StarMade - Devblog May 22nd 2017

[Ithirahad]

a system which can create a convex hull (Convex hull - Wikipedia) of an arbitrary amount of blocks has been implemented. This system’s focus is to be as fast as possible and to provide a variable amount of precision to simplify complex structures.

Could this be used to create internal volume calculations and surface area calculations for new balancing possibilities and things?

 

[petlahk]

We could have extending docking arms and we could define the rules for power without haveing to worry about a ship docked to an docked entity of a docked entity of a station and how to handle it now if the two docked entities get seperated by blowing up the railconnection. this way the railconnection would still be the stations issue and the ship still being intact just being docked to a now afloat part of the station that suddenly lacks power and such, no big deal - for the ship at least.

I'm not sure that splitting things up in this somewhat arbitrary way actually solves the problems of turrets and massive pieces of docked ablative armor and the like. Also, I think it's a bit convoluted. I see what you're getting at... I think. I think you're trying to say that there ought to be some way to distinguish between turret and another ship, or turret and a large piece of ablative armor. I think I saw a really elegant solution of just having different rules between what things docked to turret docks can do, and what things docked to rail dockers can do. And, I think(?) that solves the thing you might be worried about. I think that also having some kind of mass limit to help distinguish between what is turret sized in relation to the ship, and what is another complete ship in relation to the ship might help in some way as well.

Nope as long as the mass is supported no downscaling of turning speed, for arbitary reasons. Turrets must be possible to be badass, also big ones. i again would suggest not going for linear scaling if the effects described by his post were desired and instead use curves...

Also. I don't think changing turning speed of a turret based on the turret's mass relation to the parent ship is arbitrary. I think that by doing this it would help to balance out mega turrets, and would help balance out the possibilities of a fighter/bomber actually working, due to being able to weave through the larger turret's fire, but still being susceptible to smaller guns and point defense. I don't think this would make turrets any less badass. And, the new power system is actually based on linear relationships, it's been said several times.

 

[kulbolen]

i think turrets turning based on mass would be cool. gives a reason to vary your styles and not just settle on each turret being max size/dps efficiency, and gives reasons to properly maneuver larger ships to help keep turrets on track. i already mix in smaller turrets for anti fighter, but its not because they need to be smal lto turnfast, just that they dont need to waste mass and be large to kill little warhead ships.

 

[Lecic]

Thanks for the update! Theres some interesting discussion circulating about it as well.
On the topic of of reactors and turrets, isn't the added size a detriment (by installing the reactor) and if reactors are explosive that could mean a well placed missile could knock out an entire turret instead of leaving it running at 50%.

Reactors do not take much space in the current system and will not take much space in the proposed system either. If reactors are explosive enough to take down the turret they are powering, they will also definitely be taking out a huge section of the ship they're docked to, and if your main reactor gets hit the entire ship would suffer similar damage.

Also, on the topic of docked entities, why not add a 'layering' feature to ships? E.g changing the build layer you build on, each layer is treated as a docked entity and the rest of the blocks not in that layer are greyed out/shaded/transparent. The more layers a ship has relative to its mass penalties could be introduced to prevent 100+ layer ships or something ridiculous.
This could allow docked shields/armour but in a balanced way without suffering from immense lag.

Why would you treat them like docked entities? A layer system would be useful for building, but making it like this would be dumb. Just make them act like part of the main ship but intangible and with a low opacity when building. Why would you want to encourage docked armor/shields?

What about effects now, will they disappear or... I personally think effects are great for modifying weapons, maybe they should be changed and also a weapon should not be limited to only one, but effekts can add a lot of fun weapon customization that the reactor never can, maybe have effects affecting accuracy and range would be nice also?

Effects for weapons are saying, effects for passives on the ship are being replaced with the chamber system.

 

[TrainDodger]

Dear schema !

Thank you for your adamant efforts to keep the game up to date, and make it more enjoyable and easier to learn for new players. If done right, this rework may make the learning curve a little less like trying to climb Mt. Everest.

Well here's a proposal to handle the docking power problem.
- Let docked entities inherit all defensive chamber effects from parent entity if they don't have an active reactor system (such as countermeasures, shield boost or armor boost)
- Let the players decide if they want to use an active reactor on their docked entity or use the parent entity's (but make it an either/or, if the docked entity's reactor is online it can in no way get power from the parent entity) Move this setting to the AI settings (checkbox: Always use onboard reactor)
- Make turret swivel speed scale downwards with dimensions and mass just like with ships, but upwards (to a certain cap, like 50%) with additional mass enhancers. This adds to realism as well, and gives the option to builders that if they want anti-fighter turrets, they can make them turn faster through extra enhancers but that costs more space and power.

As for effects on turret weapons, I still kind of need clarification whether the tertiary effects will remain unchanged (only consuming power, not connected to reactor) or weapon effects themselves will be part of the chamber system and consume "tech points" to function. Obviously, the latter needs an active reactor on the entity with the guns to work, or for tech points to be inherited from the parent entity just like power. The third alternative, namely, removing tertiary effects from turrets and docked weapon modules altogether, is not something any of us would want, in my honest opinion.

So what's the battle plan here?
- Leave weapon effects unchanged, and only move defensive and utility effects to the chamber system?
- Move weapon effects to the chamber system, and enable active reactors on turrets to power the weapons and effect chambers?
- Disable reactors on docked entities and let them inherint TP from the parent entity instead, along with power?
- Allow a secondary reactor system on the parent entity to be dedicated to feeding docked entities with power and TP (through connecting to the rails through conduits or something)?
- Disable effects on docked turrets and fixed guns altogether and be done with it?

I just had another idea. If players could exploit the stabilizer distance bonus on docked entities, and this is a problem, then why not have docked entities inherit the stabilizer bounding box distance from the largest reactor on the lowest entity in the chain, regardless of whether or not it is active? Same thing for multiple reactors at the same chain level, too. Rather than basing the stabilizer distance on the active reactor, it could be fixed to the size of the largest reactor. The cool thing about this is that it is dynamic. If, for instance, the largest reactor is damaged or destroyed, this reduces its block count. Therefore, the stabilizer requirements are reduced. So, if a backup reactor is activated after the main reactor's destruction, it will now be the largest reactor in the system and the stabilizer requirements will be based off of it, instead.

So, let's say you have a powered turret. It would have to be almost the same length as the ship and have stabilizers at both ends in order for its own reactor to be functional, because its reactor would be behaving as if it were the size of the largest reactor on the parent. Lore-wise, we could call this effect, with stabilizer requirements being transmitted down the docking chain, "reactor interference".

 

[Fenius]

The only way to truly fix the power problem is to add fuel. Everyone will hate it but it can and will provide the balance everyone wants to see.

 

[kulbolen]

The only way

lol

 

[Oblivionburn]

The only way to truly fix the power problem is to add fuel. Everyone will hate it but it can and will provide the balance everyone wants to see.

While I completely agree StarMade needs a fuel system, I think it would also need multiple fueling options (i.e. Fossil, Solar, Nuclear, etc) with varying degrees of risk/reward as well as tiers of energy output for scaling.

 

[Jolly Roger]

Who are straw men who are complaining about the way power and shields are in relation to each other with docked entities. Why does the development team insist on "fixing" problems that do not exist? If you want to change the power system to make it simpler, then do so. Nobody is complaining about the shields, or docked entities, why make it more complex, or more simplistic than it needs to be with those 2 options? Why is there even a power cap when ship size and mass determines how slow it moves? What are we preventing here? How many more iterations of this game and how many more years is this going to take to come out with a final version of the game after all of the updates and continued feedback/ adjustments with all of the changes that keep going on? Was the power and shield system not from earlier feedback? The development cycle for this game is just like the updates. With every change, more problems are born, and even problems that were initially fixed are brought back to life again for no apparent reason. Why is it so difficult to keep track of everything, and learn something or fix something to keep it from coming back again and again?

None of this makes sense.

 

[Drakkart]

i think turrets turning based on mass would be cool. gives a reason to vary your styles and not just settle on each turret being max size/dps efficiency, and gives reasons to properly maneuver larger ships to help keep turrets on track. i already mix in smaller turrets for anti fighter, but its not because they need to be smal lto turnfast, just that they dont need to waste mass and be large to kill little warhead ships.

The idea would be cool with an ai more clever and KNOWING what it's primary secondary tertiary... targets are.

The issue with the powersystem suggested is that it favors builds going along one axis. whenever you can put stabilizers far away from reactor cores you are golden. now with smaller reactors this distance is shorter right. if the rule should apply that pretty much all ship designs should be viable without forcing one to be weaker by the ships shape. then i do not see this! picking an example captain futures ship vs a borg cube or a tie fighter. Captain futures ships is 2 balls conntected by a stripe and around the first 1/3 of the length of the stripe 4 gun arms reach out sideways. so reactors in the front stabilizers in the back stripe filled with other systems and the gunarms do their thing perfect. vs - borg cube ok we shove the reactors in one corner problem is the maximum distance is the diagonal opposing corner, damn that is so close they'll never work - we are screwed... except we could but multiple reactors along one side and the stabilizers on the other side because all the reactors could be small and thus not require so much distance to the stabilizers.
I think that is the exact scenario schine is worried about, being exploited with docked reactors or multiple of them. See the thing is with multiple reactors in the ship you do not need docked reactors.
and still, schine should make reactors disable stabilizers in their area around them regardless of which entity holds them to prevent turret reactors sitting right next tho ship stabilizers. hell sending over minibrawldrones to just mess with the enemies stabilizers just below hull would be actually cool.
versatility could even come up with stabilizer core and reactors placed around closer to the hull to prevent that. so yeah that is the issue i have wih this single reactor concept you either build long wide or tall ships or you are screwed...

 

[Matt_Bradock]

While I completely agree StarMade needs a fuel system, I think it would also need multiple fueling options (i.e. Fossil, Solar, Nuclear, etc) with varying degrees of risk/reward as well as tiers of energy output for scaling.

No. Freaking. Fuel. Just don't. Especially not these silly things. Fossil fuel, lol. You want to run a futuristic starship or space station on what, coal? This topic has been discussed a couple times and the devs said no, and I agree with them. A fuel system only adds more annoyance, not gameplay.

 

[Toshiro]

No. Freaking. Fuel. Just don't. Especially not these silly things. Fossil fuel, lol. You want to run a futuristic starship or space station on what, coal? This topic has been discussed a couple times and the devs said no, and I agree with them. A fuel system only adds more annoyance, not gameplay.

No one spoke of "fossil fuel" but the hydrogen or the deuterium isotope is not irealist, and moreover it is ecological.

 

[Fenius]

First off the power system is broken in a sense that it is unbalanced from a build and operation perspective. Hence why they are trying different methods to eliminate the liner build path one must follow. Secondly I do not think everyone understands what I mean by fuel. So I will provide an example. A Nuclear reactor requires fuel rods in order to generate power via heat. Over time these rods degrade and become less efficient and need to be replaced. Typically one could use the same reactor setup they are planning with a simple change. Make a fuel rod block that generates power in a linear fashion. However, a bonus to power generation could be provided by provide by using Reactor blocks as a moderating medium. Thus scaling power generation by spacing fuel rods between the moderator blocks. At the same time increase the power per generation tick of the fuel rod blocks.

As a side note can the Tech point and add it as a function of a ships computer core system.

 

[Matt_Bradock]

First off the power system is broken in a sense that it is unbalanced from a build and operation perspective. Hence why they are trying different methods to eliminate the liner build path one must follow. Secondly I do not think everyone understands what I mean by fuel. So I will provide an example. A Nuclear reactor requires fuel rods in order to generate power via heat. Over time these rods degrade and become less efficient and need to be replaced. Typically one could use the same reactor setup they are planning with a simple change. Make a fuel rod block that generates power in a linear fashion. However, a bonus to power generation could be provided by provide by using Reactor blocks as a moderating medium. Thus scaling power generation by spacing fuel rods between the moderator blocks. At the same time increase the power per generation tick of the fuel rod blocks.

As a side note can the Tech point and add it as a function of a ships computer core system.

The first thing everyone does in Modded Minecraft power grids is devise an infinite loop scenario or grind to solar panels and wind turbines to get sustainable automated power that doesn't need manual maintenance. The first thing everyone does in Empyrion is put a hydrogen generator down and an autominer on a prometheum deposit so they aren't forced to hunt for fuel (still forced to check the devices and craft those fusion power cells every single goddamn day because if it runs out while you're offline, your offline protection goes out and you won't have anything by the time you come back unless you built in a PvE zone.) Fuel and replenishing it, is an annoyance. A BIG freaking annoyance. Something you have to do every now and then but other than the annoyance it adds nothing to your gameplay experience.

 

[GnomeKing]

I tend agree with Matt > fuel, as a primary resource, in the kinds of proposed power/game mechanics, would add nothing. The game is an abstracted world of blocks - quests for 'realism' are not really needed. There are already 'resources' of various kinds which structure game-play and universes.

Perhaps in a system with multiple types of reactor, where some need 'fuel/rods' but are powerful/compact, and others (eg solar) do not. In reality (lol) theories of developed spaceflight and advanced multi-planet species can not avoid the energy potential of suns as an essential element in achieving such stages > ultimately leading to Dyson Spheres.

My own ships are powered by psychic energy waves interacting with the underlying space-time skein > hence no 'thrust' at all, just displacement and reconfiguration of energy grids in local 3-dimensional space ...

(although a steam powered space ship could also be fun... )


To get back On Topic:

RE: docked entities ect;
never mind the power issues, there are some difficult views to reconcile there maybe >
Instead, could we implement something to calm down effect of shooting off turrets ? > eg, once designated as a turret, then that entity will not detach, but just become fixed in place > having turret-bits flying everywhere gets annoying for the player (and silly, as they act like chaff for the AI), and even huge menacing AI ships get spun around in prolonged and totally daft and helpless fashion as their turrets fall off... so much so that its an easy exploit. (in fact an AI ship in 'turret-loss' spin seems to rotate faster than it would be able under direct control :/)


RE: power 2.0, in general i am non-too sure on the various proposals, many of which could work. However I did not have huge issues with XYZ reactors per se in the first place. 30k would be a very big ship for me, but i am happy to see people build their 300k ships if that's what they want, but i don't want the game to be optimized for such mega-structures. I think there are other issues impacting negatively on game play (i might start a new thread just for that), resolving some/all of which would also help with balance by generally improving game play.

Scale/Power is always relative anyway, and what tends to upset multiplayer games is more often the attitudes of some of the players, regardless of how finely balanced the mechanics. In the end, one finds similar dynamics of play on a very size limited server as one does on servers full of titans...

 

[AlabasterJazz]

No. Freaking. Fuel. Just don't. Especially not these silly things. Fossil fuel, lol. You want to run a futuristic starship or space station on what, coal? This topic has been discussed a couple times and the devs said no, and I agree with them. A fuel system only adds more annoyance, not gameplay.

I hope they do add fuel, and various forms of it. It would make the game more interesting for me. In fact I hope they add tiered progression in all of the systems. That being said, it could be a simple config option to modify the amount required up to and including "0" That way both camps are satisfied.

 

[Pacific_Jim]

Even taking the time to implement fuel would be a waste of dev time in a game that's already troubled in that regard.

 

[Ithirahad]

In fact I hope they add tiered progression in all of the systems.

How would this work? This is, after all, a multiplayer game. If you for some reason were prevented from puling up the recipe for higher-tier blocks in a factory, someone else could just make them for you. And furthermore, why? What's the point? Is it an attempt to create more gameplay? If so this is one of the worst ways of going about that. Structured progression like this seems awkward to try and force on a game where you're supposed to be able to do whatever you want. The trick to making more stuff to do in a sandbox game is, quite literally, just to make more stuff to do.

 

[petlahk]

I think there are other issues impacting negatively on game play (i might start a new thread just for that)

Go for it. I think that at the very least there needs to be a post consolidating the pro/cons and what has already been discussed about the new proposal.

That being said, it could be a simple config option to modify the amount required up to and including "0" That way both camps are satisfied.

Ignoring the fact that fuel is a tedious thing that we don't need that shouldn't be added. I think that config options that change major parts of gameplay need to be options only in times of testing and refining, they *should NOT* be core pieces of the game or code. Making large changes effectively optional in this way not only completely negates the point of the change, but is a waste of programming time and resources.

 

[wizardoftrash]

I like where this is going, and I really hope that all this feedback doesn't force you folks to go back to the drawing board again.

I'd like to get a chance to actually play around with this system, it'll be an improvement for ship building for sure.