Public min-maxing should stop somewhere at 80..95%

[The Judge]

Generally, people will try to squeeze the maximum amount of efficiency out of whatever the they make, and you're saying that it's a terrible and thing to do that, but people WILL maximize efficiency and outperform their opponents. It's like telling the German Empire and the United Kingdom to purposely build shitty ships in 1913, in fact its almost exactly like that. As much as I hate the system crafting and movement methods in this game to do PvP you have to have something that doesn't use power bricks to not be like China in the 1800's.

 

[NeonSturm]

Now if someone spends those hours working on their ship, they shouldn't be nerfed to the point where their ships are basically on par with someone who just slapped down some blocks. Not only will this kill people's interest in getting better, it'll seriously inhibit creativity due to the fact that joe schmoe's five minute doomcube is now equal to any superbly engineered ship which took days, weeks, or in some cases months to make.

Oh, what if I could slap down ROM-Logic in hours for which others need weeks.

I could write a script like:

do read byte
. . and[offset].addLink(( or[offset+0]=byte &0x1, or[offset+1]=byte &0x2, … ));
until EndOfFile
generate/modify "blueprint.sment" with smEdit source-code​

I put in a a few hours of effort and can edit my ROM just with any hex-editor.​

They put in hours of effort and I do it with a hex-editor. Fair?

I think this falls into the category exploit&stuff as long as it's not shared wiki-linked content.
But I think when it enters shared wiki-linked content, it counts as min-maxed.
And then, when you include it into the default game with an official "import mass storage from file" button,

it is neither an exploit, nor min-maxed.
(( But you may call it an inefficient and dumb feature ))
​

And what if someone makes a replica of StarGate–Atlantis. It took months to build and then someone comes in a DoomCube-ship built in days and kills Atlantis. Fair?
Well, the DoomCube is not exploity, and not necessarily min-maxed - though it has the potential of being min-maxed more easily.

So while both Atlantis and the DoomCube could get min-maxed by slabbing shields in every corner (not easy to edit/maintain), the doom-cube builder spent a lot less effort if he min-maxed.

This means it already is:

it'll seriously inhibit creativity due to the fact that joe schmoe's five minute doomcube is now equal to any superbly engineered ship which took days, weeks, or in some cases months to make.

Another thought: yes designs with exploits like docked ion armor will beat pubs 9 times out of 10, I am talking about normal-ish ships with just really good systems and armor, not exploity stuff.

You do not even have to minmax exploits to be above all others.

I came to following conclusion while this thread is open:

exploits are not limiting build choices. They are so "dense", that you can build just 50% of your old system's size and still get 150% output.
They require not more effort to build than the non-exploited version for a greatly enhanced effectiveness.

better designs offer greatly enhanced effectiveness without requiring much more work to build or limit design choices as much as what is considered min-maxing.

min-maxing offers greatly enhanced effectiveness AND limits design choices or increases work time so much, that it is better to completely remove it for all. So that we can enjoy other more individual experiences.
​

OP is a fine philosophy suitable for poems and academic discussions. Like most fine ideals this concept won't survive in the 'real' world because it is fragile and does not compete well.

It also a red-herring. There were two guys in my calculus class who had programmable calculators. They were only two who failed the class. They programmed their toys with the formulas from class but the test papers used variations of the given formulas. Everyone who bothered to learn the skills were able to adapt and solve the problems except for the slackers who used shortcuts to cleverly avoid 'learning'.

You can't save people from their own stupidity...and why would you want to? Why would you want to rob people of their opportunity to learn from their own bad decisions? That is also part of the learning curve for all of us.

Let people use those shortcuts and decide for themselves if that serves them or not.

I agree, surprised?

But your calculators are not hurting others.
Doom-cubes do. (because they are usually employed by jerks or force everyone to spend time posting or playing against them).​

Generally, people will try to squeeze the maximum amount of efficiency out of whatever the they make, and you're saying that it's a terrible and thing to do that, but people WILL maximize efficiency and outperform their opponents. It's like telling the German Empire and the United Kingdom to purposely build shitty ships in 1913, in fact its almost exactly like that. As much as I hate the system crafting and movement methods in this game to do PvP you have to have something that doesn't use power bricks to not be like China in the 1800's.

They can, if they min-max and do not use exploits.
The problem comes with copy-pasting this min-maxed stuff to safe effort while requiring everyone else to learn it.​

 

[The Judge]

Whatever rant you had

Please pass the salt. In all seriousness though everyone will not bend to your will.

 

[Reilly Reese]

min-maxing offers greatly enhanced effectiveness AND limits design choices or increases work time so much, that it is better to completely remove it for all. So that we can enjoy other more individual experiences.

 

[FlyingDebris]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you just blew your own argument from the OP and subsequent posts clear out of the water.

 

[Master_Artificer]

I don't understand your main point. Do you want to talk about min-maxing and that with a bigger playerbase like in Minecraft normal RP style gets ignored? Or do you fear that in the future people don't want to build something new because they try to life up to the build hype some really big ships are inspiring?

Because the examples you give are really precise and partly I don't even understand what they mean or what they are. They are not making your main concern very clear to me:

Do you really fear new people are influenced that much from some big ships that look pretty?

Honestly I fear that there will be no new people at all because one day in one or two years Empyrion and Dual Universe are finished.



I hate this exploity stuff like docked reactors and the likes. Why do people think its fun? The playerbase of Starmade is really really really small. You can not have that big space ship battles with 30 combatants. And then some guy designs ships that are so overpowered that there is no gameplay at all. If I join a survival server and had some guy with this 5million mass ship dominating the universe that is even pimped with exploits I would have to play ages learning that exploit design and also gathering the millions of ressources. I mean what is the difference between a 5million mass ship duel and a a 5k mass ship duel? There is none! Its only 2 ships and 2 players! But if you use 20 of this 5 million mass ships you can't have the fight because the game just lags. But thats the thing: I play games for far too long and consider different stuff fun than I have when I started playing games some long time ago.

Docked reactors are not an exploit, but a nessesity.

I'm talking about Ion Armor, docked hulls, chaindrives, and clocked jump inhibitors.
I would also argue that 'meta projectiles' are also not exploits.
[doublepost=1471642092,1471641797][/doublepost]Oh doomcubes...

If you take a star destroyer and remove the bridge then you have the ideal armor profile for starmade since the hull update. Doom cubes were to help prevent being cored, now they are lazy and ineffecent building, expecially with the thrust update.
Their is a whole school of thought on the benifits of triangle shapes but that isn't for this thread.

 

[Madman198237]

Oh, what if I could slap down ROM-Logic in hours for which others need weeks.

min-maxing offers greatly enhanced effectiveness AND limits design choices or increases work time so much, that it is better to completely remove it for all. So that we can enjoy other more individual experiences.​

You do realize that there's no way to remove what you consider min-maxing, right?

If you take away every bonus for putting effort into a vessel by properly designing power systems, for using effects, for layering armor, people will still find more effective methods of min-maxing their weapons usage and system design, their construction methods, mining methods, usage of fleets, tactics, bases, everything can be improved, or as you put it, "min-maxed". You can't stop people from building the best they can, and you shouldn't try. You're attempting to remove the progression from a game that you said included the progression in design.

Min-maxing is not a problem. The improvement of one's skill and building abilities is not an issue. The use of other people's efficient designs is not a problem. To give one example: The Japanese went from the beginnings of the gunpowder revolution to the modern industrial era in less than 50 years. They had no experience with machinery or steam power or even much knowledge of firearms. Did they just say "No, we want to learn this on our own"? No, they said "We'll learn from you, use your stuff, until we get better". Why would we attempt for force anyone in SM to do anything different?
If you want to download and instantly use a ship you do not understand the basics of, then go right ahead. You will most likely accidentally learn from the ship. Which, according to your view, would be terrible, because everyone needs to learn everything by themselves.

Rome was not built in a day. If no knowledge was passed between people, every generation, every person, would have to invent fire, the wheel, and realize that certain things are and are not edible. Building a city? Out of the question. You haven't even learned how to use stone, bone, or wooden tools yet, since you're too busy starving to death, poisoned from the berries that you never knew were poisonous, and dead from being killed by a large creature, since you never figured out that it's not safe to be out in the open, alone, at night.

TL;DR:
Min-maxing's not a problem. Using min-maxed things you didn't build isn't a problem. Last time I checked, I didn't have to design, build, and assemble my computer in order to use it. I got it from someone who knew more about computers than me (Technically I bought it at a store, but you get the meaning). Min-maxing is the logical result of people improving their skills and their designs. You can't stop people from sharing them, and you shouldn't try.

 

[NeonSturm]

It's different in real life than it is in a game.

In real life, you need to share to be competitive and not easy prey.
In a game, you can quit and continue your real life. You can play with other newcomers together to overcome stronger enemies (if these do not work together too, but then you might switch servers).​

Cars are min-maxed. They have air-bags need to be fuel-efficient …+…+…+ (edit: Deutschland!)

Everyone drives his car for distances 1-3km, I walk.
Nobody can build his own car which goes 30kmh and is allowed to use it.
You cannot even use bikes without standardized lights.
No individuality.

The introduction of cars gave more mobility, but also introduced commuters which drive 2 hours per day to get to work.
Why taking a worker nearby if someone else from another city has a more attractive portfolio?

We are addicted to min-maxed products.
In real life we cannot change that, but in a game we can.
​

It wouldn't be a problem at all if we separate military and civilian gameplay more.

But right now pirates are everywhere and many servers focus on combat.

I like PvP too, but not the one we can do now were you cannot hide behind NPCs or use your environment cleverly.
Where you have to take PvP in your carrier rather then using a fighter because fighters require no fuel, etc.​

 

[FlyingDebris]

dude... no...

 

[The Judge]

It's different in real life than it is in a game.

In real life, you need to share to be competitive and not easy prey.
In a game, you can quit and continue your real life. You can play with other newcomers together to overcome stronger enemies (if these do not work together too, but then you might switch servers).​

Cars are min-maxed. They have air-bags need to be fuel-efficient …+…+…+

Everyone drives his car for distances 1-3km, I walk.
Nobody can build his own car which goes 30kmh and is allowed to use it.
You cannot even use bikes without standardized lights.
No individuality.

The introduction of cars gave more mobility, but also introduced commuters which drive 2 hours per day to get to work.
Why taking a worker nearby if someone else from another city has a more attractive portfolio?

We are addicted to min-maxed products.
In real life we cannot change that, but in a game we can.
​

It wouldn't be a problem at all if we separate military and civilian gameplay more.

But right now pirates are everywhere and many servers focus on combat.

I like PvP too, but not the one we can do now were you cannot hide behind NPCs or use your environment cleverly.
Where you have to take PvP in your carrier rather then using a fighter because fighters require no fuel, etc.​

I I can't help but partially agree because the specialization in Starmade is absolutely terrible because the systems in the game are broken, you can't really do civilian stuff that well.

 

[Sgtwisky]

Nobody can build his own car which goes 30kmh and is allowed to use it.
​

I know this is not really the point of what you said. But its bugging me so Ima say it anyway. At least in the USA as long as you build your vehicle in a way that complies with the DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) you can in fact get a lic. plate and drive it freely. But you do have to have ALL safety equipment, safety features, and comply with fuel economy laws.

SO most people could never comply with any of that or even know how to build their own car. BUT if the couple guys that CAN do all that wanted too they could.

Again, not important, and its not intended to be a counter argument to you. I just had to say it. For my sanity.

 

[Lukwan]

Finally - have you ever tried to customize min-maxed ships?

Every block you change requires you to change 5 other blocks or worse.
The best builds are those which also allow customization and easy access to systems.

I'll quote God now: "Well don't!"

Why on earth would you want customize a Min/Maxed ship? Someone else went to aaaaaaaallllllllll that trouble so you would not have to!

Just pointing out that this theorhertical (sp intended) OP argument would apply seldom if ever. Ships come in an infinite variety of sizes ( # of blocks & mass). Each size will have a different min/max spread and role will also affect the ratios (depending on a dozen variables.) The only time this would even be a factor is when two ship faced off against identical sized foes. Normally the matches will be grossly uneven or have a smaller fleet of ships out numbering a Min/Maxter.

The final nail in the coffin for this concept is the reluctance on the part of the developers to limit the player's creativity in any way. At best you are arguing for the community to maintain a 'gentlemen's agreement' to limit min/maxing. I can't say I would be optimistic 'bout that.

 

[Top 4ce]

Let me show you the issue with your argument.

I'm going to change min/max with decoration blocks/cool rails.

"We shouldn't allow builds on CC that use deco blocks in interesting ways! Or cool rail effects! Or display effects! It becomes difficult to edit and makes newer players feel like they cant make pretty ships themselves. We should only be using hull for ships, deco are useless for fighting and just add weight. Plus, it takes a lot of time to make good details and it isn't worth the effort!"

See the problem? We shouldn't limit how people should build and release to CC, its counterproductive to what CC is supposed to be for. Also, min/max is uncommon at best, as is amazing looking ships. Stop trying to justify limiting creativity for a lack of patience on your part.

You don't like min/max? Then don't download min/max. Simple.

EDIT: This is a reply to OP

 

[terra mining corp.]

You shouldn't be flying around in someone else's creation causing havoc anyways! I just download a cc blueprint to learn from.One must always remember this is a creative sandbox game and pride in build is everything.m2c

 

[NeonSturm]

We shouldn't allow builds on CC that use deco blocks in interesting ways! Or cool rail effects! Or display effects! It becomes difficult to edit and makes newer players feel like they cant make pretty ships themselves.

There must be more combinations than players require to not even think about limiting it.

And there are. Already 36^256 (= 36 with ~25*3 zeroes!) combinations with alphanumeric letters in one display block.
A 10x10 plate has a similar number of combinations and there should be enough for everyone in a standard "32> 3:2:5" ship.
​

You just cannot minmax aesthetics because you cannot even sort them to make everyone find his perfect ship if it were on CC.
And even if he finds it, he plays around with it and soon he wants something else/different which is also similar unlikely to be found.​

Ships come in an infinite variety of sizes ( # of blocks & mass). Each size will have a different min/max spread and role will also affect the ratios (depending on a dozen variables.)

In the current StarMade yes.

Do you remember the Universal-Docking-System standard? If that happens to JumpGate sizes, we will have just 3 classes of ships:

Heavy ships will either be limited in block-count (gate power) or size (gate dimensions).

But because gate dimensions should be a bit larger than the specification (no collisions) gate power would be the ultimately limiting factor.
Ships will be limited in mass and have likely a 3:2:5 or 2:2:3 boundary box, dependent on gate-standards.​

Medium ships will be designed for easy use and using gates as a pair or trio.

Mostly focus on speed to easily get around or have long range alpha-strike turrets to punish hit&runner (as a pair or trio).
1/2 to 1/3 mass of heavy and likely in a 2:3:5 size ratio on average because "(2+3)/2=5".

Maybe designed to dock to each other and fly through gates as group.​

Light ships will be between 1/5 and 1/8 of their heavy brothers.

For combat, they fly as 4(squads) or 6 and rely on speed to choose their fights.
Common ship classes: Interceptor, Covert ops, Scout,
​

If players play alone, they will use light as starter ships and medium for their aesthetics and flexibility.

They will use heavy for solo-gaming, assault and min-maxing.​

((Edit: Hangar sizes have the same limit as gate-sizes, weight can further be limited by rail-enhancers or carrier-specifications)

Soft-caps like power before you need docked reactors has similar effects

Size and soft-cap limits fix the number of reactor blocks
> 1 variable less.​

Min-maxing will start with calculating costs - especially in mass and volume, as this is what gates will limit.

They will try to get the highest-volume ship possible and then use the "mass-currency" to make it as good as possible.
> 2 variables less (mass, volume).
​

Before doing that or after getting knowledge about the limits, min-maxers will optimize firepower

to reduce the damage taken by killing others fast.

They will add survivability in armour or evasion to survive long enough for using their firepower.
For that they will increase either armour or shield tank value, but not both - just a 0/1 decision variable.
> 1+2 variables less (shield/armour choice & encasing/system-blocks; and weapon-hp balance)
​

…​

Perhaps it is this what makes min-maxing: Reducing the number of variables until there is no freedom for personalisation, which can for example be a 16x8x16 area which you either fill with weapons, shield or RP stuff.

Because shields and weapons have different power-requirements and weight, this choice is excluded by min-maxing.
​

Edit: Update#1 for OP (3 small inserts: a link to this post and 2 definitions with "hardcore-min-maxing" and "100% efficiency")

 

[Madman198237]

Gate sizes do not make classes---unless gates become standardized. Not a terrible thing, really. It doesn't limit freedom at all. You just have to invest that much more effort (Spend that much more time learning the systems) to build a gate of your own for a bigger ship.....or you just make whatever ship and shape you want, and then find a way to fit it through a gate.

Oh, and what does USD have to do with limiting creativity? You can build whatever you want, in whatever shape you want, but a mutually-dockable USD (One of these ships can dock to another) gives a simple, unnecessary advantage....unless you want to somehow deny your enemies easy access into your ships, in which case you can invert your docked setup or something.

 

[FlyingDebris]

Don't limit people, or what they upload.

Even if we did, it'd be a nightmare determining what ships that get uploaded are 'minmaxed'.

 

[NeonSturm]

Gate sizes do not make classes---unless gates become standardized.

They limit mass (gate power) and size (gate dimensions).

They are one example, the other is "soft-cap on power (2 million currently)" and "hangar-size".

Power regeneration restricts shield recharger and cloak/jam - systems you use for a longer time,
Weapon-size is restricted by power-capacity and power-regeneration. After you know regeneration, you could distribute on weapon/capacitor blocks.​

And here soft-min-maxing starts​

Why should they not become standardized (for a faction, for a server, for the TG-default stations?)

Even if we did, it'd be a nightmare determining what ships that get uploaded are 'minmaxed'.

True now, but as you see in my last post, you could define that by how many (and which) variables are eliminated from the equation.

 

[Crashmaster]

So?

See the problem? We shouldn't limit how people should build and release to CC, its counterproductive to what CC is supposed to be for. Also, min/max is uncommon at best, as is amazing looking ships. Stop trying to justify limiting creativity for a lack of patience on your part.

Don't limit people, or what they upload.

Why do you snip the relevant point out of peoples' responses and respond only to inconsequential details? You cannot dodge the fact that nobody wants limits imposed on them and you have no reasons to do so that have been satisfactory so far. This is the main counter-point to the censorship (pun intended) you wish to impose. Stop dodging around it.

 

[Top 4ce]

There must be more combinations than players require to not even think about limiting it.

And there are. Already 36^256 (= 36 with ~25*3 zeroes!) combinations with alphanumeric letters in one display block.
A 10x10 plate has a similar number of combinations and there should be enough for everyone in a standard "32> 3:2:5" ship.
​

You just cannot minmax aesthetics because you cannot even sort them to make everyone find his perfect ship if it were on CC.
And even if he finds it, he plays around with it and soon he wants something else/different which is also similar unlikely to be found.​

When did me making a made up argument to illustrate my point about the issues of your argument, turn into min/maxing aesthetics? I dont think you even read my post, otherwise you suffer from poor reading comprehension.

Again, my point is that you cant judge or limit creations just so you can make something you have an issue with better.

Again, stop trying to justify limiting creativity just because you find it difficult to edit or make min/max ships.