I found a very interesting conversation today

[JinM]

I don't really play empyrion to build. I build as a means to accomplish things within with game. I build a base so I have a place to defend and sustain myself. I build a vessel to scout out new locations and resources. I build a tank or starfighter to attack postions and gain loot. I NEED to do these things within the game and that is why I play Empyrion. In Starmade I don't really play I just build in the hopes I can use things as I imagine.



I don't really care which game is more complex, I care about which game provides more gameplay. I also care which one seems more capable of reaching its goals. In both those regards Empyrion is better to me right now. Do I think Starmade has lot of potential? Of course I do and I sincerely hope it does reach its goals. I'm just uncertain at this point.



It's not just that the world has little to do, many mechanics are also not fully functional/broken. Weapon balance is non-existent, because they've been seemingly designed without practical use in mind. Ships stats are controlled by a number of size dependent restrictions(power,turning) that invite most people to work their hardest to overcome. Many systems like scanners, cloaker, and others have downright silly mechanics. As far as the actual gameplay mechanics I feel there is a lot to be done. Empyrion might have some limitations, but the tradeoff is I have a game to play. I can still do quite a bit in that game and within a year or two it'll have a pretty dynamic universe.

I don't need anything big and impressive to enjoy Starmade at this point. I just need interesting mechanics. There's nothing to do because most of it gets pretty boring after a day or two. The build system is great and so is the continuous universe part of the game engine. Other than that Starmade is lacking.

I think your points are fair and I agree. Thank you for pointing fingers at the weapons mechanics - I don't like them too. ^^

But still I am currious: How long did you play Starmade compared to Empyrion? I played Starmade 4 times the time I played Empyrion...I think that this is because Starmade gave me more possibilities to do something. But you are right: It is not the type of actual playing you were talking about. And I miss this "playing" in a sandbox very much.

There aren't many other sandboxes around that give you some stuff to do, like you do PVE raiding. In Minecraft you can mod yourself some stuff in, but I wouldn't call this a game neither.

 

[Matt_Bradock]

It's not just that the world has little to do, many mechanics are also not fully functional/broken. Weapon balance is non-existent, because they've been seemingly designed without practical use in mind. Ships stats are controlled by a number of size dependent restrictions(power,turning) that invite most people to work their hardest to overcome. Many systems like scanners, cloaker, and others have downright silly mechanics. As far as the actual gameplay mechanics I feel there is a lot to be done. Empyrion might have some limitations, but the tradeoff is I have a game to play. I can still do quite a bit in that game and within a year or two it'll have a pretty dynamic universe.

As a fellow Empyrion player, I had to address those, because they also include some things that bother me to no end in Empyrion.
1. Weapons. I have to disagree with you, they are pretty alanced in Starmade. I know because I conducted throrough tests with several targets and even used a stopwatch to see how different weapons setups of the same block count perform against a shielded, hardened armored system brick emulating a ship. All of those weapons except pulse main are viable and functional, and all of them have the conditions at which they shine or suffer (e.g. for beams you have to get closes, but you don't have to lead your shots, and they are absolutely devastating against targets that are lightly armored or already have their armor HP depleted, while cannons excel in the hands of a skilled player who can lead his shots, and against armored targets - especially with punch-through effect)

However Empyrion's weapon setups are broken in so many regards. The first and foremost is the absolutely inescapable instant lock guided missiles, which, unlike in Starmade, cannot be shot down. The second is the insta-hit pulse lasers that also are impossible to evade BUT unlike Starmade beams, they also have one of the best ranges in the game (and very easily obtained ammo as well). The third is that Empyrion still relies on a single lucky shot or AI absolute accuracy aiming, because if the core is hit, the ship's done for. Coring was a thing in Starmade as well, but quite long ago it got rectified. Except in Starmade your shields still offered you a buffer against core drilling, while in Empyrion there is no such thing.

Another BIG problem I encountered in Empyrion is you can just spam thrusters and RCS (in fact it's even encouraged as you don't have to worry about space reserved for a shipwide power generation and storage system, shields or other systems you need to reserve space for in Starmade) to make a kilometer long CV with god knows how many thousand tons of combat steel armor turn and accelerate better than a 15 blocks long SV scout. Which is absolutely bonkers, the big ship would tear itself apart with those G forces in any realistic scenario. I actually DO like the idea of big ships becoming sluggish in Starmade. THEY SHOULD.

Right now, my honest opinion is, that Starmade is a lot more balanced in regards of ship-to-ship combat, while Empyrion has better working exploration, survival and economy mechanics.

 

[JinM]

As a fellow Empyrion player, I had to address those, because they also include some things that bother me to no end in Empyrion.
1. Weapons. I have to disagree with you, they are pretty alanced in Starmade. I know because I conducted throrough tests with several targets and even used a stopwatch to see how different weapons setups of the same block count perform against a shielded, hardened armored system brick emulating a ship. All of those weapons except pulse main are viable and functional, and all of them have the conditions at which they shine or suffer (e.g. for beams you have to get closes, but you don't have to lead your shots, and they are absolutely devastating against targets that are lightly armored or already have their armor HP depleted, while cannons excel in the hands of a skilled player who can lead his shots, and against armored targets - especially with punch-through effect)

However Empyrion's weapon setups are broken in so many regards. The first and foremost is the absolutely inescapable instant lock guided missiles, which, unlike in Starmade, cannot be shot down. The second is the insta-hit pulse lasers that also are impossible to evade BUT unlike Starmade beams, they also have one of the best ranges in the game (and very easily obtained ammo as well). The third is that Empyrion still relies on a single lucky shot or AI absolute accuracy aiming, because if the core is hit, the ship's done for. Coring was a thing in Starmade as well, but quite long ago it got rectified. Except in Starmade your shields still offered you a buffer against core drilling, while in Empyrion there is no such thing.

Another BIG problem I encountered in Empyrion is you can just spam thrusters and RCS (in fact it's even encouraged as you don't have to worry about space reserved for a shipwide power generation and storage system, shields or other systems you need to reserve space for in Starmade) to make a kilometer long CV with god knows how many thousand tons of combat steel armor turn and accelerate better than a 15 blocks long SV scout. Which is absolutely bonkers, the big ship would tear itself apart with those G forces in any realistic scenario. I actually DO like the idea of big ships becoming sluggish in Starmade. THEY SHOULD.

Right now, my honest opinion is, that Starmade is a lot more balanced in regards of ship-to-ship combat, while Empyrion has better working exploration, survival and economy mechanics.

He didn't compare Empyrion and Starmades weapons mechanics. He said Starmade weapon mechanics are unbalanced. I think it's possible to compare booth but not very insight giving...well it does't say anything about wether or not Starmade weapons are balanced, if you say that Starmade weapons are better than Emp ones, because you compare two unfinished weapons mechanics. If you want to say that the Starmade weapons mechanics are good, take another game except for Empyrion...I don't know there are not many games around that are comparable with Starmade's combat...maybe World of Tanks? I didn't play that. I tried Dreadnought once but I think it's too arcade like for me, still the mechanics seemed to make sense there.

I am really no expert, but I wanted to point out this one thing about assuming something is balanced, just because something else thats an unfinished game seems inferior. ^^

 

[Matt_Bradock]

He didn't compare Empyrion and Starmades weapons mechanics. He said Starmade weapon mechanics are unbalanced. I think it's possible to compare booth but not very insight giving...well it does't say anything about wether or not Starmade weapons are balanced, if you say that Starmade weapons are better than Emp ones, because you compare two unfinished weapons mechanics. If you want to say that the Starmade weapons mechanics are good, take another game except for Empyrion...I don't know there are not many games around that are comparable with Starmade's combat...maybe World of Tanks? I didn't play that. I tried Dreadnought once but I think it's too arcade like for me, still the mechanics seemed to make sense there.

I am really no expert, but I wanted to point out this one thing about assuming something is balanced, just because something else thats an unfinished game seems inferior. ^^

My point was, that calling weapon balance non-existent in Starmade is very far off from the truth. Each weapon, per block, has the same DPS, and each weapon system combination has its well defined use, purpose and situational viability, as well as weaknesses and counters. There is no ultimate weapon system, even there are types that have a better general purpose, because the variety offered by the various systems (shields, armor, defensive effects, anti-missile turrets) Starmade has, you can find a way to greatly mitigate the threat of every weapon type.

Empyrion's build style is just so simple (your only means of defense is armor, all your weapons are prefabricated, all your power, thrust, system modules come from discrete prefabricated blocks that do not benefit from their placement etc.) that it offers very little in terms of creativity. As someone who played PvP in Empyrion too, I can state all you can do to better protect your ships is use as many layers of combat steel as you can and place your fuel tanks, ammo tanks and generators spaced out in redundant sections so one or two being hit won't blow up all of them, then clad your core in as many layers of armor as possible. And that's about it, now you know how to build for PvP in Empyrion. But you'll still be killed off pretty quickly because guided missiles in that game always hit unless you fight in an asteroid belt and manage to duck behind one in time.

 

[JinM]

My point was, that calling weapon balance non-existent in Starmade is very far off from the truth. Each weapon, per block, has the same DPS, and each weapon system combination has its well defined use, purpose and situational viability, as well as weaknesses and counters. There is no ultimate weapon system, even there are types that have a better general purpose, because the variety offered by the various systems (shields, armor, defensive effects, anti-missile turrets) Starmade has, you can find a way to greatly mitigate the threat of every weapon type.

No, I think we missunderstood each other here. This seems for me like you picked the word balance out of his argumentation line and gave it a sligthly different context. The context, here, read again pls:

It's not just that the world has little to do, many mechanics are also not fully functional/broken. Weapon balance is non-existent, because they've been seemingly designed without practical use in mind. Ships stats are controlled by a number of size dependent restrictions(power,turning) that invite most people to work their hardest to overcome. Many systems like scanners, cloaker, and others have downright silly mechanics. As far as the actual gameplay mechanics I feel there is a lot to be done. Empyrion might have some limitations, but the tradeoff is I have a game to play. I can still do quite a bit in that game and within a year or two it'll have a pretty dynamic universe..

many mechanics are also not fully functional/broken
weapon balance in term of implementation within
practical use in mind
This means, that a weapon has to have a pratical use, to be balanced.

When we take away the flowers: the slaved effects (that actually make some sense, I admit), assume a sector size of 10km as it is standard in pvp, and now we look at what we can shoot at with what, so it has a practical use:

Small ships (<70m): the only thing that hits a small ship, is a beam weapon, all missile or cannon main combinations are not usefull to do that.
Medium ships: cannon weapons are not usefull to hit medium ships (below 150m length), and missiles and cannons still miss those targets as well with a big percentage - if your weapon misses 50% of its shoots its not usefull - thuss beam weapons are still the only real choice here
Big ships (>150m): Every weapon can be used, even though one cannon-cannon weapon is the most suitable one here: having a second weapon system except for maybe some beam-ion weapon makes your block effectiveness go down and you are better of just putting in shield blocks. Maybe some clever missiles can be used too, if you add some missile spamm to flod the pd...

But you still have the point that everything below 150m doesn't benefit from missiles or cannons very much, if he is clever enough to make it fast enough (and 150m/s is fast enough to evade missiles and cannons in this size).

Now we could talk about block damage on different armor types too, but if you just use one main weapon system and maybe a beam ion next to it, it allways comes down to the reliable hits you can land. It doesn't matter if a missile weapon makes 50% more damage to armor, if you waste 30% of efficiency when you shoot. (not the 50% damage loss on impact, just the 30% of missiles that get shoot down or miss the target).

Thats my point, and I hope I am correct with it: the different weapon systems only make sense on paper, where different weapons have different effectiveness against different hull types and shield amounts/defensive systeems. In the real battle situation the reliability of hitting all your fired shoots is what matters in the end, because an efficiency loss of 30% or higher due to missing cannons or shoot down and missing missiles can not be compensated.

Now I have never done many pvp. But I have used missiles often enough, to know how unreliable they hit targets below 150m length. And I know how many shoots I miss with cannons in the big 10km sized pvp servers. And above 150m lenght its still a 30% efficiency loss on missiles (not the 50% damage loss on impact, just the 30% of missiles that get shoot down or miss the target). If I am wrong with the efficiency loss assumption please correct me. I'd love to get some valuable feedback to my assumptions.

 

[Edymnion]

Some people may not be able to put their problems into exact words.

Then the correct thing to do is stop, sit down, and think it through until you can put the problem into exact words.

This isn't play time where people care how you feel, this is a software company that did exactly what so many people WISH companies would do, reached out to their players directly and asked for input on how a critical piece of the game was going to develop.

And for the most part, the answers they got back weren't worth reading because of how poorly they were put out there or by how knee jerk the reactions were.

Their original posting was very clear that it was a "Hey, we're thinking about this and would like some feedback", but virtually no one took it that way. Just go look for all those "Well now I can't build anything ever again because power might change sometime next year!" posts.

We had a golden freaking ticket, and we crapped all over it.

 

[Ithirahad]

Small ships (<70m): the only thing that hits a small ship, is a beam weapon, all missile or cannon main combinations are not usefull to do that.
Medium ships: cannon weapons are not usefull to hit medium ships (below 150m length), and missiles and cannons still miss those targets as well with a big percentage - if your weapon misses 50% of its shoots its not usefull - thuss beam weapons are still the only real choice here
Big ships (>150m): Every weapon can be used, even though one cannon-cannon weapon is the most suitable one here: having a second weapon system except for maybe some beam-ion weapon makes your block effectiveness go down and you are better of just putting in shield blocks. Maybe some clever missiles can be used too, if you add some missile spamm to flod the pd...

This is not true at all. Missiles (some combos) work at all scales because they lock on/seek, cannons are actually useful vs. smaller ships if you can lead shots or if the ships are slow, and beams are never "the only real choice" anywhere ever. Flooding PD with decoy missiles is basically par for the course in ship combat in this point if one wishes to use missiles effectively, so it's not like missiles somehow don't work because you don't happen to always do that, and as for fast ships, not every single small ship flies faster than missile/beam. That's not how that works.

 

[JinM]

This is not true at all. Missiles (some combos) work at all scales because they lock on/seek, cannons are actually useful vs. smaller ships if you can lead shots or if the ships are slow, and beams are never "the only real choice" anywhere ever. Flooding PD with decoy missiles is basically par for the course in ship combat in this point if one wishes to use missiles effectively, so it's not like missiles somehow don't work because you don't happen to always do that, and as for fast ships, not every single small ship flies faster than missile/beam. That's not how that works.

I think I am not that wrong with my assumptions. Let's try to talk about it:

Missiles (some combos) work at all scales because they lock on/seek
> Well the last time I used my fighter of 20m lenght the other dude was not able to hit me with his smart missiles. Every 5th one hit me - and only if I didn't pay attention instead of shooting the incoming missile down. (In this mentioned fight we had c-c main weapon systems on our fighters, and some missles as well.)

cannons are actually useful vs. smaller ships if you can lead shots or if the ships are slow
> Only if you use differently sized ships. If you battle any ship of the same size as you have, and it is below 70m length, I think that the beam using enemy should win against your ship, because you miss too many shoots with a cannon system.

beams are never "the only real choice" anywhere ever
> This is more like an "because it sounds right it must be right" argument, instead of actually facing my efficiency loss due to missing shoots argument.

Flooding PD with decoy missiles is basically par for the course in ship combat in this point if one wishes to use missiles effectively, so it's not like missiles somehow don't work because you don't happen to always do that
> I didn't say they are totally bad, I said they can be used clever. I mean allready admited this one, and to quote myself here: "But you still have the point that everything below 150m doesn't benefit from missiles or cannons very much, if he is clever enough to make it fast enough (and 150m/s is fast enough to evade missiles and cannons in this size)."

and as for fast ships, not every single small ship flies faster than missile/beam. That's not how that works.
> They don't hit you, not because you are faster, they don't hit you, because the missiles are just missing anyway. Even if my small fighter only has 50% of its top speed the missiles still missed me.

I mean if smart missiles would hit small fighters, I would be very happy mate.But for me it never works no matter if I am the guy with the missiles or the guy with the fighter. :D The same goes for cannons: I would be happy if I could use some crazy flak cannons that are actually usefull to bring down small fighters. But to make those flaks hit fighters, the fighters would need to move at 10% of server speed...

 

[Scypio]

Only if you use differently sized ships. If you battle any ship of the same size as you have, and it is below 70m length, I think that the beam using enemy should win against your ship, because you miss too many shoots with a cannon system.

No, absolutely wrong. You'll still miss with your beams if you're bad enought, especially with sectors changes reset. You're guessing that beams hit at 100% but not your cannons. Fair enough, i'll agree with the fact that there is a difference but i'll remember you one thing. Beams are half the range of cannons, this mean that the guy with cannons will shoot much more than the one with beams. I'm not even telling what if the cannon just kite his opponent in a range where the beams can't even touch the opponent. Don't even make me talk about their power comsuption.

Beams are good since lancake fixed them, they're still not the weapon to go and got their niche uses and users. I'm fine with it. But do not tell that the weapon to go is beam, it is and it will stay the cannon/cannon as long as they're not balanced properly. All weapons, except pulse, got their uses. Some are easier to use than other.

 

[Ithirahad]

I think I am not that wrong with my assumptions. Let's try to talk about it:

Missiles (some combos) work at all scales because they lock on/seek
> Well the last time I used my fighter of 20m lenght the other dude was not able to hit me with his smart missiles. Every 5th one hit me - and only if I didn't pay attention instead of shooting the incoming missile down. (In this mentioned fight we had c-c main weapon systems on our fighters, and some missles as well.)

...okay, I guess that is true then? The thing is that, so far as I know, realistically nobody would ever use 20m fighters because they simply can't pack enough weaponry to be meaningful in normal server combat. 60-ish meter fighter craft are certainly hittable with missiles in my experience if they aren't particularly fast and agile.

 

[JinM]

...okay, I guess that is true then? The thing is that, so far as I know, realistically nobody would ever use 20m fighters because they simply can't pack enough weaponry to be meaningful in normal server combat. 60-ish meter fighter craft are certainly hittable with missiles in my experience if they aren't particularly fast and agile.

Might be right what you say. I try again to fight my own 80m long corvette via setting it to pirate AI. Last time some smart missile shots from the pirates just missed my corvette though. Don't know if that's reproducable though so I don't want to insist on my "missiles can't hit" theory.
[doublepost=1494362951,1494362502][/doublepost]

No, absolutely wrong. You'll still miss with your beams if you're bad enought, especially with sectors changes reset. You're guessing that beams hit at 100% but not your cannons. Fair enough, i'll agree with the fact that there is a difference but i'll remember you one thing. Beams are half the range of cannons, this mean that the guy with cannons will shoot much more than the one with beams. I'm not even telling what if the cannon just kite his opponent in a range where the beams can't even touch the opponent. Don't even make me talk about their power comsuption.

Beams are good since lancake fixed them, they're still not the weapon to go and got their niche uses and users. I'm fine with it. But do not tell that the weapon to go is beam, it is and it will stay the cannon/cannon as long as they're not balanced properly. All weapons, except pulse, got their uses. Some are easier to use than other.

Hey man, I reacted to this sentence from Edy:
cannons are actually useful vs. smaller ships if you can lead shots or if the ships are slow
So I don't want to fight with you about that, but can you tell me: Are you able to hit a 40m fighter with C-C on 10km sector size and lets say from 8km distance? If I had to choose I would allways choose the B-B system to damage the 40m long fighter. Now ofcourse not many guys do fight with 40m long fighters. But still I think the same goes with 70 to 100m long ships: when they are 8 to 10km away I have a really hard time hitting them with my cc system but with a bb system I have a really good chance of winning. I don't go over the distance of 10km, because then you can't use cc anymore ofc...even though bb has an even higher advantage here. - But this is again just paper talk. I just thought it makes sense...

 

[madman Captain]

My point was, that calling weapon balance non-existent in Starmade is very far off from the truth. Each weapon, per block, has the same DPS, and each weapon system combination has its well defined use, purpose and situational viability, as well as weaknesses and counters. There is no ultimate weapon system, even there are types that have a better general purpose, because the variety offered by the various systems (shields, armor, defensive effects, anti-missile turrets) Starmade has, you can find a way to greatly mitigate the threat of every weapon type.

Ok Exsample: If you have two weapons in a videogame both are maschineguns both have the same DPS and the same firerate and the only and absolutly only difference betwin them is that one of them has a hitscan mechanic and the other has bullets with traveltime.

Do you think they are balanced?

Are every weapon in the game same usefull?

Are there maybe weapons that are in far more usefull in far to much situations than other Weapons?

How Shotgun weapons usefull?

Where are the weaknes of Cannon+Cannon weapons?

Why can a sniper ship shoot me down when I have ship with a Pulse weapon with the same DPS? Where are the Balance of this weapons?
You know Games like Fractured Space would give me a Blink or good working Stealth abillity to counter-balance this unbalance in range.

For me Starmade made fun in creative building. But fighting... maybe ramming my head against a stone wall enjoy me more.
Starmade Combat is the most boring experiense I ever had.
And I played a lot of Spaceship based games (Shooter, RTS, RP, Space-Sim, MMORPG, MOBA's).
It's an Alpha and I dont blame the dev's for this because thouse features need a LOT of work, testing, polishing and improvments.

But Time will tell where Starmade will go and what features are make it special.

I hope its contain glorius Spacebattles betwin mighty fleets of moving Design Masterpices instead of massacres betwin flying
maschinegun Bricks.

 

[Matt_Bradock]

Ok Exsample: If you have two weapons in a videogame both are maschineguns both have the same DPS and the same firerate and the only and absolutly only difference betwin them is that one of them has a hitscan mechanic and the other has bullets with traveltime.

Do you think they are balanced?

Are every weapon in the game same usefull?

Are there maybe weapons that are in far more usefull in far to much situations than other Weapons?

How Shotgun weapons usefull?

Where are the weaknes of Cannon+Cannon weapons?

Why can a sniper ship shoot me down when I have ship with a Pulse weapon with the same DPS? Where are the Balance of this weapons?
You know Games like Fractured Space would give me a Blink or good working Stealth abillity to counter-balance this unbalance in range.

For me Starmade made fun in creative building. But fighting... maybe ramming my head against a stone wall enjoy me more.
Starmade Combat is the most boring experiense I ever had.
And I played a lot of Spaceship based games (Shooter, RTS, RP, Space-Sim, MMORPG, MOBA's).
It's an Alpha and I dont blame the dev's for this because thouse features need a LOT of work, testing, polishing and improvments.

But Time will tell where Starmade will go and what features are make it special.

I hope its contain glorius Spacebattles betwin mighty fleets of moving Design Masterpices instead of massacres betwin flying
maschinegun Bricks.

Weakness of cannon-cannon: You have to lead your shots. Not too great against small, fast targets.

Weakness of beam weapons: shorter range (half of a standard cannon or missile range). You don't have to lead anything, but you have to get closer, potentially taking damage before you can dish out your own.

Strength of shotgun weapons: if you get close, you can do a lot of block damage. There were also cannon/missile shotgun anti-missile turrets around I'm pretty sure.

Pulse: If you can get to ramming range and set off a damage pulse, you'll see. There were ships that used area triggers to automatically trigger a ramming pulse when in range. I'm pretty sure they are still on the Community Content. Generally though, it's better used as a secondary. Also, as an anti-boarding system, nothing beats a damage pulse that can envelop your entire ship and instakill any boarders.

How can a sniper ship shoot you down when you have a pulse with the same DPS? Because you chose the wrong approach. A balanced weapon doesn't mean you don't have to use your own brains in a fight. If you run a jammer, if you scan before you engage, you'll know there's a ship out there, and with the jammer on and a good thrust/mass ratio you can sneak up on the wannabe sniper and blast it with your pulse. If you insist on a pulse as primary (you shouldn't)

 

[MrFURB]

Speaking from a viewpoint of plentiful testing in both controlled and live environments, I can safely say that the only noticeably underpowered weapon types are shotguns (barring heatseeker missile swarms) and pulse primaries. Of the remaining weapons there is a decent balance struck.
Cannons are good all-around weapons but are countered by speed*distance.
Beams suffer reduced maximum block destruction and range, but their higher alpha and hitscan ability makes them useful anyways.
Missiles have by far the best raw killing power, but also the most counters. They usually take a lot of effort to get good returns with but will delete anything they touch.
Pulse is like a missile that explodes in it's launch tube. Instead of sending launch tube shrapnel everywhere it sends various "lel" messages everywhere.

 

[madman Captain]

Weakness of cannon-cannon: You have to lead your shots. Not too great against small, fast targets.

Weakness of beam weapons: shorter range (half of a standard cannon or missile range). You don't have to lead anything, but you have to get closer, potentially taking damage before you can dish out your own.

Strength of shotgun weapons: if you get close, you can do a lot of block damage. There were also cannon/missile shotgun anti-missile turrets around I'm pretty sure.

Pulse: If you can get to ramming range and set off a damage pulse, you'll see. There were ships that used area triggers to automatically trigger a ramming pulse when in range. I'm pretty sure they are still on the Community Content. Generally though, it's better used as a secondary. Also, as an anti-boarding system, nothing beats a damage pulse that can envelop your entire ship and instakill any boarders.

How can a sniper ship shoot you down when you have a pulse with the same DPS? Because you chose the wrong approach. A balanced weapon doesn't mean you don't have to use your own brains in a fight. If you run a jammer, if you scan before you engage, you'll know there's a ship out there, and with the jammer on and a good thrust/mass ratio you can sneak up on the wannabe sniper and blast it with your pulse. If you insist on a pulse as primary (you shouldn't)

Ehh... Just try to compare CAN, CAN+CAN, CAN+MIS, CAN+BEAM and CAN+PULSE.

How work AI (Drones,Turrets) with it?

Where is the effective Damage cap?

Ressource efforts?

Power usarge?

Synergy with effect modules?

Target size?

Defence?

I build medium to titanic (250-1200m length) ships everything what a CAN+CAN cant hit isnt a danger for me. My ships are far to large to be cant hit.

Its the sub-categories that are broken not the main-weapons.

 

[Serene-Switch]

If you judge someone by his badges i pity you.

Since you seem to have misunderstood the meaning of this sentence I will elaborate. Both the sentence and paragraph were meant to encourage members of the community to expand their their skill set to encompass ALL aspects of StarMade AND to share their creations with the community. As an example I provide the fact that there is at the time of this reply a total of ONE NPC Factions created out of ALL starmade players, weather this is because no one is uploading them or not creating them to begin with, this represents one of many ways our StarMade experience could be enhanced. In summery, I am recommending the community help each other and themselves to create content for each other as creating ones own universe is the idea behind the game.
[doublepost=1494389042,1494388976][/doublepost]

If you're happy doing nothing but drawing ships, why aren't you just using a 3D modelling tool instead?

You don't see what we're upset about so we can just shut up?

There is nothing to do in ANY galaxy; you're content with an art gallery, good for you, anyone expecting a game has nothing in starmade.

I do not recall telling anyone to "shut up"
[doublepost=1494389844][/doublepost]

Exploring would be great if it was worth doing. Currently, you don't need to explore because chances are, you get the exact same stuff in the next galaxy as in the next system. Same stations, same planets, same asteroids, same resources.

Before I say anything I would like to express my appreciation for creations, there is a great balance of functionality and aesthetics. To the point, I would agree with you that the universe itself is lacking however from what I can understand, diversity is not only a simple matter to fix, but is already planned given the player built fleets that have already been selected and the assurance the the game will be filled with many more player based creations. As for the video though I find it unproductive to complain about an unfinished game not having all its features introduced and looking at StarMade objectively it is obvious that Schine has allowed access to their game early as a way of recruiting testers not players and we should regard ourselves as such.

 

[Scypio]

So I don't want to fight with you about that, but can you tell me: Are you able to hit a 40m fighter with C-C on 10km sector size and lets say from 8km distance? If I had to choose I would allways choose the B-B system to damage the 40m long fighter. Now ofcourse not many guys do fight with 40m long fighters. But still I think the same goes with 70 to 100m long ships: when they are 8 to 10km away I have a really hard time hitting them with my cc system but with a bb system I have a really good chance of winning. I don't go over the distance of 10km, because then you can't use cc anymore ofc...even though bb has an even higher advantage here. - But this is again just paper talk. I just thought it makes sense...

It makes sense, beams with their hitscan are good on this particular setup and i got nothing to say about that even if i could show you a few things. Though that's still not the weapon to go. You're still talking about a specific setup where beams are good.

 

[Comradecolonel]

But still I am currious: How long did you play Starmade compared to Empyrion? I played Starmade 4 times the time I played Empyrion...I think that this is because Starmade gave me more possibilities to do something. But you are right: It is not the type of actual playing you were talking about. And I miss this "playing" in a sandbox very much.

I've have far more time playing Starmade than any other space survival game that I own. I don't solely play Starmade on steam but I have over 900 hours on there alone. Decent amount was spent AFK but I have definitely spent over 1000 hours playing Starmade in the past 2 years. It is also the building game I have played for the longest as well. I would say 60% was spent building/testing, 15% setting up events or scenarios, 5% actually playing the scenarios, and 20% wandering around online doing random things and meeting people. It hasn't really been a focus experience thus far. My time in Empyrion (close to 200 hours) has been 100% playing in survival. In the end I may like Starmade in principle but my imagination is the only thing that keeps me in the game.

Right now, my honest opinion is, that Starmade is a lot more balanced in regards of ship-to-ship combat, while Empyrion has better working exploration, survival and economy mechanics.

I agree but that isn't what I'm comparing. The combat in Empyrion PVE is balanced enough to provide an interesting raid game. That's enough by me for now.

My point was, that calling weapon balance non-existent in Starmade is very far off from the truth. Each weapon, per block, has the same DPS, and each weapon system combination has its well defined use, purpose and situational viability, as well as weaknesses and counters. There is no ultimate weapon system, even there are types that have a better general purpose, because the variety offered by the various systems (shields, armor, defensive effects, anti-missile turrets) Starmade has, you can find a way to greatly mitigate the threat of every weapon type.

I disagree with the idea that all of the weapons are balanced. Pulse is useless, and certain combinations of the other 3 weapons are pointless as well. There are also other weapons systems like warheads and the drain systems. Warheads are pretty much just for griefing/trolling, and drain effects don't work with AI at all. Astronaut weapons also seem off as well. The laser pistol is OP as hell compared to low block count weapon systems. I try to build small weapons for my personal craft, but the laser pistol gives you more bang for your buck. The only thing that can stand up to it for any period of time is advanced armor.

It is difficult to build a ship around certain weapon systems but something armed with only c/c and high speed can easily beat most weapon combinations. In a practical sense, you should have as few weapons as necessary when you are personally piloting a ship. Many weapons can't function alone except things like c/c and m/b. Most specialized weapons are outperformed by general weapons, with the exception of anti-shield weapons.

Also I am not just talking about balance between the weapons, but also the balance between weapons of different sizes. The effectiveness and usage of weapons changes in odd ways as you go from smaller to bigger ships. Fights between 80 mass ships take way longer than fight between 800k mass ships. I feel that it should be the opposite.

Thats my point, and I hope I am correct with it: the different weapon systems only make sense on paper, where different weapons have different effectiveness against different hull types and shield amounts/defensive systeems. In the real battle situation the reliability of hitting all your fired shoots is what matters in the end, because an efficiency loss of 30% or higher due to missing cannons or shoot down and missing missiles can not be compensated.

You are on the right track but there are a few other things to consider. First is how the weapons do damage. Every weapon has a scenario where even if it hits the target it won't do full damage. For missiles, 50% is lost into space for most shots fired earlier in combat. Once you get a crater to fire into you can start to do full damage, but most of the time you can't do full damage. Basically if you can contain or deflect the explosion you can shave a lot of damage off of a missile impact. Beams have to worry about over-penetration and a mechanic that essentially nerfs its useful damage. Beams fire in a burst of 5 ticks. If you are moving, those 5 ticks with do damage to 5 different spots. This limits penetration and the effect of beams. Cannons put all their damage in a single projectile. The only situation where it will waste damage is over-penetration. Still a shot over-penetrating a ship in its beefier sections with do damage to systems that might be protected from fire of all other weapon systems. This can easily offset the damage lost.

Another factor to consider is how speed effects combat. Weapons that work off of power regen tend to fair better because they to lead to lighter ships. Not having to waste all the weight on power caps, you can use it for more thrust or just empty space to deflect missiles. Speed makes all the arguments about range pretty much pointless, because most fast ships can close the distance (or widen the gap). Controlling range is more important than the difference in range that two different weapons may have. I honestly do not think many of these considerations were made when these mechanics were designed.

Why can a sniper ship shoot me down when I have ship with a Pulse weapon with the same DPS? Where are the Balance of this weapons?
You know Games like Fractured Space would give me a Blink or good working Stealth abillity to counter-balance this unbalance in range.

This is one of the most under discussed things when it comes to combat. There are almost no active defensive measures that are reliable. The only thing that sort of works is point defense, but even that can be easily overcome. Something like blink or legit cloaking would definitely be a step in the right direction.

For me Starmade made fun in creative building. But fighting... maybe ramming my head against a stone wall enjoy me more.
Starmade Combat is the most boring experiense I ever had.
And I played a lot of Spaceship based games (Shooter, RTS, RP, Space-Sim, MMORPG, MOBA's).
It's an Alpha and I dont blame the dev's for this because thouse features need a LOT of work, testing, polishing and improvments.

I build medium to titanic (250-1200m length) ships everything what a CAN+CAN cant hit isnt a danger for me. My ships are far to large to be cant hit.

Its the sub-categories that are broken not the main-weapons.

Yea this is pretty much my point. I like that the game gives me a lot a choice in what I can build but the gameplay doesn't support it. I am not saying it needs to be addressed immediately but there are clearly issues with combat.

 

[Neon_42]

Then the correct thing to do is stop, sit down, and think it through until you can put the problem into exact words.

This isn't play time where people care how you feel, this is a software company that did exactly what so many people WISH companies would do, reached out to their players directly and asked for input on how a critical piece of the game was going to develop.

And for the most part, the answers they got back weren't worth reading because of how poorly they were put out there or by how knee jerk the reactions were.

Their original posting was very clear that it was a "Hey, we're thinking about this and would like some feedback", but virtually no one took it that way. Just go look for all those "Well now I can't build anything ever again because power might change sometime next year!" posts.

We had a golden freaking ticket, and we crapped all over it.

No, It is important to voice your opinions and for the devs to try and understand them. Again I will use another example from physics here. When one of my students asks a question they may not actually know what they are confused about, after all astrophysics is hard. It is my job as the teacher to parse what they don't understand. It would be better if they could stop sit down and think it through but there is likely a fundamental misunderstanding somewhere deeper that they may or may not be aware of. Some subtlety about quantum mechanics that they might have missed. By your standard the only people that should comment are other game devs because they are the only ones that can stop think it through to entirety and put it in exact words.

This is exactly play time. They're making a game that we play.

The answers they got back were all worth reading. Feedback is important to making the game functional and fun. Even if the feedback is "this game is shit" . You can do simple statistics with lots of bad feedback. The basic principle is if fewer people after a release say "this game is shit" than the previous release, you can pretty definitively say your changes have improved the game. Even the most simple feedback can be useful if you're smart about it.

you need to stop complaining about the community. A community that turns on itself is a disaster for a game. Look at what happened to starcraft. We can complain about the dev team and the game because they are iron clad and can take it. They are professionals. But complaining about other people in your community creates a toxic environment and a sure way to scare players away.

 

[Zyrr]

Then the correct thing to do is stop, sit down, and think it through until you can put the problem into exact words.

This isn't play time where people care how you feel, this is a software company that did exactly what so many people WISH companies would do, reached out to their players directly and asked for input on how a critical piece of the game was going to develop.

And for the most part, the answers they got back weren't worth reading because of how poorly they were put out there or by how knee jerk the reactions were.

Their original posting was very clear that it was a "Hey, we're thinking about this and would like some feedback", but virtually no one took it that way. Just go look for all those "Well now I can't build anything ever again because power might change sometime next year!" posts.

We had a golden freaking ticket, and we crapped all over it.

Hi. Week late but I had some gut feeling that there was "bullshit in the water", for lack of a better phrase. Let me clarify as to how you're wrong for anyone else reading this.

Specifically, we - being some of the more respected people in the dock as far as "do you understand how the game works" goes - discussed with the devs (Lancake and Criss specifically) at length our thoughts on the power update both in that thread, in another thread, in chat and over other communication mediums. Thoroughly discussed what was wrong with their proposal, what was right as well as our suggestions to improve and/or fix it. It wasn't just us, too, the apparently almighty arbiters of "trolling and/or griefing on public multiplayer servers" - it was the overwhelming amout of responses in about 12 hours from the rest of the community, some forty pages if I recall, that gave Schine a truly colossal amount of things to think about. I don't want to toot my own horn (actually, I do) but I can say with ninety percent conviction that things I said and points I corroborated with others made an impact on Schine's proposal. If the drivel that I put to digital paper made an impact, I'm sure everyone else's far more coherent and polite posts did just as much or more.

So, to digress, I can't quite figure out why you're so upset about the power proposal. Schine put out a proposal, received numerous responses and have presumably taken them into account as they continued forward. You say "go look for all of those 'Well now I can't build anything ever again...' posts" but I could give you just as many that discuss the power proposal, the respective posters' thoughts on it and additional suggestions or comments. I can pull these comments from this website's forums, the chat, various discords and perhaps even a Skype or Steam conversation. This "virtually no one" is a provably false opinion you have because you are either accidentally or purposefully ignorant of the truth in the matter.