Gigantism

[Colt556]

Not exactly. Spy ships do exist, IRL, even now, in modern age. Often in connection to satellites or as the ones employing sonar/radar - exactly. They come in variety of sizes because often, for the sake of utility they are fit with equipment allowing them to perform functions beyond recon, but they do. And the small ones in case of recon - depending on the method used - don't do generally worse than their bigger counterparts.

And that doesn't take into consideration that space is a bit different than open seas. In space - space as we have it in StarMade - not only satellite and (relatively) long-range scanning is rather crude or nonexistent, but there are objects and ways to hide a ship more easily, making such function - if anything - more viable.

I think you're mixing roles again. I can't think of a single small 'spy ship' used in naval warfare. Probably because such small vessels don't operate well out at sea and because they're entirely unnecessary. If your little spy boat can see a ship 100 miles away, you can bet your destroyer or carrier can see it too.

Wrong. I didn't check all the navies but US actually took pains to modernize and maintain standing number of commisioned destroyers (exceeding noticeably that of carriers by about 6 times) and in fact they're important enough partially because they serve as escorts for carriers which, despite their size, aren't very defensive do-it-all, unlike StarMade's sizeable ships.

Keeping destroyers =/= replacing battleships with them. Destroyers have always had a role in naval warfare, even since the age of sail. Their role hasn't changed in modern times. They didn't replace battleships, they didn't replace anything, they still do today what they did 70 years ago. Factually speaking it's carriers that replaced battleships, because anything a battleship could do a carrier could do better, as WW2 showcased wonderfully. Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because destroyers are numerous that they replaced battleships, destroyers are ALWAYS numerous because they're cheap.

Wrong. Destroyers go as often to the same places said big ships go, because they're needed to protect those bigger ships as escorts.

You need to stop saying "wrong" when you're the one who's wrong and when you don't even know what you're talking about. However I will accept some of the blame since clearly I didn't make it clear enough. My whole "go where the big ships aren't" doesn't exclude destroyers from going where the big ships are. Obviously destroyers go with the big ships as escorts. However nations have significantly fewer "big ships", as you yourself pointed out. The world is also a big place, the oceans vast. No nation on earth, not even america, has enough "big ships" to be everywhere at once. Nor can they afford enough big ships to be everywhere at once. That is where smaller ships come in, don't have a carrier battlegroup to spare? Don't need a carrier battlegroup? Send a destroyer group instead. No military force is composed of exclusively big guns because you can't have enough big guns to be everywhere you need them to be, that's what destroyers are for.

Very wrong. Hilariously, our space rovers have nuclear reactors. They cannot be comparable to the navy ships however, since both the reactors and the radioisotopoes powering them are prepared exactly to maintain rover's life for double/triple the expected mission time, no less or more. Hell, if you'd check US National Library of Medicine, you'd find papers on such quirky devices like radioisotope powered pacemakers.

No matter if they're a good idea, depending on what they can be used for - and whether it's worth the money - nuclear reactors/cells can power all kinds of devices. They went into navy quickier not because navy wanted them big and better but because their big ships were horrible drain on resources and the submarines without such reactors needed to surface periodically so they could turn on their diesel engines and recharge batteries needed for functioning underwater - which made nuclear reactors viable despite their otherwise high cost

Good luck finding some 50 meter boat in need of nuclear reactor for the sake of efficiency that would quickly return the expenses - it won't happen anytime soon. Given that navy uses FACs of such size sparringly and usually for things like coast patrol there's hardly a point of fitting them with one. But can it technically be done? Of course. There's just no point.

Care to provide sources on that because I did a quick look and no space rovers operate on nuclear reactors. That said, you're still ignoring the point by trying to nitpick things. So I'll stick to the point, just because a ship is bigger doesn't mean it's less efficient, and to force such a gamey mechanic would be entirely uncalled for and stupid.

Except it's not how it goes. As claimed above, size of the ship didn't open up options, it demanded them because too many sizeable ships are fuel-guzzlers. Size of vehicle doesn't further technological development - it's completely the other way around - it's the technology developments that allows ships of various sizes to maintain efficiency (or exist in the first place).

Man half your post is you going on about how you missed the point entirely. Nothing you said has refuted my point, so let me restate it, yet again. Enforcing an arbitrary mechanic that makes big ships inefficient is stupid, since regardless of reasons, big ships can be just as efficient or MORE efficient than smaller ones.

Yes, it comes down to logistics, but what is important for the consideration is that just because the ship is big, it isn't more, unconditionally, efficient.

Except if you remove logistics yeah, a big ship is unconditionally more efficient. The sole exception in starmade being scouting because of the way sectors work. In every other role, a bigger ship is better. The only reason the US navy has destroyers, or submarines, or cruisers, is because they can't afford to spam or lose their carriers. Literally every ship I just listed exists for the sole purpose of protecting the carrier. If resources weren't an issue, if losing a carrier didn't matter, you can bet all those crewmen on those smaller ships would be put on more carriers. Because anything a destroyer can do, anything a cruiser can do,anything a submarine can do, a carrier can do and more. The same applies to starmade, anything a small ship can do a larger one can do, and probably do better, and do more things, all in one package. So just like real life you limit this by resources, nothing else.

Now you're being simply rude to Valiant70 - and quite a few other users here. Many of us post because not all of it was discussed the same and from the same standpoint in the major past threads and because we believe that it's wise to have Schine aware of this whole issue with possible ways of solving it (often using emerging ideas and features unavailable and undiscussed earlier) and thus useful. If you do not believe there's any point in this and post just for the sake of arguing with people, I am not sure you're doing anything good - beside bumping the thread.

As someone who's been around this game for.. three years? Two n a half? A while, I can safely tell you that nothing in this thread, literally NOTHING, is new. Every 'standpoint', every discussion, it's all been done before. It's not rude to say we're not treading new ground, it's fact. Just because you, personally, haven't seen all these discussions doesn't mean they haven't taken place. Now I'm not saying you shouldn't discuss it, I didn't chastise people for discussing it when I made my first post now did I? No, in fact I put in my two cents. But while you're more than welcome to discuss it make no mistake, not a single post in this thread is remotely helpful, not a single post offers new insight, new ideas, or really anything new. Once someone says something that hasn't been said a thousand times before, then you can claim this discussion is helpful. But until someone does that this thread exists for literally no reason than amusing ourselves with pointless discussion, because again, nothing said here is new or helpful.

Don't believe me? Go look at gigantism threads made two years ago, I guarantee you they'll say all the same stuff you see in this thread. There just aint much more to say on the subject, sometimes there's a finite number of possibilities and you hit that limit, that's all there is to it.

 

[QuantumAnomaly]

I would say that all of us have gotten a bit touchy at this point. All of us like the game we play and have a grand vision for said game, and obviously we all want to defend what would be best for everyone. In several instances right now, we're arguing the same points, I wonder if for nothing more than the sake of arguing.

I dont know if I brought anything new to the table, because I havent been around since the dawn of starmade. I didnt want to necro all the old threads, and decided that I would just use the discussion as it stands in this thread, since I know things have changed since the first install of starmade was completed.

But to be fair, I'm sure the devil is in the details. I'm well aware maintenance and fuel are nothing new as far as suggestions go, but the manners in which those could be implemented may be. I even wrote an entirely separate post discussing uses for faction points that could play in to the discussion of gigantism, but I wont parade my own thread any further than that, just that there are other options to change the tide of battle.

So, here are a few other ideas, since I dont want to argue or get petty. We're adults here. Lets get creative!

One idea could simply be more weapon and effect systems. Having too many options will get to the point where you cant put EVERYTHING in your ship, which means it would be vulnerable to something.

If a scan revealed what weapon and effect computers were on an enemy's vessel (maybe a target scan computer that requires a lock on like a missile, then an long scan period that notifies the player they're being scanned) then you could truly scout your opponent, then build to their weakness, allowing you to take at least a slightly smaller ship purpose built to counter them, saving resources while gaining kills, AND giving a reason to build a specific style of ship.

How about in the same sense that each group on a computer increases the power cost (at least for weapons) each system computer used on a ship puts a drain on overall power kinda like shield rechargers. Each additional computer (effect, weapon, etc) scaling in a constant power consumed, making it so that specialization is more rewarding, which would do wonders for making larger ships have to either dedicate to a certain role, or be slightly worse off by being a jack-of-all-trades due to the fact that they wouldnt have the power to spare to field everything at full efficiency.

• I know that the cries of there already being a power cap will come from this one, but it actually addresses several common issues at once. If it scaled as a percentage, or the first system free or whatever, then smaller ships wouldnt be affected as badly. Specialization is something a lot of ppl want, big ships cant "do it all", and design must be more careful but also more rewarding.

Be these good or bad ideas, they're ideas nonetheless, which is what we should focus on for the sake of the community. Arguing semantics wont help us get the best ideas in the game, brainstorming will.

 

[Valiant70]

I think I may have brought this up before, but one way to implement fuel in a way that would not be too frustrating is to leave the "bonus power" from the reactor lines free, but incur a fuel cost for the per-block power in return for a huge buff to something like 250 e/sec/block. Small ships would view fuel as a buff, while ones operating far beyond the power cap would need it to function at peak efficiency.

Fuel burn should be manually toggleable or kick in only when consumption overtakes the free regeneration.

Advantages:

1. Small ships are cheaper to operate, giving them a purpose.
2. Big ships won't be stranded if they empty the fuel tanks. At worst it might take a while to get home if the jump drive uses more than 1m e/sec. (I'm refering to default configs here, obviously. The "free power cap" could be changed.)
3. Newbies will not need fuel at all. Small ships will run just fine on free power grids.
4. Small support craft like shuttles will not need to use fuel.
5. Considerate/mature Titan-lovers will likely start using smaller craft for shopping trips and exploration and enjoying their Titans as mobile bases and using them for war.
6. Interesting resource management that isn't too frustrating.

Disadvantages:

1. Titan addicts may get upset.
2. Potential resource limitations (only a con for certain people)

Another thought: the current reactors really need to be replaced with something more immersive. All ship systems seem very low-immersion to me at the moment.

 

[NuclearFun]

I think I may have brought this up before, but one way to implement fuel in a way that would not be too frustrating is to leave the "bonus power" from the reactor lines free, but incur a fuel cost for the per-block power in return for a huge buff to something like 250 e/sec/block. Small ships would view fuel as a buff, while ones operating far beyond the power cap would need it to function at peak efficiency.

Fuel burn should be manually toggleable or kick in only when consumption overtakes the free regeneration.

Advantages:

1. Small ships are cheaper to operate, giving them a purpose.
2. Big ships won't be stranded if they empty the fuel tanks. At worst it might take a while to get home if the jump drive uses more than 1m e/sec. (I'm refering to default configs here, obviously. The "free power cap" could be changed.)
3. Newbies will not need fuel at all. Small ships will run just fine on free power grids.
4. Small support craft like shuttles will not need to use fuel.
5. Considerate/mature Titan-lovers will likely start using smaller craft for shopping trips and exploration and enjoying their Titans as mobile bases and using them for war.
6. Interesting resource management that isn't too frustrating.

Disadvantages:

1. Titan addicts may get upset.
2. Potential resource limitations (only a con for certain people)

Another thought: the current reactors really need to be replaced with something more immersive. All ship systems seem very low-immersion to me at the moment.

That is actually quite agreeable.
Your proposition would act like huge power capacitors without automatic recharge.

 

[Valiant70]

That is actually quite agreeable.
Your proposition would act like huge power capacitors without automatic recharge.

In a way, although these would still have limited output per second in exchange for massive capacity.

A fuel tank of sorts might be in order, although it might be better to just build fuel storage into the reactor blocks for now to see what happens before everyone has to do some kind of retrofit to carry fuel.

 

[Lecic]

Care to provide sources on that because I did a quick look and no space rovers operate on nuclear reactors.

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428751/nuclear-generator-powers-curiosity-mars-mission/

 

[Colt556]

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428751/nuclear-generator-powers-curiosity-mars-mission/

Huh, neat. Only two years though, guess size does open up some routes after all.

 

[HerrColonel]

Fuel is the single best option available for limiting big ships. The bigger the ship, the more fuel it needs.

I remember having played Ogame when I was a youngster and I remember the production of fuel was vital in order to sustain a powerful fleet. If the guy with the biggest fleet had no way to sustain it all (for the most epic fleet they was no way to sustain by your own production, the guys were trading a lot with whoever can give their the most) it was immobilized, so easy prey.

I think it was good because it encouraged both trading and smart managing of the fleet depending on the ressources. Big fleets and big ships are OK if you have the infrastructure (big fuel production and tanks) to sustain on your own or if you have allies to trade with. And in case of wars both are targets.

 

[Colt556]

I remember having played Ogame when I was a youngster and I remember the production of fuel was vital in order to sustain a powerful fleet. If the guy with the biggest fleet had no way to sustain it all (for the most epic fleet they was no way to sustain by your own production, the guys were trading a lot with whoever can give their the most) it was immobilized, so easy prey.

I think it was good because it encouraged both trading and smart managing of the fleet depending on the ressources. Big fleets and big ships are OK if you have the infrastructure (big fuel production and tanks) to sustain on your own or if you have allies to trade with. And in case of wars both are targets.

It also gives alternatives when fighting a war. You don't need to fight their titan, you just need to hit their fuel production. If they can't produce fuel to keep their big doom ships running then you win the war.

 

[Winterhome]

It also gives alternatives when fighting a war. You don't need to fight their titan, you just need to hit their fuel production. If they can't produce fuel to keep their big doom ships running then you win the war.

Meanwhile, titan pilots are also effectively forced to redeploy to defend their assets, and it makes attacking enemy bases actually worth your time. We'd need some sort of alert for when enemies are attacking your assets and where, though.

I do feel that we need to have some sort of system for *refining* fuel, in addition to just mining it and going. I think we should, ideally, have a server configurable cap on how much a homebase-based fuel refinery can refine, though, otherwise there's no good reason to set up extra bases. :|

 

[QuantumAnomaly]

Meanwhile, titan pilots are also effectively forced to redeploy to defend their assets, and it makes attacking enemy bases actually worth your time. We'd need some sort of alert for when enemies are attacking your assets and where, though.

I do feel that we need to have some sort of system for *refining* fuel, in addition to just mining it and going. I think we should, ideally, have a server configurable cap on how much a homebase-based fuel refinery can refine, though, otherwise there's no good reason to set up extra bases. :|

Go a step further, and have a fuel refining cap for ANY base. That way, to effectively feed any given fleet, more stations would need to be build and maintained at any given time. Still, has to be a way to balance that so the single player doesnt get to take their titan out but once a week or be otherwise unable to make the jump to a showoff lineup or whathaveyou on the fuel refined from a given base (or number of bases).

I feel a single player should still be able to build as they please, and even field it, without TOO much hassle, even if they are able to do little else. Otherwise, I find the idea grand.

 

[Valiant70]

Meanwhile, titan pilots are also effectively forced to redeploy to defend their assets, and it makes attacking enemy bases actually worth your time. We'd need some sort of alert for when enemies are attacking your assets and where, though.

I do feel that we need to have some sort of system for *refining* fuel, in addition to just mining it and going. I think we should, ideally, have a server configurable cap on how much a homebase-based fuel refinery can refine, though, otherwise there's no good reason to set up extra bases. :|

That can be done through Faction Points. The more fuel you refine, the more FP your home base costs. I think there are plans to make the home base cost more FP depending on its size and/or the size of stuff docked to it. (There are MUCH better ways to do this than size by the way, such cost by number of system blocks and armor, excluding hull which is a decorative block.)

 

[Winterhome]

Go a step further, and have a fuel refining cap for ANY base. That way, to effectively feed any given fleet, more stations would need to be build and maintained at any given time. Still, has to be a way to balance that so the single player doesnt get to take their titan out but once a week or be otherwise unable to make the jump to a showoff lineup or whathaveyou on the fuel refined from a given base (or number of bases).

I feel a single player should still be able to build as they please, and even field it, without TOO much hassle, even if they are able to do little else. Otherwise, I find the idea grand.

Hm, dunno.

I like the idea of uncapped refinement because it allows people to punish you for putting all of your eggs in one basket, but I also like the idea of forcing people to spread out. Perhaps diminishing returns on refinement rates when you add more refinery enhancers (if they're a thing) or something.

 

[Az14el]

One thing I've noticed from what little pvp I've done

Bigger ships are seriously inefficient compared to smaller more specialized ships
Bottom line is that due to current power to damage conversion rates, onboard weapons are insanely superior to turret based weapons, and because of thrust mechanics and power concerns larger ships become exponentially less mobile, and mobility essentially defines your effective DPS (not counting swarmers), giving more mobile ships a huge advantage in terms of effective damage per mass.

Looking at the numbers alone I can understand where people get worried, but actually taking a "Titan" out to fight an opponent who knows you're coming (or even just a 200m Cruiser or something) changes the dynamic completely. I've honestly been outperformed by my own vastly smaller & dumber (and obviously unjammed) AI ships when I've put in the effort to actually use them.

Of course first shot advantage from a flanking titan will destroy entire fleets, and it goes for any mass horrifyingly enough, 1 outflanked titan is better than 10 in formation. Hands down.

Onboards yo. :/

 

[Colt556]

Go a step further, and have a fuel refining cap for ANY base. That way, to effectively feed any given fleet, more stations would need to be build and maintained at any given time. Still, has to be a way to balance that so the single player doesnt get to take their titan out but once a week or be otherwise unable to make the jump to a showoff lineup or whathaveyou on the fuel refined from a given base (or number of bases).

I feel a single player should still be able to build as they please, and even field it, without TOO much hassle, even if they are able to do little else. Otherwise, I find the idea grand.

I actually disagree with this one. I think it should be pretty much impossible for a single player to field a titan. Build one? Sure, of course. But to actually use it on a server? Well.. depends on the server but say a survival server, it should be pretty impossible for a lone player to keep a titan operational. I don't believe in hard caps, so if that player really wants to grind all day everyday to keep his titan fueled, by all means. But the sheer logistics involved in keeping titans maintained should be too great for the majority of players to want to handle alone.

A reminder that the only ship I have ever worked on is a titan, it will likely be the only ship I ever work on. But I never intended to go it solo once I finished designing it. I had always intended to join a faction and use it for the benefit of my faction. I do not believe I should be able to just go in, grind for a couple days to gt set up, and then cruise around in my titan. Smaller ships should be for that, titans should be big faction assets that are used as symbols of pride and power. "Oh yeah, look at us, we have FOUR titans! We're so big and powerful" type shit.

I also don't agree with capping fuel production at all. If they wanna make a huge refinery station by all means. But then if they lose that station in a raid they now have no way of producing fuel. And the mechanics should be such that it isn't easy to get that stuff set-up, so losing their refinery station means they'd be dealt a HUGE blow in any war. It should be player choice, make one single super refinery that's easier to defend since it's only one station, but then if you lose that station you pretty much lose the war. Or spread out your refineries so you have to defend more ground, but losing a refinery is nothing more than a setback.

I don't like it when the game dictates how players should play. It should be entirely up to the players to decide how they want it done.

 

[Mered4]

Now that the discussion has evolved towards fuel, I will say this:

Fuel would work best if it was only used by Jump Drives. This would effectively limit the range of attacks (no more be everywhere, kill everything and leave) and keep players close to home. It would also be nice if there was a *fuel extractor* block that automatically produced fuel at a fixed rate on, say, planets. That way you could just go back to your station/planet to refuel quickly without any hassle.

 

[Colt556]

Now that the discussion has evolved towards fuel, I will say this:

Fuel would work best if it was only used by Jump Drives. This would effectively limit the range of attacks (no more be everywhere, kill everything and leave) and keep players close to home. It would also be nice if there was a *fuel extractor* block that automatically produced fuel at a fixed rate on, say, planets. That way you could just go back to your station/planet to refuel quickly without any hassle.

Fuel isn't suppose to be 'no hassle' though. It's suppose to be the exact opposite, it's suppose to be a hassle. It should be a fairly rare spawn scattered throughout the galaxy (think oil in real life) and factions should worry about making sure they control regions where they can acquire fuel. It should be a process to mine, refine, and use fuel. The entire point is it's a limiter put in place to make using big ships a hassle. If it could be done "without any hassle" then we may as well not have it added at all since it'd be entirely pointless. Fuel should be a relatively rare, valuable commodity that factions need to hold and protect.

Although I do agree that having it exclusively for jump drives/gates would be a good way of doing it. So yeah sure you can have your ship but it's little more than a glorified space station. If you want to actually get around you need that precious fuel. I could see that working as a good limiter as well.

 

[Pacific_Jim]

While I'm still not entirely convinced by the idea fuel being exclusive to jump drives would probably be the best way to go about it. Makes the number one issue in warfare logistics, since you have to worry about how you can actually get something somewhere.

Now back onto the subject of gigantism in general I've given some thought, and really the main problem is that warfare, control of territory etc is a non issue. If the game encouraged factions to spread out, for example having to control as many systems as possible (and every planet in that system) you likely wouldn't see a fleet of 20 titans guarding them. Defence fleets of smaller, quicker and cheaper to produce would be the superior option (drone swarms especially shine for this, only AI tweak this would need is a "protect sector" function). Attacking is a where the bigger ships would be more suitable, especially as there will likely be a limit for how many AI followers you can have in fleets (like in astronaut mode).

 

[QuantumAnomaly]

74

I don't like it when the game dictates how players should play. It should be entirely up to the players to decide how they want it done.

I suppose I mean it more in the sense that a single player should at least be able to fly their titan on occasion, without being so restricted as to be never even able to use thrusters. An extreme example so to speak. So long as normal power could at least let them show it off (but not constantly do battle with it) then I'd feel fine.

Really, any reason to claim more territory or have more than 1 base is a good thing, as said above it encourages more diversified fleets and would be enough strain on resources to maintain and defend.

 

[Colt556]

74


I suppose I mean it more in the sense that a single player should at least be able to fly their titan on occasion, without being so restricted as to be never even able to use thrusters. An extreme example so to speak. So long as normal power could at least let them show it off (but not constantly do battle with it) then I'd feel fine.

Really, any reason to claim more territory or have more than 1 base is a good thing, as said above it encourages more diversified fleets and would be enough strain on resources to maintain and defend.

Well, as I said there shouldn't be any sort of hard cap saying "you're alone? too bad go away". It's more a case of the average player wont be able to invest the time needed to keep a titan maintained and useable. Yeah they'll be able to accumulate resources over a period of time for a road trip, but as you said they wouldn't be able to use it in combat.

I do agree with encouraging factions to spread out but again it should be encouragement, not mandatory. If they wanna put all their eggs in one basket than by all means. Different playstyles offer different rewards and risks, I don't see anything wrong with that.