly didn't sustain the kind of damage the USS San Francisco did in that picture. This is a world where sharks will do more damage than running into a mountain will so perhaps the problem is that the damage from hitting terrain is too low? If we are going for a more realistic approach.
Out of game I don't find it to be fair to claim that because the Cyclops is from the future that it MUST have better resistance to x,y, or z than the USS San Francisco. This is still a civilian vessel versus a military one. Given Subnautica is set roughly 100-150 years in the future can we compare modern civilian ships with warships of a century ago? How many civilian vessels (barring icebreakers which are designed to be ramming solid objects anyway) are there today that compare with the armor of the HMS Dreadnought?
Just because the technology is present to make the cyclops sturdier, doesn't necessarily mean the design used it. Creature damage just seems to be too high or terrain damage too low. Or the cyclops just doesn't have sufficient health.
It is certainly slightly annoying to head out to repair the Cyclops at times, but the damage, even from small fry, has not really bothered me. Sure you cant exactly cruise along at full speed in a enemy dense area, but you really should not either. The damage taken is so little that I can usually just sail off to a slightly safer area or if not possible, throw it into silent mode be mostly safe. Especially silent running seems to practically require you to run into an enemy before they notice you.
So far I have used it mostly as a mobile base. Max speed when near surface or in non dangerous areas, slow or silent running when heading into dangerous areas and then park it near resources or wrecks and head out in Seamoth or by swimming. There is certainly a new element of danger to using it, but that was kind of needed, an immortal vehicle does not really fit in with the atmosphere.
Heading into Lost River and the Lava Zones soon, we will need if i maintain my jovial attitude past that.
But... that's from a mountain. Not a shark biting into it, or a collision with a dolphin-sized creature or a piece of drifting debris - it was, by your own admission, a head-on collision with a solid mass of hard rock.
No offense, but comments like this are what irk me the most, because you clearly didn't even get what the OP's point was; it's not that the sub can be damaged that's the problem - it's that it can be damaged so easily by such comparatively small means. You can actually take like 3-5% off the thing just by striking it with your knife - that a sub can be wrecked if you smash right into something is basic knowledge; that it can be sunk by knifing it is something else altogether. The amount of damage to the ship from threats and hazards shouldn't be this big is what the OP is saying - just like you don't have to worry about bleeders ripping your seamoth apart anytime soon, so to should you not have to be so frightened of the Cyclops being totally destroyed by anything smaller than a Leviathan, let alone an idle pack of bone, sand or stalker sharks.
Likewise, the DSV Alvin comparison feels completely inadmissible to me because scale-wise it's more in line with the Seamoth or Prawn suit than it is the Cyclops - and in turn, the former two suffer damage that can be considered proportionate to what the swordfish did to the Alvin. The Cyclops is another story - it shouldn't be so easy to damage that you have three holes in the thing plus risk of sudden fire just by passing through moderate-sized creatures; scratch-damage would be realistic, but damage like what they do now should be saved for something that it'd match for size-wise like the Crabsquid. As it stands, it's far too easy for the sub to get whittled down to like 70-66% just from a trio of sharks - that kind of damage, I'd expect from a Leviathan attack.
By that statistic, the Cyclops is nowhere near as durable even compared to a Los Angeles-class attack boat, because last I checked a shark couldn't easily tear a hole in the side of those whereas the stalkers, sandsharks and just about everything else of that size can do so with relative ease. Hell, if anything, I'd almost say you shot yourself in the foot with that argument in that you proved that damage to the Cyclops isn't balanced in that it should take impacts like a mountain (or rather, a Reaper charging it head-long) to actually damage the thing - especially when you take into account that, considering the massive time-difference between the date in Subnautica and modern times, construction of subs ought to have gotten at least somewhat sturdier. Not necessary a ton, but at least noticeably more-so than today's subs - hell, as was already mentioned, human tech in Subnautica can rearrange particle density for heaven's sake, so it's not exactly a stretch to say that Alterra humans can make a sub that's a fair bit stronger than anything we have today.
I understood the OP's point, Metroid. I just don't agree with it, and do so with support of evidence.
The Alvin citation illustrates that fauna can cause damage - potentially fatal damage - to a sub. As earlier remarked, the concern from the engineers was that a direct hit by the swordfish's bill on a viewport could have caused the material to fail. If a relatively small fish can be expected to do that, it's entirely in line that a larger, more powerful animal could cause significantly more damage even to sturdier structures. As for the San Francisco, it was a demonstration that the complaints about how a Cyclops takes impact damage from hitting rocks also have counter evidence.
While it's certainly reasonable that the damage being dealt as-is might be a touch high (such as for the knife), it's not out of the bounds of expectation. As I stated earlier:
"The Cyclops is hardly more durable than a Los Angeles-class attack boat; given the amount of materials used to build it, I'd expect its hull to be less able to handle impact damage, titanium notwithstanding. (You'll feel no difference ripping titanium foil versus aluminum.) A thinner titanium hull may have comparable pressure-handling characteristics but still be weaker on impact resistance."
We don't use a lot of metal to build a Cyclops. Consequently, it is likely to have a fairly thin hull, even compared to today's boats. As a result, the impact from anything hard - from rocks to armored fish - should cause damage, and a fair amount of it. The jaws of a shark of either type we encounter are both wide and lined with thick teeth. Bonesharks up the ante by including an armored and spiked carapace. Against a relatively thin-hulled sub that's not built with geometry to withstand such damage, the sub should be expected to fare poorly. This is a big boat with a vulnerable shape and not much metal going into its hull. From something like a Leviathan, with its structure, I'd expect the sub to be absolutely crippled, not just dinged up. It's the same size as the sub. The size and consequent muscle mass, the external mandibles, and jaws of a Reaper - collectively, that animal should be able to tear holes in the hull of a sub with ease. But lesser animals with similar traits should also be able to cause significant damage. Scale is not everything. Just because a boneshark is smaller does not mean that its muscle mass and natural defenses shouldn't be able to inflict serious damage on a sub with questionable hull strength. The Cyclops is not a battleship; it's a submersible tractor trailer. It's built to withstand pressure, not punishment.
The moment Cyclops damage became a thing, there was going to be discord on the matter. Too much, just fine, damage at all - opinions are going to be scattered all over on this and probably will be until modders get hold of it and build mods to everybody's liking. The entire purpose of my post was to illustrate that the damage model is not entirely unreasonable, in part by showing real-world examples. Of course this is a sci-fi game and our tech standards are different. But short of invoking space magic and saying the sub can defy expectations of materials science there are limits to what even titanium can do, and the ability of these animals to cause damage could easily exceed the metal's ability to withstand it by a considerable margin.
You're not going to agree with me, and that's perfectly fine; I'm not likely to agree with you, either. It's not because one of us is right and the other's wrong, it's because we're looking at the same problem from two different directions and applying different metrics to the analysis.
I would point out two things:
First of all, I'm not certain, but I don't think the cyclops's speed even approaches 35 knots. But yes, collision damage from terrain makes sense. The cyclops is a heavy object, and so will have a lot of inertia that will result in destruction when it collides with an immovable object at even moderate speed.
However, the swordfish is where the argument breaks down. Not only is the Alvin more comparable to the seamoth than the cyclops, but let's look at the fish in question. First of all, there is the "sword", a piercing weapon that allows the fish to spread the kinetic energy in it's body over a much smaller surface area, thus increasing it's ability to damage armored surfaces like the hull of a submersible. A boneshark has no weapon like this. What it has are it's jaws and ramming with it's armored head. Where it's jaws are concerned, there is an obvious problem. Try biting through the skin of a really big watermelon. Go on, give it a try. Once you are done making a fool out of yourself, you will have realized the problem: the cyclops is far to big for a boneshark or any creature smaller than a leviathan to get it's jaws around. As for the ramming, take a look at a fish in real life swim. Now watch a fish in subnautica swim. Notice anything? Creatures in subnautica are SLOW. Very slow. Slow enough that a human with dive fins can rival most of them in speed. A swordfish ramming something will be doing so at many times the speed a boneshark is capable of, with a weapon far more suited to attacking submarines than a boneshark's face. A boneshark might weigh more, but it's the difference between a SABO round and an age of sail cannonball. One bounces off of wooden ships, the other penetrates tank hulls.
Out of game I don't find it to be fair to claim that because the Cyclops is from the future that it MUST have better resistance to x,y, or z than the USS San Francisco. This is still a civilian vessel versus a military one. Given Subnautica is set roughly 100-150 years in the future can we compare modern civilian ships with warships of a century ago? How many civilian vessels (barring icebreakers which are designed to be ramming solid objects anyway) are there today that compare with the armor of the HMS Dreadnought?
Just because the technology is present to make the cyclops sturdier, doesn't necessarily mean the design used it. Creature damage just seems to be too high or terrain damage too low. Or the cyclops just doesn't have sufficient health.
Except that because the player-character is the de-facto Captain of the Aurora (due to being the last survivor), they'd have access to non-civilian equipment - hell, the torpedo systems for the Seamoth and Prawn, or access to them in the first place, definitely don't fall under civilian authority.
Additionally, it's not just because "it's from the future" - it's because of how in-game there's things like the pressure compensator that can rearrange molecule density, which would naturally imply that construction methods of such in-depth manipulation of materials would be a lot stronger than any military-grade sub we have today. Given the presence of instant 3-D printing and molecular manipulation in Subnautica, I'd actually argue the opposite - I don't find it fair to take the timeframe alone as reason to judge it's strength; I take the technology we actually see in-game as a result of future advancement being the determinator, not simply that it's from the future.
It is certainly slightly annoying to head out to repair the Cyclops at times, but the damage, even from small fry, has not really bothered me. Sure you cant exactly cruise along at full speed in a enemy dense area, but you really should not either. The damage taken is so little that I can usually just sail off to a slightly safer area or if not possible, throw it into silent mode be mostly safe. Especially silent running seems to practically require you to run into an enemy before they notice you.
So far I have used it mostly as a mobile base. Max speed when near surface or in non dangerous areas, slow or silent running when heading into dangerous areas and then park it near resources or wrecks and head out in Seamoth or by swimming. There is certainly a new element of danger to using it, but that was kind of needed, an immortal vehicle does not really fit in with the atmosphere.
Heading into Lost River and the Lava Zones soon, we will need if i maintain my jovial attitude past that.
You can't really do that in the lost river or lava-zone, though - both of which are places inaccessible without it and now carry the highest risk of being stranded there.
I understood the OP's point, Metroid. I just don't agree with it, and do so with support of evidence.
The Alvin citation illustrates that fauna can cause damage - potentially fatal damage - to a sub. As earlier remarked, the concern from the engineers was that a direct hit by the swordfish's bill on a viewport could have caused the material to fail. If a relatively small fish can be expected to do that, it's entirely in line that a larger, more powerful animal could cause significantly more damage even to sturdier structures. As for the San Francisco, it was a demonstration that the complaints about how a Cyclops takes impact damage from hitting rocks also have counter evidence.
While it's certainly reasonable that the damage being dealt as-is might be a touch high (such as for the knife), it's not out of the bounds of expectation. As I stated earlier:
"The Cyclops is hardly more durable than a Los Angeles-class attack boat; given the amount of materials used to build it, I'd expect its hull to be less able to handle impact damage, titanium notwithstanding. (You'll feel no difference ripping titanium foil versus aluminum.) A thinner titanium hull may have comparable pressure-handling characteristics but still be weaker on impact resistance."
We don't use a lot of metal to build a Cyclops. Consequently, it is likely to have a fairly thin hull, even compared to today's boats. As a result, the impact from anything hard - from rocks to armored fish - should cause damage, and a fair amount of it. The jaws of a shark of either type we encounter are both wide and lined with thick teeth. Bonesharks up the ante by including an armored and spiked carapace. Against a relatively thin-hulled sub that's not built with geometry to withstand such damage, the sub should be expected to fare poorly. This is a big boat with a vulnerable shape and not much metal going into its hull. From something like a Leviathan, with its structure, I'd expect the sub to be absolutely crippled, not just dinged up. It's the same size as the sub. The size and consequent muscle mass, the external mandibles, and jaws of a Reaper - collectively, that animal should be able to tear holes in the hull of a sub with ease. But lesser animals with similar traits should also be able to cause significant damage. Scale is not everything. Just because a boneshark is smaller does not mean that its muscle mass and natural defenses shouldn't be able to inflict serious damage on a sub with questionable hull strength. The Cyclops is not a battleship; it's a submersible tractor trailer. It's built to withstand pressure, not punishment.
The moment Cyclops damage became a thing, there was going to be discord on the matter. Too much, just fine, damage at all - opinions are going to be scattered all over on this and probably will be until modders get hold of it and build mods to everybody's liking. The entire purpose of my post was to illustrate that the damage model is not entirely unreasonable, in part by showing real-world examples. Of course this is a sci-fi game and our tech standards are different. But short of invoking space magic and saying the sub can defy expectations of materials science there are limits to what even titanium can do, and the ability of these animals to cause damage could easily exceed the metal's ability to withstand it by a considerable margin.
You're not going to agree with me, and that's perfectly fine; I'm not likely to agree with you, either. It's not because one of us is right and the other's wrong, it's because we're looking at the same problem from two different directions and applying different metrics to the analysis.
No. Honestly speaking, I don’t think you did. Not even slightly. Backed by how your evidence is either inadmissible at best or outright misconstrued at worst.
Like I already said, the Alvin is inadmissible because of the size-scale alone - it’s nowhere near the size of the Cyclops, nowhere near as heavily-plated and designed for a smaller, more self-contained atmosphere. Like I pointed out in the last comment, the Alvan is comparable to the Seamoth or Prawn, both of which can be damaged equivalently by medium-sized creatures (5%-10% damage per hit or impact from sharks on the Seamoth, 3%-5% damage from that on the Prawn) - it does nothing to illustrate how a large sub would be so easily damaged. If you’d been talking about either of the smaller units, you’d have had a point - as it is, it feels like you didn’t even read my comment. Doubly so, since the swordfish isn’t a “larger, more powerful animal” - if anything, the boneshark or stalker are of equal or comparable size, which honestly just undermines your argument more than anything else.
Ergo, yes the damage is very much out of the bounds of expectation, especially considering how, as was previously mentioned in the above comments, ramming the Cyclops into a mountain-face ended up doing less damage than the wildlife. The balance is completely skewed.
As a result, your prior quote falls apart on that premise - as was clearly mentioned, the Cyclops is not comparable to a Los Angeles-class attack boat; it’s smaller, so there is less for the plating to have to stretch over and keep sealed, made with more advanced construction methods (3-D printing creating it as a single massive piece rather than several decks that are fused together and then plated over, making it more like a solid rock than a normal sub), and it isn’t even made of the same materials (rather than just titanium, it’s made of plasteel - titanium and lithium blended together). Your mistake is that you only looked at the materials to build, not how it was built or the methods involved or even the level of technology shown during the time period it was made in.
Again, that’s offset by several factors - most notably of which that it’s flash-printed as a single massive block rather than assembled piece by piece like a puzzle, which naturally makes it more solid than any modern sub; something even evidenced in it’s destruction cinematic where the massive explosions only really destroy the tail section, which feel like it completely undercuts your claim of “ relatively thin-hulled sub.” Hell, the level of molecular manipulation shown is enough that a single habitat room (a much smaller construct with thinner walls) made at 1500 meters below is completely stable and heat-insulated - or that simply put, you’re grossly underestimating/underselling the hows of these things being made and that knowing the materials isn’t anywhere near enough to extrapolate a comparison to modern units. Doubly so since, again, the Cyclops in-game doesn’t even reflect your statistic in how impacts with mountains do less damage than the wildlife does - and unlike a Los Angeles-class attack boat, this ship is one that has been specifically designed to explore alien oceans and therefore would naturally be designed stronger than normal Earth subs even just for that purpose alone on the premise of not knowing what to expect. Thrice-invalidating is that all the wildlife operates on point-system damage - sandsharks and bonesharks do 30 damage each, while stalkers do 20, both of which are more than the 10-15 damage incurred by hitting terrain; there are no special values determined between species type. Furthermore, Reaper Leviathans do 80 damage per bite - so three bonesharks, each with 30 damage per bite, can cause 90 damage together, or in other words, three sharks do more damage than the Reaper.
Ergo, the above makes any attempt at justification on your point moot, because it again feels like you don’t have any clue what the OP’s point was; it was never about whether or not the creatures could damage the sub - it’s about how easily they can do so and how disproportionate the damage is compared to other things. Saying “there was going to be discord on the matter” feels an excuse on that count; like I said, I expect creatures to be able to damage the sub - I do not expect small sharks to do the same or more damage than a Leviathan can, thereby completely screwing up the balance of threat-level/danger level per creature. As it stands, sharks are able to tear holes in the thing with the exact same ease as a Reaper, when at best they should only be doing scratch damage to it; again, you’re underselling scale in this regard because you’re ignoring how imbalanced that scale is on the damage ratio (something proven by how, again, land collisions do less damage then a shark bite does). Reapers are described as practically all muscle and sinew and are extremely aggressive - that is what would make the damage from them more severe, not simply their size; a trio of sharks on the other hand, being much smaller than it, should not be doing more damage than it. It’s not that the sharks can damage the sub that’s the problem; it’s that they’re doing more total damage to it than they should to a sub like this, and are more damaging than either a Reaper Leviathan or a head-on land collision is doing, pointing to a major imbalance in damage acuity. Whether or not it’s built to withstand punishment is academic - the point is that the punishment it takes from the wildlife is both disproportionate and inaccurate based on what we know about both the sub, it’s construction methods and even the level of danger the wildlife is supposed to represent when compared to other creatures; you don’t expect to hit a tractor trailer with an axe three times and get equivalent damage to a cannon-ball, do you? Or stab it with a hand-knife and expect similar results, right?
Similarly, you saying “you’re not going to agree with me” feels another excuse, because the reason for that is not simply divergence of belief - it’s that I feel your beliefs are based on fundamentally misconstrued information. We’re not “looking at the same problem from two different directions and applying different metrics to the analysis” - it’s that you’re looking at it from what feels a patently wrong perspective in that it doesn’t even actually address what the OP’s problem is; disproportionate damage from the wildlife, not that the wildlife causes damage at all.
Fine, Metroid, have it your way. I'm not going to bother continuing this discussion (which isn't even a discussion) because your mind is made up; you're only interested in hammering your own point of view.
It is certainly slightly annoying to head out to repair the Cyclops at times, but the damage, even from small fry, has not really bothered me. Sure you cant exactly cruise along at full speed in a enemy dense area, but you really should not either. The damage taken is so little that I can usually just sail off to a slightly safer area or if not possible, throw it into silent mode be mostly safe. Especially silent running seems to practically require you to run into an enemy before they notice you.
So far I have used it mostly as a mobile base. Max speed when near surface or in non dangerous areas, slow or silent running when heading into dangerous areas and then park it near resources or wrecks and head out in Seamoth or by swimming. There is certainly a new element of danger to using it, but that was kind of needed, an immortal vehicle does not really fit in with the atmosphere.
Heading into Lost River and the Lava Zones soon, we will need if i maintain my jovial attitude past that.
You can't really do that in the lost river or lava-zone, though - both of which are places inaccessible without it and now carry the highest risk of being stranded there.
Well my Cyclops is perfectly parked at a to be established base at the back of the Ghost Tree of the Lost River zone. Took only one very minor hit in getting there and in general while I took it slow and careful, mostly going between Silent Running and Ahead Slow, I never really ran into any problems.
Used it to ferry along all the materials I will need to set up a base and my Seamoth can just barely avoid beeing destroyed to pressure if placed near the top of the cavern, while the Prawnsuit obviously has no problems (did two runs to get both things down there, Seamoth mostly to easily come and go).
Next up is the Lava Zones, but so far people seem to be blowing the Cyclops vulnerability way out of propotion. Anything i have not been able to just sail by in Silent Running has dealt scratch damage at best. Not saying Leviathans are gonna be the same, but this has been far from unmanageable so far.
Well my Cyclops is perfectly parked at a to be established base at the back of the Ghost Tree of the Lost River zone. Took only one very minor hit in getting there and in general while I took it slow and careful, mostly going between Silent Running and Ahead Slow, I never really ran into any problems.
Used it to ferry along all the materials I will need to set up a base and my Seamoth can just barely avoid beeing destroyed to pressure if placed near the top of the cavern, while the Prawnsuit obviously has no problems (did two runs to get both things down there, Seamoth mostly to easily come and go).
Next up is the Lava Zones, but so far people seem to be blowing the Cyclops vulnerability way out of propotion. Anything i have not been able to just sail by in Silent Running has dealt scratch damage at best. Not saying Leviathans are gonna be the same, but this has been far from unmanageable so far.
I took a trip across the Crag Fields, Deep Grand Reef and Lost River to the ILZ entrance at Ahead Flank speed without stopping. No cameras, no shield, no fire supression system, no decoys! Being deliberately reckless. The Cyclops was under 20% Health when I arrived at the Ghost Tree to stop for repairs. I ran into (and over) a lot of problems! The DGR was rough and received quite a few bumps there. It was pretty hurt (lol) but there are a couple of things to know.
Outer Hull Damage takes precedent over fires. Each one you repair adds 150 Health (or 10%) back to your Cyclops. Fire does 2 damage every 8 seconds per fire to the Cyclops. It's not a lot, mostly it's a danger to the player. Smoke buildup in particular drains your health every second once it's heavy enough. But, putting out fires when your hull is still heavily damaged results in you chasing fires endlessly around your Cyclops. So outside first, inside last.
You'll always have an instance or two of hull Damage from periodic fire damage. You can't repair everything but you've got time to get at most of them. Medkits and Fire Extinguishers are going to be very important so be prepared and make quite a few backups! Medkits in particular are for the smoke/fire damage while fighting the fires. Definitely make a stash of those by the Exit Hatch somewhere. Placing two fire extinguishers on your quickbar makes it easy to swap to the next one.
Hopefully that will help if you find yourself in a bad situation like that! You might in the Lava Zones.
-
I'm on my way to the ILZ next time I play, been itching to see do some testing with a bigger subject.
Fine, Metroid, have it your way. I'm not going to bother continuing this discussion (which isn't even a discussion) because your mind is made up; you're only interested in hammering your own point of view.
It's less that I'm "only interested in hammering in (my) own point of view" and more that I'm trying to point out that the standards you're using aren't reflective of the setting, the technology or even taking into account the huge imbalance between damage proportions (again, trio of sharks do more damage than a Reaper's attack). You used sciences that don't reflect those of the in-game world, and the sciences that do apply (3-D-printed single block of sub being more sturdy then a puzzle-piece assembled one like todays) feel like they're being ignored by you.
To make a long story short, my mind isn't made up - I'm just pointing out that yours didn't account for several things. By contrast, your reply here feels closer to a "your mind is made up" deal.
Well my Cyclops is perfectly parked at a to be established base at the back of the Ghost Tree of the Lost River zone. Took only one very minor hit in getting there and in general while I took it slow and careful, mostly going between Silent Running and Ahead Slow, I never really ran into any problems.
Next up is the Lava Zones, but so far people seem to be blowing the Cyclops vulnerability way out of propotion. Anything i have not been able to just sail by in Silent Running has dealt scratch damage at best. Not saying Leviathans are gonna be the same, but this has been far from unmanageable so far.
But that in and of itself is one of the problems - anything outside those two modes runs the risk of anything and everything tearing your sub apart. Stalkers do 20 damage while bonesharks, sandsharks and river prowelers do 30, the reaper does 80 and the sea-dragon can do up to 120 in one go (80 for meteor/fireball attack, 40 per claw swat, plus an additional 20 for fire breath)... and the Cyclops total has 1500 health. That means a group of river prowlers (3-4) can take off 90-120 (or 6%-8%) of the Cyclops' health per round of attacks, which quickly stacks up unless you're constantly stopping to fix it up. AKA, one pack of wildlife is equally dangerous as a Leviathan - something that makes it really hard for me personally to say the sub's not too fragile. And with sea-dragon encounters, it's not even factoring in the extra damage from impacts when the sub gets knocked around, or if it hits a lava pool, or the additional damage from fires.
That the sub can be damaged is one thing, but it really is too fragile for what it is - especially when in extremely dangerous areas where going out to repair hull damage might not be an option lest you get insta-killed, or if you leave it idle to explore and something attacks it while you're gone. The point of the OP is whether or not the Cyclops is actually usable in exploration - and as it stands, it really doesn't feel like it is and especially not with the agro I've seen on even the sharks, let alone the reapers.
It's not that the sub can be damaged that's the problem - it's that it can be damaged so easily by such comparatively small means. You can actually take like 3-5% off the thing just by striking it with your knife - that a sub can be wrecked if you smash right into something is basic knowledge; that it can be sunk by knifing it is something else altogether.
I just gave it a try and where are you hitting your Cyclops that you can damage it with a knife? Because I just can't land a blow - same with the other verhicles. (By which I don't mean it'd be unreasonable considering you can damage a base with the knife and that's the same material. Just trying to figure out here where/how I'd need to knife to damage a Cyclops and how that affects gameplay and the game's internal logic.)
I just gave it a try and where are you hitting your Cyclops that you can damage it with a knife? Because I just can't land a blow - same with the other verhicles. (By which I don't mean it'd be unreasonable considering you can damage a base with the knife and that's the same material. Just trying to figure out here where/how I'd need to knife to damage a Cyclops and how that affects gameplay and the game's internal logic.)
I just picked a spot and cut - didn't matter where. There was also a vid by someone (DoubleJ, maybe) where he could cut the thing apart from the inside. However, that was back during experimental, and I haven't tried it again since the release build since I have enough hassle with keeping an eye on the thing without trying to cause more damage to it myself.
Maybe they fixed it to not be hit with the knife? I'd certainly like that to be the case, at least. Make sense, too - in the pre-release build, the Cyclops only had 1000 health, so the aforementioned packs of creatures were taking off 10%-13% health per round. IGP released a video showcasing the hell of trying to take that earlier build through the Lost River - - so the devs made it at least a little tougher than it was before. It's just not tough enough yet - nor is the damage the creatures can do balanced between the different types.
Well my Cyclops is perfectly parked at a to be established base at the back of the Ghost Tree of the Lost River zone. Took only one very minor hit in getting there and in general while I took it slow and careful, mostly going between Silent Running and Ahead Slow, I never really ran into any problems.
Next up is the Lava Zones, but so far people seem to be blowing the Cyclops vulnerability way out of propotion. Anything i have not been able to just sail by in Silent Running has dealt scratch damage at best. Not saying Leviathans are gonna be the same, but this has been far from unmanageable so far.
But that in and of itself is one of the problems - anything outside those two modes runs the risk of anything and everything tearing your sub apart. Stalkers do 20 damage while bonesharks, sandsharks and river prowelers do 30, the reaper does 80 and the sea-dragon can do up to 120 in one go (80 for meteor/fireball attack, 40 per claw swat, plus an additional 20 for fire breath)... and the Cyclops total has 1500 health. That means a group of river prowlers (3-4) can take off 90-120 (or 6%-8%) of the Cyclops' health per round of attacks, which quickly stacks up unless you're constantly stopping to fix it up. AKA, one pack of wildlife is equally dangerous as a Leviathan - something that makes it really hard for me personally to say the sub's not too fragile. And with sea-dragon encounters, it's not even factoring in the extra damage from impacts when the sub gets knocked around, or if it hits a lava pool, or the additional damage from fires.
That the sub can be damaged is one thing, but it really is too fragile for what it is - especially when in extremely dangerous areas where going out to repair hull damage might not be an option lest you get insta-killed, or if you leave it idle to explore and something attacks it while you're gone. The point of the OP is whether or not the Cyclops is actually usable in exploration - and as it stands, it really doesn't feel like it is and especially not with the agro I've seen on even the sharks, let alone the reapers.
Only use ahead normal and ahead flank when your enemy radar says you are clear? That is what I am doing.
And if I am attacked I simply switch quickly to Silent Running and the enemies usually start leaving me alone, never had more than two enemies attack me at once either, but that can probably be chalked up to caution. Really, I have a hard time seeing how pack of wild life can ever tear your sub apart when Silent Running seems to make you basically invisible, even when currently under attack. I have had to deliberately ram into Bonesharks and similar to get them to damage my sub in Silent Running and anything that doesnt get very close ignore you even on slow.
And when I do take damage, I dont stop immediately to repair it. I continue into a safe area before getting out to handle it, because if it is just one or two hits, it has dealt scratch damage at best. If I do have to repair in a semi dangerous area, I switch the sub to Silent Running before exiting, it actually works.
Yes, you have to be more careful and deliberate, but that has been the case with this game the entire time. You are not gonna be outrunning anything in your Prawn suit and a Seamoth cant outrun a Reaper Leviathan either, just fend it off with the Electro Defense. Caution and careful advancement has been the name of the game, at least for me and this just adds the Cyclops to the same category.
It can get you somewhere maybe not faster, but it was never faster than the Seamoth, but with a mountain more resources than any other vehicle, while bringing along one of the sub vehicles as well and so far, with a bit of patience, can easily avoid the worst of what the game has to offer.
Only use ahead normal and ahead flank when your enemy radar says you are clear? That is what I am doing.
And if I am attacked I simply switch quickly to Silent Running and the enemies usually start leaving me alone, never had more than two enemies attack me at once either, but that can probably be chalked up to caution. Really, I have a hard time seeing how pack of wild life can ever tear your sub apart when Silent Running seems to make you basically invisible, even when currently under attack. I have had to deliberately ram into Bonesharks and similar to get them to damage my sub in Silent Running and anything that doesnt get very close ignore you even on slow.
And when I do take damage, I dont stop immediately to repair it. I continue into a safe area before getting out to handle it, because if it is just one or two hits, it has dealt scratch damage at best. If I do have to repair in a semi dangerous area, I switch the sub to Silent Running before exiting, it actually works.
Yes, you have to be more careful and deliberate, but that has been the case with this game the entire time. You are not gonna be outrunning anything in your Prawn suit and a Seamoth cant outrun a Reaper Leviathan either, just fend it off with the Electro Defense. Caution and careful advancement has been the name of the game, at least for me and this just adds the Cyclops to the same category.
It can get you somewhere maybe not faster, but it was never faster than the Seamoth, but with a mountain more resources than any other vehicle, while bringing along one of the sub vehicles as well and so far, with a bit of patience, can easily avoid the worst of what the game has to offer.
Except my point is that you pretty much have to use this mode 24/7 if you want to go anywhere beyond the shallows without drawing a pack, especially considering the agro-range of some creatures (I've had stalkers come out as far as the shallows and even a boneshark tail me back to my lifepod).
Also, IGP tested this in early access - and found the hard way that it does nothing for preventing the creatures from attacking you once they've already noticed you; silent running only works if you maintain an undetected state. If they notice you, they aren't automatically going to stop seeing you just because you went silent; you'll have to either drive them off or wait them out and then repair the damage afterword.
- https://youtube.com/watch?v=UllaQ-Xnt6A
Likewise, areas where the aggressive enemies swarm - Plateaus for the sandsharks, kelp forests for stalkers, underwater islands for bonesharks, etc - make it hard to go through without attracting at least three. River prowlers in particular are very aggressive, to the point that even disembarking the sub can rile them - and they'll follow you back to it.
Also, I pointed out what the point values were - that a group of three sharks or eels is all that's needed to equal the damage a leviathan can deal out in and of itself points to a dissonance in the damage values. And, again, if you're in a place where you can't just run to a safe area, like the Inactive Lava Zone, than it becomes an even harder issue to manage. Even moreso since silent running (on top of, again, not making the sub invisible if the creatures have already noticed it) does nothing for making you yourself invisible, running the risk of something killing you before you can do anything.
The issue is that there's a difference between being "careful and deliberate" and being so paranoid as to feel you can't take the Cyclops beyond the shallow zones - it was never so punishing as to make you actively afraid to leave it alone for extended periods of time in case something stumbled on it. There's likewise a difference between "caution and careful advancement" and feeling actively restricted into doing things a certain way to the point of actively killing the desire to explore due to how much of a chore it is to manage.
The issue was never about travel speed - it was about accessibility and exploration. The seamoth made it easier to explore places like the Kelp forests because the bleaders couldn't just suck you dry anymore - creatures the size of sharks could damage you, but never too severely. The Cyclops doesn't have that balance - it shouldn't be so fragile as to get whole chunks of it whittled away by a pack of sharks like that. That's to say nothing on if it happens purely because of an accident - it makes everything feel way more punishing than it really should be for even the surface zones, let alone the Lost River or Lava Zones. There's a difference between patience and dealing with restriction, and the Cyclops feels like it falls into the latter.
I didn't like how high damage was before this update and it sure hasn't made me feel any differently. I honestly wouldn't play this game at ALL if it weren't for the "damage" console command. I set it to a quarter damage every time I start a new game. I have zero interest in anything as punishing as the default. I still REALLY REALLY REALLY wish they'd give us survival, oxygen, and energy multiplier commands that worked in a similar fashion. I'd much rather be able to set a multiplier to something I didn't find totally annoying instead of just turning them off when I get too bored/frustrated to deal with them anymore. I sure hope they don't disable the debug console when they hit the release version because I'd seriously just uninstall the game.
Except my point is that you pretty much have to use this mode 24/7 if you want to go anywhere beyond the shallows without drawing a pack, especially considering the agro-range of some creatures (I've had stalkers come out as far as the shallows and even a boneshark tail me back to my lifepod).
Also, IGP tested this in early access - and found the hard way that it does nothing for preventing the creatures from attacking you once they've already noticed you; silent running only works if you maintain an undetected state. If they notice you, they aren't automatically going to stop seeing you just because you went silent; you'll have to either drive them off or wait them out and then repair the damage afterword.
- https://youtube.com/watch?v=UllaQ-Xnt6A
Likewise, areas where the aggressive enemies swarm - Plateaus for the sandsharks, kelp forests for stalkers, underwater islands for bonesharks, etc - make it hard to go through without attracting at least three. River prowlers in particular are very aggressive, to the point that even disembarking the sub can rile them - and they'll follow you back to it.
Little of this is true. The moment you engage Silent Running, every critter leaves you immediately alone (give or take if they are in mid-attack). It's preposterously easy to keep your Cyclops safe that way, like the fish go "whoops, guess that was just a red-glowy rock all along!", although the other side is that even when standing still any other mode draws attention. UWE could smoothe this out a little.
I also have gone through lots of Kelp Forests and not been targeted once. I should try pestering the stalkers, because until this and another post I assumed neither stalkers nor sandsharks can aggro the Cyclops (whether intentional or not. No matter what I do, I can't get ampeels and warpers to attack me and that seems an oversight.)
I'm hoping I'm not stepping on toes, but lets try to make sure any claim about the new Cyclops is true for Stable at this time and not a memory from the past month of Experimental.
Casual_PlayerThat...is a really good questionJoin Date: 2016-08-30Member: 221875Members
Hm, would it be hard if the damage to the Cyclops to be calculated based upon the class of creature attacking, in case the devs insists on keeping the Cyclops vulnerable to any and all attacks? Something like:
Leviathans: 70% their total damage, or something like 10% of the total Cyclops health.
1st mid size predators (bonesharks, spine eels): 30% their total damage, or something like 2,5% at max the Cyclops health
2nd mid size predators (Sand sharks, stalkers): 10% their total damage, or 1% Total cyclops health
Rest of them (including knife): invulnerable
This rest would include collisions with surfaces at slow speed and mid speed. Flank speed would count to damage, but I can't say exactely how much
As @The08MetroidMan said somewhere back, Subnautica technology allows for construction and modification of objects at a molecular level - just read the descriptions of the Pressure Compensator modules. From even the cinematic of the Cyclops being build, it shows the whole hull made basically by one component of metal, not pre-fabricated ones which goes into an assembly line and then build the Cyclops. If that thing doesn't have many mobile parts on it, it must be way sturdier than a regular vehicle.
Also, no one knows exactely how strong Plasteel is. The only link to reality comes from the use of a material called "Plasteel" on automobiles by the brazilllian manufacturer João do Amaral Gurgel (according to Wikipedia). Every other mention comes from a fictional source.
By that, I don't see how anything smaller than a Leviathan could possibly make a dent on the Cyclops. Also, limited-duration shields? What is the reason to build a Cyclops now?
...lets try to make sure any claim about the new Cyclops is true for Stable at this time and not a memory from the past month of Experimental.
This is from my current game, which is Experimental but started after the "Silent Running" release so it should have the same damage model. I've just built my Cyclops and am still kitting it out. But I have had an alarming run in my Seamoth.
This game I lucked out and discovered the Moonpool and the Vehicle Enhancement Station early, so when I took the Seamoth on my first trip to the northern biomes, I had the Hull Reinforcement. And I had a lot of problems with Bone Sharks. Sometimes they would ignore me, but often they'd go after the Seamoth. Even when I was on a swimout nearby or in a wreck.
Several times I'd return and the Seamoth would be damaged, many times seriously so, to 55% or lower. If not for the Hull Reinforcement, I'm sure the Seamoth would have been destroyed.
This does not bode well for what I think will happen with the Cyclops.
Only use ahead normal and ahead flank when your enemy radar says you are clear? That is what I am doing.
And if I am attacked I simply switch quickly to Silent Running and the enemies usually start leaving me alone, never had more than two enemies attack me at once either, but that can probably be chalked up to caution. Really, I have a hard time seeing how pack of wild life can ever tear your sub apart when Silent Running seems to make you basically invisible, even when currently under attack. I have had to deliberately ram into Bonesharks and similar to get them to damage my sub in Silent Running and anything that doesnt get very close ignore you even on slow.
And when I do take damage, I dont stop immediately to repair it. I continue into a safe area before getting out to handle it, because if it is just one or two hits, it has dealt scratch damage at best. If I do have to repair in a semi dangerous area, I switch the sub to Silent Running before exiting, it actually works.
Yes, you have to be more careful and deliberate, but that has been the case with this game the entire time. You are not gonna be outrunning anything in your Prawn suit and a Seamoth cant outrun a Reaper Leviathan either, just fend it off with the Electro Defense. Caution and careful advancement has been the name of the game, at least for me and this just adds the Cyclops to the same category.
It can get you somewhere maybe not faster, but it was never faster than the Seamoth, but with a mountain more resources than any other vehicle, while bringing along one of the sub vehicles as well and so far, with a bit of patience, can easily avoid the worst of what the game has to offer.
Except my point is that you pretty much have to use this mode 24/7 if you want to go anywhere beyond the shallows without drawing a pack, especially considering the agro-range of some creatures (I've had stalkers come out as far as the shallows and even a boneshark tail me back to my lifepod).
Also, IGP tested this in early access - and found the hard way that it does nothing for preventing the creatures from attacking you once they've already noticed you; silent running only works if you maintain an undetected state. If they notice you, they aren't automatically going to stop seeing you just because you went silent; you'll have to either drive them off or wait them out and then repair the damage afterword.
- https://youtube.com/watch?v=UllaQ-Xnt6A
Likewise, areas where the aggressive enemies swarm - Plateaus for the sandsharks, kelp forests for stalkers, underwater islands for bonesharks, etc - make it hard to go through without attracting at least three. River prowlers in particular are very aggressive, to the point that even disembarking the sub can rile them - and they'll follow you back to it.
Also, I pointed out what the point values were - that a group of three sharks or eels is all that's needed to equal the damage a leviathan can deal out in and of itself points to a dissonance in the damage values. And, again, if you're in a place where you can't just run to a safe area, like the Inactive Lava Zone, than it becomes an even harder issue to manage. Even moreso since silent running (on top of, again, not making the sub invisible if the creatures have already noticed it) does nothing for making you yourself invisible, running the risk of something killing you before you can do anything.
The issue is that there's a difference between being "careful and deliberate" and being so paranoid as to feel you can't take the Cyclops beyond the shallow zones - it was never so punishing as to make you actively afraid to leave it alone for extended periods of time in case something stumbled on it. There's likewise a difference between "caution and careful advancement" and feeling actively restricted into doing things a certain way to the point of actively killing the desire to explore due to how much of a chore it is to manage.
The issue was never about travel speed - it was about accessibility and exploration. The seamoth made it easier to explore places like the Kelp forests because the bleaders couldn't just suck you dry anymore - creatures the size of sharks could damage you, but never too severely. The Cyclops doesn't have that balance - it shouldn't be so fragile as to get whole chunks of it whittled away by a pack of sharks like that. That's to say nothing on if it happens purely because of an accident - it makes everything feel way more punishing than it really should be for even the surface zones, let alone the Lost River or Lava Zones. There's a difference between patience and dealing with restriction, and the Cyclops feels like it falls into the latter.
They tested it in early access, this is the actual live build. I would love to see actual documentation from the live build on that, because typically a early access build is used to test stuff like that so that it can be changed for the live build if needed.
Now I am no expert, but whenever enemies start attacking me in the live build and I switch on Silent Running I typically dont get attacked anymore. Not saying it makes sense for them to no longer attack you, but that is my experience.
I have also had my Cyclops parked for hours on end at the edge of the dunes, with Sandsharks within spitting distance and they never as much as cast a second glance at it. I parked it in the Koosh zone, near the sea floor with Bonesharks and Ampeels all around while I was exploring a wreck and the only one who took any damage from critters was me when a Boneshark went after me and not the sub.
You talk about beeing paranoid, yet clearly I can take this damn thing all over the Subnautica world at very little risk. If you really want to go fast, take it to the surface and cruise along there unbothered by the creatures deep below or just be ready to turn down the speed if you enter a dense area.
I have had no problems whatsover with the Cyclops. All I had to do was adjust my throughts on when to use which speeds, but now I have a mobile base that I feel safe enough in to transport hours worth of materials at once. If I was really beset by swarms of super persistent predators, tearing it up in seconds as you alude to, I would not be taking it all over the world.
Except my point is that you pretty much have to use this mode 24/7 if you want to go anywhere beyond the shallows without drawing a pack, especially considering the agro-range of some creatures (I've had stalkers come out as far as the shallows and even a boneshark tail me back to my lifepod).
Also, IGP tested this in early access - and found the hard way that it does nothing for preventing the creatures from attacking you once they've already noticed you; silent running only works if you maintain an undetected state. If they notice you, they aren't automatically going to stop seeing you just because you went silent; you'll have to either drive them off or wait them out and then repair the damage afterword.
- https://youtube.com/watch?v=UllaQ-Xnt6A
Likewise, areas where the aggressive enemies swarm - Plateaus for the sandsharks, kelp forests for stalkers, underwater islands for bonesharks, etc - make it hard to go through without attracting at least three. River prowlers in particular are very aggressive, to the point that even disembarking the sub can rile them - and they'll follow you back to it.
Little of this is true. The moment you engage Silent Running, every critter leaves you immediately alone (give or take if they are in mid-attack). It's preposterously easy to keep your Cyclops safe that way, like the fish go "whoops, guess that was just a red-glowy rock all along!", although the other side is that even when standing still any other mode draws attention. UWE could smoothe this out a little.
I also have gone through lots of Kelp Forests and not been targeted once. I should try pestering the stalkers, because until this and another post I assumed neither stalkers nor sandsharks can aggro the Cyclops (whether intentional or not. No matter what I do, I can't get ampeels and warpers to attack me and that seems an oversight.)
I'm hoping I'm not stepping on toes, but lets try to make sure any claim about the new Cyclops is true for Stable at this time and not a memory from the past month of Experimental.
Ampeels have attacked my cyclops, though they seem to agro less than Bonesharks.
Warpers follow me, but dont attack. Havent been able to ram one so no idea if they can even damage.
Never been attacked by Sandsharks, but Stalkers have pooked my cyclops.
Crabsquids cant seem to damage the cyclops (had two ram me multiple times) but their EMP can shut it down briefly (how they rammed me).
Little of this is true. The moment you engage Silent Running, every critter leaves you immediately alone (give or take if they are in mid-attack). It's preposterously easy to keep your Cyclops safe that way, like the fish go "whoops, guess that was just a red-glowy rock all along!", although the other side is that even when standing still any other mode draws attention. UWE could smoothe this out a little.
I also have gone through lots of Kelp Forests and not been targeted once. I should try pestering the stalkers, because until this and another post I assumed neither stalkers nor sandsharks can aggro the Cyclops (whether intentional or not. No matter what I do, I can't get ampeels and warpers to attack me and that seems an oversight.)
I'm hoping I'm not stepping on toes, but lets try to make sure any claim about the new Cyclops is true for Stable at this time and not a memory from the past month of Experimental.
Take just one look at the link to the vid IGP made, would you - the one where he flips on silent running to hide from the river prowlers... and they proceed to keep hammering his Cyclops anyway. That's been my experience with silent running so far, and it's that once creatures notice you, they most certainly do not just break off like you went invisible.
So pardon me if I do in fact object rather soundly to the claim that "little of this is true."
They tested it in early access, this is the actual live build. I would love to see actual documentation from the live build on that, because typically a early access build is used to test stuff like that so that it can be changed for the live build if needed.
Now I am no expert, but whenever enemies start attacking me in the live build and I switch on Silent Running I typically dont get attacked anymore. Not saying it makes sense for them to no longer attack you, but that is my experience.
I have also had my Cyclops parked for hours on end at the edge of the dunes, with Sandsharks within spitting distance and they never as much as cast a second glance at it. I parked it in the Koosh zone, near the sea floor with Bonesharks and Ampeels all around while I was exploring a wreck and the only one who took any damage from critters was me when a Boneshark went after me and not the sub.
You talk about beeing paranoid, yet clearly I can take this damn thing all over the Subnautica world at very little risk. If you really want to go fast, take it to the surface and cruise along there unbothered by the creatures deep below or just be ready to turn down the speed if you enter a dense area.
I have had no problems whatsover with the Cyclops. All I had to do was adjust my throughts on when to use which speeds, but now I have a mobile base that I feel safe enough in to transport hours worth of materials at once. If I was really beset by swarms of super persistent predators, tearing it up in seconds as you alude to, I would not be taking it all over the world.
And as it stands, the current build doesn't work any differently in my experience - I've yet to go through even a single zone where silent running made one bit of difference; they see me too quickly for it to matter and turning it on doesn't make them break their attack off. My experience is, quite simply, the precise opposite of what yours has been.
Maybe you can argue you're just more careful, maybe you can argue you're just not aggroing the things as much; either way, it wouldn't matter. The point is in how ridiculously punishing the wildlife is if you're not explicitly doing things a select way, or don't do it correctly - I said it before, I'll say it again; you should not have to fear a group of sharks with the same fear you'd reserve for a Leviathan. If the sharks attack you, you should not get thrashed as if a Reaper hit you.
Also, again, I point you to the IGP vid where the river prowlers kept smashing into the thing as he tried to fix it - sandsharks tend to have a much lower aggro for anything that's not spitting distance above the sands. I've yet to have any experience with the "damn thing" that went any better than him, because if you ever leave silent running in any of the aforementioned zones (turn the exterior lights on to see better, depart in your docked vehicle, run back from an attacking creature, etc), than you get damaged.
You say you have had no problems with the Cyclops, but you are not everyone... and near as I can tell, everyone's had at least some degree of frustration in how punishingly demanding it is that you have to either do this mode perfectly or you get torn up as if a Reaper attacked you. Hell, as @Jackie has mentioned above, this happened just with their seamoth being left alone, let alone the cyclops. Not to mention that, like scifiwriterguy did... you're kinda missing the point of the OP; namely in the amount of damage these creatures can cause once they pick you up - which, again, just three of which attacking together can surpass a leviathan in.
Little of this is true. The moment you engage Silent Running, every critter leaves you immediately alone (give or take if they are in mid-attack). It's preposterously easy to keep your Cyclops safe that way, like the fish go "whoops, guess that was just a red-glowy rock all along!", although the other side is that even when standing still any other mode draws attention. UWE could smoothe this out a little.
I also have gone through lots of Kelp Forests and not been targeted once. I should try pestering the stalkers, because until this and another post I assumed neither stalkers nor sandsharks can aggro the Cyclops (whether intentional or not. No matter what I do, I can't get ampeels and warpers to attack me and that seems an oversight.)
I'm hoping I'm not stepping on toes, but lets try to make sure any claim about the new Cyclops is true for Stable at this time and not a memory from the past month of Experimental.
Take just one look at the link to the vid IGP made, would you - the one where he flips on silent running to hide from the river prowlers... and they proceed to keep hammering his Cyclops anyway. That's been my experience with silent running so far, and it's that once creatures notice you, they most certainly do not just break off like you went invisible.
So pardon me if I do in fact object rather soundly to the claim that "little of this is true."
Then lets at least agree to not use vids of a month-old Experimental version of SN by a third party (that I've seen back then already. Why do you assume I ignore your sources?) when you mean to talk about your personal current experiences. I do not take responsibility for the miscommunication here. I talk from personal up-to-date experience with Stable and TriforceDragon - that you claimed was wrong first - appears to do to and the way you've presented things up until this post read like you were dismissing that personal experience.
So what I have to gather here is that there's two experiences, which based on Jacke's comment might be an Experimental vs Stable matter? For what it's worth, I'm playing an updated save rather than a fresh one if that might account for anything. I would agree that if Silent Running doesn't dissuade attacks that'd be a nightmare, but it's just not what I experience. Silent Running = total invisibility to me regardless of if I've been spotted prior or not.
I like to see some video of runs in the Cyclops with little to no aggro from the wildlife, showing enough to see what was around and what the pilot did.
Comments
Pitch is a must to be able to control if you expect to get a boat down and up with more control. On a sub, this is all done via controlling the 'bubble'. When you make the decision to dive deeper you determine A) speed of decent
Both A and B have a big factor on how you arrive at C. If you go down too fast with too steep of a bubble you run the risk of overshooting your depth. Also, the Cyclops, if they want it to function like a true submarine, should not stop on a dime when you left off the button.
For bonus points, we should be given a way to do an 'emergency blow'. Let's say you are 800m down and get slammed hard by a Reaper. Your boat catches on fire and is close to exploding. Being able to push a button and have your boat do an uncontrolled ascent to the surface to escape that threat would be amazing.
I will end with saying that I am fully aware that Subnautica is not trying to be a Submarine Simulator but they have a great opportunity with some of these mechanics of making this a really enjoyable part of the game.
On the roll front, you really have no way to control the roll of a boat without trim tanks. You normally only use the trim tanks to maintain the attitude of the boat and not for roll. You can achieve roll when doing evasive maneuvers by using the dive planes.
So I probably said to much without actually saying enough - I hope this helps from a real world perspective
But... that's from a mountain. Not a shark biting into it, or a collision with a dolphin-sized creature or a piece of drifting debris - it was, by your own admission, a head-on collision with a solid mass of hard rock.
No offense, but comments like this are what irk me the most, because you clearly didn't even get what the OP's point was; it's not that the sub can be damaged that's the problem - it's that it can be damaged so easily by such comparatively small means. You can actually take like 3-5% off the thing just by striking it with your knife - that a sub can be wrecked if you smash right into something is basic knowledge; that it can be sunk by knifing it is something else altogether. The amount of damage to the ship from threats and hazards shouldn't be this big is what the OP is saying - just like you don't have to worry about bleeders ripping your seamoth apart anytime soon, so to should you not have to be so frightened of the Cyclops being totally destroyed by anything smaller than a Leviathan, let alone an idle pack of bone, sand or stalker sharks.
Likewise, the DSV Alvin comparison feels completely inadmissible to me because scale-wise it's more in line with the Seamoth or Prawn suit than it is the Cyclops - and in turn, the former two suffer damage that can be considered proportionate to what the swordfish did to the Alvin. The Cyclops is another story - it shouldn't be so easy to damage that you have three holes in the thing plus risk of sudden fire just by passing through moderate-sized creatures; scratch-damage would be realistic, but damage like what they do now should be saved for something that it'd match for size-wise like the Crabsquid. As it stands, it's far too easy for the sub to get whittled down to like 70-66% just from a trio of sharks - that kind of damage, I'd expect from a Leviathan attack.
By that statistic, the Cyclops is nowhere near as durable even compared to a Los Angeles-class attack boat, because last I checked a shark couldn't easily tear a hole in the side of those whereas the stalkers, sandsharks and just about everything else of that size can do so with relative ease. Hell, if anything, I'd almost say you shot yourself in the foot with that argument in that you proved that damage to the Cyclops isn't balanced in that it should take impacts like a mountain (or rather, a Reaper charging it head-long) to actually damage the thing - especially when you take into account that, considering the massive time-difference between the date in Subnautica and modern times, construction of subs ought to have gotten at least somewhat sturdier. Not necessary a ton, but at least noticeably more-so than today's subs - hell, as was already mentioned, human tech in Subnautica can rearrange particle density for heaven's sake, so it's not exactly a stretch to say that Alterra humans can make a sub that's a fair bit stronger than anything we have today.
Out of game I don't find it to be fair to claim that because the Cyclops is from the future that it MUST have better resistance to x,y, or z than the USS San Francisco. This is still a civilian vessel versus a military one. Given Subnautica is set roughly 100-150 years in the future can we compare modern civilian ships with warships of a century ago? How many civilian vessels (barring icebreakers which are designed to be ramming solid objects anyway) are there today that compare with the armor of the HMS Dreadnought?
Just because the technology is present to make the cyclops sturdier, doesn't necessarily mean the design used it. Creature damage just seems to be too high or terrain damage too low. Or the cyclops just doesn't have sufficient health.
It is certainly slightly annoying to head out to repair the Cyclops at times, but the damage, even from small fry, has not really bothered me. Sure you cant exactly cruise along at full speed in a enemy dense area, but you really should not either. The damage taken is so little that I can usually just sail off to a slightly safer area or if not possible, throw it into silent mode be mostly safe. Especially silent running seems to practically require you to run into an enemy before they notice you.
So far I have used it mostly as a mobile base. Max speed when near surface or in non dangerous areas, slow or silent running when heading into dangerous areas and then park it near resources or wrecks and head out in Seamoth or by swimming. There is certainly a new element of danger to using it, but that was kind of needed, an immortal vehicle does not really fit in with the atmosphere.
Heading into Lost River and the Lava Zones soon, we will need if i maintain my jovial attitude past that.
I understood the OP's point, Metroid.
The Alvin citation illustrates that fauna can cause damage - potentially fatal damage - to a sub. As earlier remarked, the concern from the engineers was that a direct hit by the swordfish's bill on a viewport could have caused the material to fail. If a relatively small fish can be expected to do that, it's entirely in line that a larger, more powerful animal could cause significantly more damage even to sturdier structures. As for the San Francisco, it was a demonstration that the complaints about how a Cyclops takes impact damage from hitting rocks also have counter evidence.
While it's certainly reasonable that the damage being dealt as-is might be a touch high (such as for the knife), it's not out of the bounds of expectation. As I stated earlier:
"The Cyclops is hardly more durable than a Los Angeles-class attack boat; given the amount of materials used to build it, I'd expect its hull to be less able to handle impact damage, titanium notwithstanding. (You'll feel no difference ripping titanium foil versus aluminum.) A thinner titanium hull may have comparable pressure-handling characteristics but still be weaker on impact resistance."
We don't use a lot of metal to build a Cyclops. Consequently, it is likely to have a fairly thin hull, even compared to today's boats. As a result, the impact from anything hard - from rocks to armored fish - should cause damage, and a fair amount of it. The jaws of a shark of either type we encounter are both wide and lined with thick teeth. Bonesharks up the ante by including an armored and spiked carapace. Against a relatively thin-hulled sub that's not built with geometry to withstand such damage, the sub should be expected to fare poorly. This is a big boat with a vulnerable shape and not much metal going into its hull. From something like a Leviathan, with its structure, I'd expect the sub to be absolutely crippled, not just dinged up. It's the same size as the sub. The size and consequent muscle mass, the external mandibles, and jaws of a Reaper - collectively, that animal should be able to tear holes in the hull of a sub with ease. But lesser animals with similar traits should also be able to cause significant damage. Scale is not everything. Just because a boneshark is smaller does not mean that its muscle mass and natural defenses shouldn't be able to inflict serious damage on a sub with questionable hull strength. The Cyclops is not a battleship; it's a submersible tractor trailer. It's built to withstand pressure, not punishment.
The moment Cyclops damage became a thing, there was going to be discord on the matter. Too much, just fine, damage at all - opinions are going to be scattered all over on this and probably will be until modders get hold of it and build mods to everybody's liking. The entire purpose of my post was to illustrate that the damage model is not entirely unreasonable, in part by showing real-world examples. Of course this is a sci-fi game and our tech standards are different. But short of invoking space magic and saying the sub can defy expectations of materials science there are limits to what even titanium can do, and the ability of these animals to cause damage could easily exceed the metal's ability to withstand it by a considerable margin.
You're not going to agree with me, and that's perfectly fine; I'm not likely to agree with you, either. It's not because one of us is right and the other's wrong, it's because we're looking at the same problem from two different directions and applying different metrics to the analysis.
First of all, I'm not certain, but I don't think the cyclops's speed even approaches 35 knots. But yes, collision damage from terrain makes sense. The cyclops is a heavy object, and so will have a lot of inertia that will result in destruction when it collides with an immovable object at even moderate speed.
However, the swordfish is where the argument breaks down. Not only is the Alvin more comparable to the seamoth than the cyclops, but let's look at the fish in question. First of all, there is the "sword", a piercing weapon that allows the fish to spread the kinetic energy in it's body over a much smaller surface area, thus increasing it's ability to damage armored surfaces like the hull of a submersible. A boneshark has no weapon like this. What it has are it's jaws and ramming with it's armored head. Where it's jaws are concerned, there is an obvious problem. Try biting through the skin of a really big watermelon. Go on, give it a try. Once you are done making a fool out of yourself, you will have realized the problem: the cyclops is far to big for a boneshark or any creature smaller than a leviathan to get it's jaws around. As for the ramming, take a look at a fish in real life swim. Now watch a fish in subnautica swim. Notice anything? Creatures in subnautica are SLOW. Very slow. Slow enough that a human with dive fins can rival most of them in speed. A swordfish ramming something will be doing so at many times the speed a boneshark is capable of, with a weapon far more suited to attacking submarines than a boneshark's face. A boneshark might weigh more, but it's the difference between a SABO round and an age of sail cannonball. One bounces off of wooden ships, the other penetrates tank hulls.
Except that because the player-character is the de-facto Captain of the Aurora (due to being the last survivor), they'd have access to non-civilian equipment - hell, the torpedo systems for the Seamoth and Prawn, or access to them in the first place, definitely don't fall under civilian authority.
Additionally, it's not just because "it's from the future" - it's because of how in-game there's things like the pressure compensator that can rearrange molecule density, which would naturally imply that construction methods of such in-depth manipulation of materials would be a lot stronger than any military-grade sub we have today. Given the presence of instant 3-D printing and molecular manipulation in Subnautica, I'd actually argue the opposite - I don't find it fair to take the timeframe alone as reason to judge it's strength; I take the technology we actually see in-game as a result of future advancement being the determinator, not simply that it's from the future.
You can't really do that in the lost river or lava-zone, though - both of which are places inaccessible without it and now carry the highest risk of being stranded there.
No. Honestly speaking, I don’t think you did. Not even slightly. Backed by how your evidence is either inadmissible at best or outright misconstrued at worst.
Like I already said, the Alvin is inadmissible because of the size-scale alone - it’s nowhere near the size of the Cyclops, nowhere near as heavily-plated and designed for a smaller, more self-contained atmosphere. Like I pointed out in the last comment, the Alvan is comparable to the Seamoth or Prawn, both of which can be damaged equivalently by medium-sized creatures (5%-10% damage per hit or impact from sharks on the Seamoth, 3%-5% damage from that on the Prawn) - it does nothing to illustrate how a large sub would be so easily damaged. If you’d been talking about either of the smaller units, you’d have had a point - as it is, it feels like you didn’t even read my comment. Doubly so, since the swordfish isn’t a “larger, more powerful animal” - if anything, the boneshark or stalker are of equal or comparable size, which honestly just undermines your argument more than anything else.
Ergo, yes the damage is very much out of the bounds of expectation, especially considering how, as was previously mentioned in the above comments, ramming the Cyclops into a mountain-face ended up doing less damage than the wildlife. The balance is completely skewed.
As a result, your prior quote falls apart on that premise - as was clearly mentioned, the Cyclops is not comparable to a Los Angeles-class attack boat; it’s smaller, so there is less for the plating to have to stretch over and keep sealed, made with more advanced construction methods (3-D printing creating it as a single massive piece rather than several decks that are fused together and then plated over, making it more like a solid rock than a normal sub), and it isn’t even made of the same materials (rather than just titanium, it’s made of plasteel - titanium and lithium blended together). Your mistake is that you only looked at the materials to build, not how it was built or the methods involved or even the level of technology shown during the time period it was made in.
Again, that’s offset by several factors - most notably of which that it’s flash-printed as a single massive block rather than assembled piece by piece like a puzzle, which naturally makes it more solid than any modern sub; something even evidenced in it’s destruction cinematic where the massive explosions only really destroy the tail section, which feel like it completely undercuts your claim of “ relatively thin-hulled sub.” Hell, the level of molecular manipulation shown is enough that a single habitat room (a much smaller construct with thinner walls) made at 1500 meters below is completely stable and heat-insulated - or that simply put, you’re grossly underestimating/underselling the hows of these things being made and that knowing the materials isn’t anywhere near enough to extrapolate a comparison to modern units. Doubly so since, again, the Cyclops in-game doesn’t even reflect your statistic in how impacts with mountains do less damage than the wildlife does - and unlike a Los Angeles-class attack boat, this ship is one that has been specifically designed to explore alien oceans and therefore would naturally be designed stronger than normal Earth subs even just for that purpose alone on the premise of not knowing what to expect. Thrice-invalidating is that all the wildlife operates on point-system damage - sandsharks and bonesharks do 30 damage each, while stalkers do 20, both of which are more than the 10-15 damage incurred by hitting terrain; there are no special values determined between species type. Furthermore, Reaper Leviathans do 80 damage per bite - so three bonesharks, each with 30 damage per bite, can cause 90 damage together, or in other words, three sharks do more damage than the Reaper.
Ergo, the above makes any attempt at justification on your point moot, because it again feels like you don’t have any clue what the OP’s point was; it was never about whether or not the creatures could damage the sub - it’s about how easily they can do so and how disproportionate the damage is compared to other things. Saying “there was going to be discord on the matter” feels an excuse on that count; like I said, I expect creatures to be able to damage the sub - I do not expect small sharks to do the same or more damage than a Leviathan can, thereby completely screwing up the balance of threat-level/danger level per creature. As it stands, sharks are able to tear holes in the thing with the exact same ease as a Reaper, when at best they should only be doing scratch damage to it; again, you’re underselling scale in this regard because you’re ignoring how imbalanced that scale is on the damage ratio (something proven by how, again, land collisions do less damage then a shark bite does). Reapers are described as practically all muscle and sinew and are extremely aggressive - that is what would make the damage from them more severe, not simply their size; a trio of sharks on the other hand, being much smaller than it, should not be doing more damage than it. It’s not that the sharks can damage the sub that’s the problem; it’s that they’re doing more total damage to it than they should to a sub like this, and are more damaging than either a Reaper Leviathan or a head-on land collision is doing, pointing to a major imbalance in damage acuity. Whether or not it’s built to withstand punishment is academic - the point is that the punishment it takes from the wildlife is both disproportionate and inaccurate based on what we know about both the sub, it’s construction methods and even the level of danger the wildlife is supposed to represent when compared to other creatures; you don’t expect to hit a tractor trailer with an axe three times and get equivalent damage to a cannon-ball, do you? Or stab it with a hand-knife and expect similar results, right?
Similarly, you saying “you’re not going to agree with me” feels another excuse, because the reason for that is not simply divergence of belief - it’s that I feel your beliefs are based on fundamentally misconstrued information. We’re not “looking at the same problem from two different directions and applying different metrics to the analysis” - it’s that you’re looking at it from what feels a patently wrong perspective in that it doesn’t even actually address what the OP’s problem is; disproportionate damage from the wildlife, not that the wildlife causes damage at all.
Well my Cyclops is perfectly parked at a to be established base at the back of the Ghost Tree of the Lost River zone. Took only one very minor hit in getting there and in general while I took it slow and careful, mostly going between Silent Running and Ahead Slow, I never really ran into any problems.
Used it to ferry along all the materials I will need to set up a base and my Seamoth can just barely avoid beeing destroyed to pressure if placed near the top of the cavern, while the Prawnsuit obviously has no problems (did two runs to get both things down there, Seamoth mostly to easily come and go).
Next up is the Lava Zones, but so far people seem to be blowing the Cyclops vulnerability way out of propotion. Anything i have not been able to just sail by in Silent Running has dealt scratch damage at best. Not saying Leviathans are gonna be the same, but this has been far from unmanageable so far.
I took a trip across the Crag Fields, Deep Grand Reef and Lost River to the ILZ entrance at Ahead Flank speed without stopping. No cameras, no shield, no fire supression system, no decoys! Being deliberately reckless. The Cyclops was under 20% Health when I arrived at the Ghost Tree to stop for repairs. I ran into (and over) a lot of problems! The DGR was rough and received quite a few bumps there. It was pretty hurt (lol) but there are a couple of things to know.
Outer Hull Damage takes precedent over fires. Each one you repair adds 150 Health (or 10%) back to your Cyclops. Fire does 2 damage every 8 seconds per fire to the Cyclops. It's not a lot, mostly it's a danger to the player. Smoke buildup in particular drains your health every second once it's heavy enough. But, putting out fires when your hull is still heavily damaged results in you chasing fires endlessly around your Cyclops. So outside first, inside last.
You'll always have an instance or two of hull Damage from periodic fire damage. You can't repair everything but you've got time to get at most of them. Medkits and Fire Extinguishers are going to be very important so be prepared and make quite a few backups! Medkits in particular are for the smoke/fire damage while fighting the fires. Definitely make a stash of those by the Exit Hatch somewhere. Placing two fire extinguishers on your quickbar makes it easy to swap to the next one.
Hopefully that will help if you find yourself in a bad situation like that! You might in the Lava Zones.
-
I'm on my way to the ILZ next time I play, been itching to see do some testing with a bigger subject.
It's less that I'm "only interested in hammering in (my) own point of view" and more that I'm trying to point out that the standards you're using aren't reflective of the setting, the technology or even taking into account the huge imbalance between damage proportions (again, trio of sharks do more damage than a Reaper's attack). You used sciences that don't reflect those of the in-game world, and the sciences that do apply (3-D-printed single block of sub being more sturdy then a puzzle-piece assembled one like todays) feel like they're being ignored by you.
To make a long story short, my mind isn't made up - I'm just pointing out that yours didn't account for several things. By contrast, your reply here feels closer to a "your mind is made up" deal.
But that in and of itself is one of the problems - anything outside those two modes runs the risk of anything and everything tearing your sub apart. Stalkers do 20 damage while bonesharks, sandsharks and river prowelers do 30, the reaper does 80 and the sea-dragon can do up to 120 in one go (80 for meteor/fireball attack, 40 per claw swat, plus an additional 20 for fire breath)... and the Cyclops total has 1500 health. That means a group of river prowlers (3-4) can take off 90-120 (or 6%-8%) of the Cyclops' health per round of attacks, which quickly stacks up unless you're constantly stopping to fix it up. AKA, one pack of wildlife is equally dangerous as a Leviathan - something that makes it really hard for me personally to say the sub's not too fragile. And with sea-dragon encounters, it's not even factoring in the extra damage from impacts when the sub gets knocked around, or if it hits a lava pool, or the additional damage from fires.
That the sub can be damaged is one thing, but it really is too fragile for what it is - especially when in extremely dangerous areas where going out to repair hull damage might not be an option lest you get insta-killed, or if you leave it idle to explore and something attacks it while you're gone. The point of the OP is whether or not the Cyclops is actually usable in exploration - and as it stands, it really doesn't feel like it is and especially not with the agro I've seen on even the sharks, let alone the reapers.
I just gave it a try and where are you hitting your Cyclops that you can damage it with a knife? Because I just can't land a blow - same with the other verhicles. (By which I don't mean it'd be unreasonable considering you can damage a base with the knife and that's the same material. Just trying to figure out here where/how I'd need to knife to damage a Cyclops and how that affects gameplay and the game's internal logic.)
I just picked a spot and cut - didn't matter where. There was also a vid by someone (DoubleJ, maybe) where he could cut the thing apart from the inside. However, that was back during experimental, and I haven't tried it again since the release build since I have enough hassle with keeping an eye on the thing without trying to cause more damage to it myself.
Maybe they fixed it to not be hit with the knife? I'd certainly like that to be the case, at least. Make sense, too - in the pre-release build, the Cyclops only had 1000 health, so the aforementioned packs of creatures were taking off 10%-13% health per round. IGP released a video showcasing the hell of trying to take that earlier build through the Lost River -
Only use ahead normal and ahead flank when your enemy radar says you are clear? That is what I am doing.
And if I am attacked I simply switch quickly to Silent Running and the enemies usually start leaving me alone, never had more than two enemies attack me at once either, but that can probably be chalked up to caution. Really, I have a hard time seeing how pack of wild life can ever tear your sub apart when Silent Running seems to make you basically invisible, even when currently under attack. I have had to deliberately ram into Bonesharks and similar to get them to damage my sub in Silent Running and anything that doesnt get very close ignore you even on slow.
And when I do take damage, I dont stop immediately to repair it. I continue into a safe area before getting out to handle it, because if it is just one or two hits, it has dealt scratch damage at best. If I do have to repair in a semi dangerous area, I switch the sub to Silent Running before exiting, it actually works.
Yes, you have to be more careful and deliberate, but that has been the case with this game the entire time. You are not gonna be outrunning anything in your Prawn suit and a Seamoth cant outrun a Reaper Leviathan either, just fend it off with the Electro Defense. Caution and careful advancement has been the name of the game, at least for me and this just adds the Cyclops to the same category.
It can get you somewhere maybe not faster, but it was never faster than the Seamoth, but with a mountain more resources than any other vehicle, while bringing along one of the sub vehicles as well and so far, with a bit of patience, can easily avoid the worst of what the game has to offer.
Except my point is that you pretty much have to use this mode 24/7 if you want to go anywhere beyond the shallows without drawing a pack, especially considering the agro-range of some creatures (I've had stalkers come out as far as the shallows and even a boneshark tail me back to my lifepod).
Also, IGP tested this in early access - and found the hard way that it does nothing for preventing the creatures from attacking you once they've already noticed you; silent running only works if you maintain an undetected state. If they notice you, they aren't automatically going to stop seeing you just because you went silent; you'll have to either drive them off or wait them out and then repair the damage afterword.
- https://youtube.com/watch?v=UllaQ-Xnt6A
Likewise, areas where the aggressive enemies swarm - Plateaus for the sandsharks, kelp forests for stalkers, underwater islands for bonesharks, etc - make it hard to go through without attracting at least three. River prowlers in particular are very aggressive, to the point that even disembarking the sub can rile them - and they'll follow you back to it.
Also, I pointed out what the point values were - that a group of three sharks or eels is all that's needed to equal the damage a leviathan can deal out in and of itself points to a dissonance in the damage values. And, again, if you're in a place where you can't just run to a safe area, like the Inactive Lava Zone, than it becomes an even harder issue to manage. Even moreso since silent running (on top of, again, not making the sub invisible if the creatures have already noticed it) does nothing for making you yourself invisible, running the risk of something killing you before you can do anything.
The issue is that there's a difference between being "careful and deliberate" and being so paranoid as to feel you can't take the Cyclops beyond the shallow zones - it was never so punishing as to make you actively afraid to leave it alone for extended periods of time in case something stumbled on it. There's likewise a difference between "caution and careful advancement" and feeling actively restricted into doing things a certain way to the point of actively killing the desire to explore due to how much of a chore it is to manage.
The issue was never about travel speed - it was about accessibility and exploration. The seamoth made it easier to explore places like the Kelp forests because the bleaders couldn't just suck you dry anymore - creatures the size of sharks could damage you, but never too severely. The Cyclops doesn't have that balance - it shouldn't be so fragile as to get whole chunks of it whittled away by a pack of sharks like that. That's to say nothing on if it happens purely because of an accident - it makes everything feel way more punishing than it really should be for even the surface zones, let alone the Lost River or Lava Zones. There's a difference between patience and dealing with restriction, and the Cyclops feels like it falls into the latter.
Little of this is true. The moment you engage Silent Running, every critter leaves you immediately alone (give or take if they are in mid-attack). It's preposterously easy to keep your Cyclops safe that way, like the fish go "whoops, guess that was just a red-glowy rock all along!", although the other side is that even when standing still any other mode draws attention. UWE could smoothe this out a little.
I also have gone through lots of Kelp Forests and not been targeted once. I should try pestering the stalkers, because until this and another post I assumed neither stalkers nor sandsharks can aggro the Cyclops (whether intentional or not. No matter what I do, I can't get ampeels and warpers to attack me and that seems an oversight.)
I'm hoping I'm not stepping on toes, but lets try to make sure any claim about the new Cyclops is true for Stable at this time and not a memory from the past month of Experimental.
Leviathans: 70% their total damage, or something like 10% of the total Cyclops health.
1st mid size predators (bonesharks, spine eels): 30% their total damage, or something like 2,5% at max the Cyclops health
2nd mid size predators (Sand sharks, stalkers): 10% their total damage, or 1% Total cyclops health
Rest of them (including knife): invulnerable
This rest would include collisions with surfaces at slow speed and mid speed. Flank speed would count to damage, but I can't say exactely how much
As @The08MetroidMan said somewhere back, Subnautica technology allows for construction and modification of objects at a molecular level - just read the descriptions of the Pressure Compensator modules. From even the cinematic of the Cyclops being build, it shows the whole hull made basically by one component of metal, not pre-fabricated ones which goes into an assembly line and then build the Cyclops. If that thing doesn't have many mobile parts on it, it must be way sturdier than a regular vehicle.
Also, no one knows exactely how strong Plasteel is. The only link to reality comes from the use of a material called "Plasteel" on automobiles by the brazilllian manufacturer João do Amaral Gurgel (according to Wikipedia). Every other mention comes from a fictional source.
By that, I don't see how anything smaller than a Leviathan could possibly make a dent on the Cyclops. Also, limited-duration shields? What is the reason to build a Cyclops now?
This game I lucked out and discovered the Moonpool and the Vehicle Enhancement Station early, so when I took the Seamoth on my first trip to the northern biomes, I had the Hull Reinforcement. And I had a lot of problems with Bone Sharks. Sometimes they would ignore me, but often they'd go after the Seamoth. Even when I was on a swimout nearby or in a wreck.
Several times I'd return and the Seamoth would be damaged, many times seriously so, to 55% or lower. If not for the Hull Reinforcement, I'm sure the Seamoth would have been destroyed.
This does not bode well for what I think will happen with the Cyclops.
They tested it in early access, this is the actual live build. I would love to see actual documentation from the live build on that, because typically a early access build is used to test stuff like that so that it can be changed for the live build if needed.
Now I am no expert, but whenever enemies start attacking me in the live build and I switch on Silent Running I typically dont get attacked anymore. Not saying it makes sense for them to no longer attack you, but that is my experience.
I have also had my Cyclops parked for hours on end at the edge of the dunes, with Sandsharks within spitting distance and they never as much as cast a second glance at it. I parked it in the Koosh zone, near the sea floor with Bonesharks and Ampeels all around while I was exploring a wreck and the only one who took any damage from critters was me when a Boneshark went after me and not the sub.
You talk about beeing paranoid, yet clearly I can take this damn thing all over the Subnautica world at very little risk. If you really want to go fast, take it to the surface and cruise along there unbothered by the creatures deep below or just be ready to turn down the speed if you enter a dense area.
I have had no problems whatsover with the Cyclops. All I had to do was adjust my throughts on when to use which speeds, but now I have a mobile base that I feel safe enough in to transport hours worth of materials at once. If I was really beset by swarms of super persistent predators, tearing it up in seconds as you alude to, I would not be taking it all over the world.
Ampeels have attacked my cyclops, though they seem to agro less than Bonesharks.
Warpers follow me, but dont attack. Havent been able to ram one so no idea if they can even damage.
Never been attacked by Sandsharks, but Stalkers have pooked my cyclops.
Crabsquids cant seem to damage the cyclops (had two ram me multiple times) but their EMP can shut it down briefly (how they rammed me).
Take just one look at the link to the vid IGP made, would you - the one where he flips on silent running to hide from the river prowlers... and they proceed to keep hammering his Cyclops anyway. That's been my experience with silent running so far, and it's that once creatures notice you, they most certainly do not just break off like you went invisible.
So pardon me if I do in fact object rather soundly to the claim that "little of this is true."
And as it stands, the current build doesn't work any differently in my experience - I've yet to go through even a single zone where silent running made one bit of difference; they see me too quickly for it to matter and turning it on doesn't make them break their attack off. My experience is, quite simply, the precise opposite of what yours has been.
Maybe you can argue you're just more careful, maybe you can argue you're just not aggroing the things as much; either way, it wouldn't matter. The point is in how ridiculously punishing the wildlife is if you're not explicitly doing things a select way, or don't do it correctly - I said it before, I'll say it again; you should not have to fear a group of sharks with the same fear you'd reserve for a Leviathan. If the sharks attack you, you should not get thrashed as if a Reaper hit you.
Also, again, I point you to the IGP vid where the river prowlers kept smashing into the thing as he tried to fix it - sandsharks tend to have a much lower aggro for anything that's not spitting distance above the sands. I've yet to have any experience with the "damn thing" that went any better than him, because if you ever leave silent running in any of the aforementioned zones (turn the exterior lights on to see better, depart in your docked vehicle, run back from an attacking creature, etc), than you get damaged.
You say you have had no problems with the Cyclops, but you are not everyone... and near as I can tell, everyone's had at least some degree of frustration in how punishingly demanding it is that you have to either do this mode perfectly or you get torn up as if a Reaper attacked you. Hell, as @Jackie has mentioned above, this happened just with their seamoth being left alone, let alone the cyclops. Not to mention that, like scifiwriterguy did... you're kinda missing the point of the OP; namely in the amount of damage these creatures can cause once they pick you up - which, again, just three of which attacking together can surpass a leviathan in.
Then lets at least agree to not use vids of a month-old Experimental version of SN by a third party (that I've seen back then already. Why do you assume I ignore your sources?) when you mean to talk about your personal current experiences. I do not take responsibility for the miscommunication here. I talk from personal up-to-date experience with Stable and TriforceDragon - that you claimed was wrong first - appears to do to and the way you've presented things up until this post read like you were dismissing that personal experience.
So what I have to gather here is that there's two experiences, which based on Jacke's comment might be an Experimental vs Stable matter? For what it's worth, I'm playing an updated save rather than a fresh one if that might account for anything. I would agree that if Silent Running doesn't dissuade attacks that'd be a nightmare, but it's just not what I experience. Silent Running = total invisibility to me regardless of if I've been spotted prior or not.