Objectiveness is great and all, but, do you actually have some kind of opinions?

[lupoCani]

I've gone through a number of council applications and really, in the "why me" portion all I see is the same promise to be objective and neutral and impartial and listening, etcetera, etcetera. Don't get me wrong, those are great and necessary qualities, but right now everyone's parading with that in some variation, and I'm far from active enough here to have a personal opinion on the lot of you.

Thus, I ask, what do you think? Balance, feature priorities, visions of the game, anything. In the absence of extensive personal experience, I at least want to know what policies I'll be voting for.

 

[CyberTao]

I think the problem there is that no one knows what the Council will even be doing. The first election is a 3 month trial after all. Once it is started, and people can actually understand what the role will be, they can probably do a better "why me". Need to know the extent of the powers before we can make promises.

Spoiler: A crack at your question though

I like options though. For every relevant feature that is added, I'd like to see options to customize it. The ability to tweak the game to your own style and do whatever you wish is what I support most. As such, I also don't like the "build like us or gtfo" mentality some people seem to have at time. The most notable example of that is doomcubes, where people have had actual discussions on how to change mechanics to favour "proper" ships and punish the evil and dirty cubes. I don't like that, nothing is more annoying than telling people how to have fun.

Balance is in the eye of the beholder imho, so a good general Vanilla config to help people understand the mechanics (They will probably always be a little shitty), but then lots of options to customize and tweak servers. This is what I'd want.

/I tried

 

[jorgekorke]

(sorry if there is any english mistakes i typed this in a hurry)

I doubt the council would have some kind of heavy influence on the roadmap of the development, yet I would say that currently the game requires more optimization. We had a good patch some time ago, yet it's not enough - we are still losing new potential players, from steam, due to crashes and stability issues.

 

[MrFURB]

One of my favorite things in gaming is being able to spend your free time building something up with friends. Make an empire, or a kingdom, or what-have-you and reap the glorious fruits that you sow. A dynamic game with player factions where you fund and build everything yourself is pretty much the sum of my vision for Starmade...

...But then again, I'm but a very small part of the community. What should happen is to make my vision possible, but not exclusionary with that of anyone else. Starmade's already a game about options and possibilities; it'd make sense to continue that beyond server options and into the realm of how different people could play the same game.

 

[Master_Artificer]

I mean, people can attest to this, I could go around asking them some serious and not so serious questions. But I don't have the time to take an hour per person to do that. XD

Maybe I ask too many questions XD
But it did help figure out who exactly I was voting for, and what their personality and opinions were like, and how well they get along with others.

 

[Ithirahad]

Until we know what the council actually does, it's hard to know how much personal opinion should affect its function. Currently, all we know is that the council will represent the community, so "I promise to be impartial and listen to the community's wishes" is about the best we can do.

 

[NeonSturm]

Thus, I ask, what do you think? Balance, feature priorities, visions of the game, anything. In the absence of extensive personal experience, I at least want to know what policies I'll be voting for.

Until we know what the council actually does, it's hard to know how much personal opinion should affect its function. Currently, all we know is that the council will represent the community, so "I promise to be impartial and listen to the community's wishes" is about the best we can do.

I Agree. If I would have written an application, I would have said that I love details, code and improvement in flexibility.

But I am not the right person for an application. StarMade is much better than SE or the (Microsoft-) MineCraft, but is still a proprietary drug.

You get addicted and are bound to updates released by just one person, which could theoretically die with his source, spy your computer or sell to Microsoft without our choice. Perhaps read articles about Free Software (gnu.org ; I DONT mean OpenSource or Free Beer - you even have the right to sell GPL-licensed software - together with the source)
And that are mostly all reasons why I want to do my own game with my very own unique stuff where I can pull updates how fast I am able to.​

The most notable example of that is doomcubes, where people have had actual discussions on how to change mechanics to favour "proper" ships and punish the evil and dirty cubes. I don't like that, nothing is more annoying than telling people how to have fun.

Balance is in the eye of the beholder imho, so a good general Vanilla config to help people understand the mechanics (They will probably always be a little shitty), but then lots of options to customize and tweak servers. This is what I'd want.

Doom-Cubes are imba. You need math that doesn't punish RPed ships more than doom-cubes, or their sole existence dictates how battle-ships should look.

I doubt the council would have some kind of heavy influence on the roadmap of the development, yet I would say that currently the game requires more optimization. We had a good patch some time ago, yet it's not enough - we are still losing new potential players, from steam, due to crashes and stability issues.

Somebody is rewriting the C-language. Perhaps C and Java could call each other's functions (Java was developed with C originally).
Or perhaps it could teach schema something he doesn't know jet. Sometimes a boost to very few looped functions could do a lot of difference.
I made a thread in Off-Topic linking the youtube videos (watch on youtube to see all

 

[CyberTao]

their sole existence dictates how battle-ships should look.

The moment you dictate anything, the game is no longer a sandbox. I can see no way to punish a brick that does not also punish other ships or is easily accounted and adapted into a basic cube.

 

[NeonSturm]

I can see no way to punish a brick that does not also punish other ships or is easily accounted and adapted into a basic cube.

Turning rate. Require hollow space inside a cube :p

I don't want to punish cubes.
But NEITHER I want math which favours cubes over other ships ... at least if there is no counter-part.

 

[Mered4]

I've gone through a number of council applications and really, in the "why me" portion all I see is the same promise to be objective and neutral and impartial and listening, etcetera, etcetera. Don't get me wrong, those are great and necessary qualities, but right now everyone's parading with that in some variation, and I'm far from active enough here to have a personal opinion on the lot of you.

Thus, I ask, what do you think? Balance, feature priorities, visions of the game, anything. In the absence of extensive personal experience, I at least want to know what policies I'll be voting for.

I was quite clear, I thought. I would like to focus on balance, personally. That's my area of experience and I'll stick to it.

 

[CyberTao]

Turning rate. Require hollow space inside a cube :p

I don't want to punish cubes.
But NEITHER I want math which favours cubes over other ships ... at least if there is no counter-part.

I don't believe the game even recognizes "inside" areas, there is just exposed faces and non-exposed faces. If the game had any clue on what was inside, we wouldn't have shield graphics leak through walls like it does.

The only systems that even marginally benefit cubes is turn rate (which is kind of a meh excuse to me), and lack of effort needed. You can not prevent laziness, you can only hope to curve it. Alternatively, you could put up a skill wall that prevents people who do not want to fiddle around with calculations and array setups from playing at all.

Any simple 'solution' would be easy to adapt. Any extreme one would punish other ships of varying designs. People are foolish if they think they can prevent 'bricks' through restrictive means, when the 'problem' itself is the player mentality. I use problem loosely, because the problem depends on how you look at it.