Stations with Jumpdrive

[bobafetthotmail]

If Capitals are so big, that they effectively can't turn faster than a planet and can't even evade an asteroid impact controlled by a little drone, why should they be mobile?

Here you have your mobile station.

Given that Starmade seems to have newtonian physics, a ship without thruster blocks will become immobile pretty soon when you add a few hundreds of blocks on it.

But yeah, if everything for the game was a "ship" object and what differentiates a station from a ship is simply the lack of engines (i.e. you can place "station-only blocks" on "ships" as long as their thrust to mass ratio is total garbage so they are actually immobile), this would be a non-issue.
[doublepost=1487282565,1487282212][/doublepost]

I often think: how can the devs even get the game running on all the different hardware and still have learned so few about balance.

Developing software is about knowing machines, designing good game mechanics is about knowing people. Very different skills are involved.

 

[Jaaskinal]

I'm really starting to think this is the "Suggestion Dismissing Contest"

It's only a suggestion dismissing contest when it's a bad suggestion. If you look at some of the better suggestions on this forum, you find a lot of examples where they were almost universally supported. Wonder why this isn't? Here's a hint: .

 

[NeonSturm]

But sometimes I get 3 replys of essentially just "what?" by the same guy requiring at least 1-2 answers making up 5 posts which sound negative. Other times I get 2-3 replys of "this (resolved) issue is a problem" and have the feeling that my thread got shut down by 9 negative posts.

When it was the only problem that 1. "an Ape" responded, 2. somebody didn't think about how his post relies to the op's 22 lines".​

I support "Jumping Stations / Capitals" as an idea in my thread

Reworking faction HB, HB combat situation and faction membership.​

 

[bobafetthotmail]

It's only a suggestion dismissing contest when it's a bad suggestion.

I still haven't got any valid reasoning for this statement, so unless you can back it up somehow, please stop this.

So far I got mostly invalid feedback, and a disappointing first-impression about denizens of this place.
-someone that just stated he did not like this but refused to explain, (suspected of not reading the OP)
-you that 1. did not read fully the OP so first part is invalid 2. brought up unrelated issues (inhibitors don't work), again invalid
-someone that declared it won't happen because I need to post suggestions that can be implemented without touching the code in a pre-Alpha game (lolwhut? also people asking for flora, better planets, better AI and whatever else isn't that touching the game heavily too?)

One guy is actually doing it right, posting his thoughts about it without trying to look smarter than he is, post riddles, or whatever.

 

[SkaireKrough]

Exceptions are the tumors of gameplay mechanics, while they're bad on their own, they are evidence of a far more serious underlying issue. For this suggestion, that far more underlying issue is cancer.

I agree with this, but not allowing jump drives on what is basically a 'ship' with out thrusters, allowing shipyard and factories on 'ships' with thrusters or not being able to place working thrusters on an asteroid are exceptions already. This game does need some serious work on gameplay mechanics.

This will never happen.

Why? Simple. Have you ever moved a station using admin warp? The game is not happy. Warp gates are instantly broken, the map has a fit trying to work out where it should put the station marker and general retardation ensues.

Game has similar problems just jumping an equally large ship.

Moving a claim station could be made to void the claim just like dismantling a claim station does currently.

Maybe make it so these Station only blocks function only when the 'ship' their placed on has a sufficiently large enough and active stop system installed?

Suggestions no matter how bad should be freely discussed without any name calling or out right ridicule.

 

[NeonSturm]

Stations might be too fragile to resist the acceleration force from thrusters.

Would you try to fly combat maneuvers with a Capitals/Deathstar (moon-sized)?
I just don't want to require a moon-sized ship before it gets capital-properties which allows them to only use jump-drives.

 

[Tunk]

Several reasons its a bad idea.
Stations are anchored, immobile (specially handled to prevent any movement) and restricted.
They act as jump gates, claims, and home bases.
They provide manufacturing and ship construction/deconstruction.
And most of all, they can be made invulnerable at any time.

Jumping opens several technical, as well as game breaking issues.
Station limits per sector, should a station be able to jump into a sector already at station limit?
Jump into planetary sectors?
Jump into stars?
While invulnerable?
Logic powered?
What about differences in how stations handle support effects and aux?
Should jump gates follow them?
Should they auto claim/declaim?

I can keep adding to the list but overall its just a bad idea, go build a ship in the shape of a station without thrusters instead.

 

[FlyingDebris]

No.

I've been here long enough to know that allowing stations to warp around is not a good idea. Here's why:

1) They're *stations*. Stations are going to have additional functionality in the future and will do things that *REALLY* should not be allowed to move around.

2) As stated already, the coding nightmare that would ensue would be a far larger detriment to the game than adding a feature that will see little use aside from meta abuse. (Plopping down stations wherever, whenever with zero effort. Blueprint system has this issue to some extent already and it is being worked towards removal, not adding to the problem.)

3) Warping, mostly-immobile entities are already planned. There is no reason to add this functionality to existing entities (And then deal with the bugs and exploits resulting) instead of just adding the whole new feature when it's ready.

Thank you for your time.

 

[bobafetthotmail]

Maybe make it so these Station only blocks function only when the 'ship' their placed on has a sufficiently large enough and active stop system installed?

Why stop systems? Isn't checking the "ship"'s thrust-to-block ratio or max speed simpler? If it is low enough, the object is immobile and the station-only blocks can be enabled.

Stations might be too fragile to resist the acceleration force from thrusters.

As long as they are made of the same blocks I use on ships too, this is not really believable.

I just don't want to require a moon-sized ship before it gets capital-properties which allows them to only use jump-drives.

Uhm, there is nothing stopping people from from placing a jump drive on a ship of any size without thruster blocks.
[doublepost=1487288802,1487287685][/doublepost]

Several reasons its a bad idea.
Stations are anchored, immobile (specially handled to prevent any movement) and restricted.

Arbitrary restrictions that can be lifted any time.

They act as jump gates, claims, and home bases.
They provide manufacturing and ship construction/deconstruction.
And most of all, they can be made invulnerable at any time.

I already said that homebases (invulnerable) should be excluded because of their invulnerability, ok I'll also add active jump gates to the list of "stuff that cannot jump".
This is just checking a object property before triggering an effect, anyway. The teleporter does this all the time so I cannot teleport to ships not in range.

Station limits per sector, should a station be able to jump into a sector already at station limit?

No because it is overcrowded, the jump ends in the nearest free adjacent system

Jump into planetary sectors?

why not (as long as it does not teleport on the planet itself)

Jump into stars?

Lol no. Not even ships should be allowed to do that.

While invulnerable?

Already addressed, answer is no.

Logic powered?

Same as jump drive.

What about differences in how stations handle support effects and aux?

Is that an issue?

Should jump gates follow them?

If inactive yes, if active no.

Should they auto claim/declaim?

auto-declaim when jumping out of the sector, no auto-claim.

go build a ship in the shape of a station without thrusters instead.

And the usefullness of this immobile thing would be?

I'm talking of moving a station because a station is a station and can do what a station can do. A immobile ship is not a station as it cannot do what stations can do in Starmade.

 

[NeonSturm]

As long as they are made of the same blocks I use on ships too, this is not really believable.

Perhaps we speak about if stations should be allowed to be converted to ships back and forth then?
What about stations with active factories? (only needs an answer if you think this thought should be continued).

why not (as long as it does not teleport on the planet itself)

If a station jumps into a planet sector, it has to be repositioned not only in sector coordinates but also subsector position.
Assuming a maximum of 32 planets a system, it's just 32 out of 3000 possible destinations … not really useful.
Instead of having to fix problems with stations in sectors which turn around, maybe just jump them into an adjacent sector.​

 

[bobafetthotmail]

1) They're *stations*. Stations are going to have additional functionality in the future and will do things that *REALLY* should not be allowed to move around.

Just as I said with home bases and warp gates (and probably race gates, thinking about it), you can disable the jumping and show a message.
"The station cannot be relocated because ********** is active"

2) As stated already, the coding nightmare that would ensue

I have some experience in the trade, I'm not really believing this unless it's a Shine guy stating it.

(Plopping down stations wherever, whenever with zero effort.

Jump drive limitations still apply, 8 sectors, recharge times, jump drive inhibitors block the jumping. Since stations won't be able to use jump gates, this might be a long haul.

Blueprint system has this issue to some extent already and it is being worked towards removal, not adding to the problem.

If they rework blueprints to stop being magic wands that let you spawn stuff as long as you have the blocks, then you need some way of mass-producing stations too (the same as for ships), so I think there will eventually be some shipyard-like structure somewhere where stations get built and then they must be moved to their actual new place (like for example sea-based oil rigs).

3) Warping, mostly-immobile entities are already planned.

I think I missed this. What are these "mostly-immobile entities"? We have ships that can move and jumpdrive and stations that cannot move nor jumpdrive.
I saw that there were plans to add some limited/dedicated shipyard-like facilities on ships, but that's it.
[doublepost=1487291470,1487290276][/doublepost]

Perhaps we speak about if stations should be allowed to be converted to ships back and forth then?
What about stations with active factories? (only needs an answer if you think this thought should be continued).

Dunno, in my mind the difference between a ship and a station should be installed systems, not a decision I make when spawning them.

For the game, everything should be a "ship" object (i.e. a object that can be moved), if this object can or cannot move on its own depends from its own engines, and any ship/station blocks should check that to see if they can be activated or they need to stay inactive.

The factory/refinery issue has to be dealt separately in a overhaul of the "manufacturing stuff" part of the game.

If a station jumps into a planet sector, it has to be repositioned not only in sector coordinates but also subsector position.
Assuming a maximum of 32 planets a system, it's just 32 out of 3000 possible destinations … not really useful.
Instead of having to fix problems with stations in sectors which turn around, maybe just jump them into an adjacent sector.

I think the game can deal with some collision avoidance for in-sector coordinates, but jumping in an adjacent sector is good enough for most intents and purposes too.

 

[SkaireKrough]

Why stop systems? Isn't checking the "ship"'s thrust-to-block ratio or max speed simpler? If it is low enough, the object is immobile and the station-only blocks can be enabled.

Because the stop system will try to keep the structure from being moved, if a zero thrust to mass ratio was the requirement it would not stop someone from towing it while station specific systems were active.

 

[NeonSturm]

SkaireKrough
Seems like a point that has to be repeated over and over again - thanks for doing it ​

 

[DrTarDIS]

I would really like more mobile stations, but still keep them "station-like" or lacking a true ship's mobility.

I was thinking about letting them install and use jumpdrives.

With that they can jump around to follow a fleet or player, but the lack of thrusters/engines will mean they will still be more or less immobile in a tactical sense.

Of course this functionality should be unavailable for the faction's homebase (as it's not destructible).

MMM I'm going to have to test jump drives and asteroids again...

 

[uberadiant]

I can see the merit of being able to move certain stations. Looking at it from a hypothetical "real-world" perspective, as a civilisation expands into new sectors having a "frontier outpost" no longer on a frontier would be a little redundant. From here, said civilisation would have four options -

- Convert the outpost into another type of station, more suited to its location

This option would likely be the least preferable, as there may not be a need for a station in that particular location at all anymore, so converting for another use may be redundant if that use isn't actually required.

- Dismantle the station and rebuild it in its original configuration in a more appropriate location

This option is plausible, but would be time consuming. The time and effort involved in dismantling and rebuilding may outweigh the benefit of saving materials by not building an entirely new station.

- Decommission the station completely, dismantle it, and build an entirely new shiny station on the new frontier

This option would be expensive and would leave you with surplus materials from the decommissioned station (although these would likely be recycled so perhaps not an issue). If the function of the new station is identical to the function of the old, the second option may be more economical.

- Move the station to a new location

The fourth option, in my opinion, would be the most likely. If the station is to serve the same purpose, simply in a new location, it would make sense to just move it. The main considerations here would be how long it took, and how much energy it used.

However, I don't agree with equipping stations with jump drives, whether they are single use or not. I think the most appropriate implementation of this idea would be to have stations towed by ships, like a tractor beam. There should be heavy penalties for this, such as the process being slow and power hungry. The towing ship should be limited in speed, proportional to the mass of the towed station. The tractor beam should need to be very powerful, again proportional to the mass of the station. The station itself shouldn't be able to move under its own power, possibly aside from very weak positioning thrusters.

I'm not saying that this should be implemented, or even if it is possible in the current game. But if it was, this is how I would like to see it.