Devblog 13th September 2017 (Power Stream!)

[kulbolen]

why is this "you cant have a nice interior or hull in a pvp ship" thing still a thing

 

[Daro_Khan]

I see a lot of potential in the new system. Getting rid of power capacity is awesome. I think weapons that draw power to reload are the way to go. If I were new to Starmade, I would definitely chose this new system over the old one.

Some thoughts on the new system.

We will be able to customize this system for AI controlled ships. This seems obvious and intentional. AI will still be shit at flying but at least maybe they will be able to use weapons. AI can now be updated. There are So many new drone possibilities with the new system.

RIP chaindrives. But we will be able to install a fast flight reactor system to be toggled on/off as needed. At least that is how I interpreted things.

I am worried about a weapons update. We need that as soon as possible, or enough info to continue building. The weapons system does not seem that broken.

RIP self powered turrets. This alone should make it harder to make big ships. Self powered turrets allowed a builder to take advantage of the power bonus for smaller ships, while building a Titan. I doubt that reactor size to stabilizer distance relationship will be entirely linear.

All in all I am looking forward to the new system.

Self powered turrets still work. They just cant use chambers

 

[Toshiro]

(The subject PVP vs RP is useless is irrelevant since PVP players play on PVP servers and RP players on RP servers, and if not, it's their fault, so the problem is resolved )
This video gives me enthusiasm and I hope that the update will soon be available. I thank the development team for their hard work and encouragement for the work ahead.
However, more in-depth explanations will be needed, but I suppose that is foreseen.
I also note that everyone is concerned about the future of our ship, but what about the stations?
Nobody ever talks about stations, yet this is equally as important if we are to consider, see long-term suppression of the old power system. The stations need as much energy as the ships, so how should we anticipate this?
Will this new power system be suitable for factories, shipyards, defense turrets and anything else that may be present on the stations?
As much question as I ask myself, and I should not be the only one ...

 

[Jarraff]

Self powered turrets still work. They just cant use chambers

Indeed, I misinterpreted the the devs. They said reactors would be turned off for docked entities.

I wonder if reactors will be turned off for docked turret basses that are fixed. Hopefully we will not be able to bury a turret reactor inside of the ship.

But I suppose you could still put in a very long vertical or horizontal rotating base that could power the turret. we shall see when the Dev Build comes out.

 

[GnomeKing]

I appreciate the efforts put into the proposal - but it is leaving me a little cold. I tend to agree with PanPiper, Drakkart and others that some valuable qualities of the old system are being forgotten. Although abstract, I think the XYZ reactors create a great challenge for building, precisely because of the limitations imposed.

It is simply not true that infinite choices create the most conducive environment for Creativity.

Generally, people do not work like that, and endless choice often leads to indecision, or convergence around a fairly narrow set of common parameters. Creative solutions are generated through working at a problem. 'Pure' Art must work with the material realities of the chosen medium, rather than being an entire transposition of individuals creative imagination. Indeed some schools of thought would propose that functionality has its own aesthetic qualities.

Complex constraints, while frustrating, also offer real sense of achievement when overcome, without the grind of points/resource acquisition. Geometric rules for power bonuses are an excellent way to provide real/achievable/functional challenges. The new power might get new players building replica ships from the movies more quickly and chambers are interesting directions for buff-mechanics (why cant they be added to the current power system?)...

...But after consideration of the power proposal, I now realize that I am strongly in favor of MORE GEOMETRY power rules, not less...going beyond XYZ. For example taking Euclidean geometry and forms as a starting point for how certain ratios of shapes/lines/'angles' reach prime levels of output-per-n.o. blocks. That would provide real enduring complexity and benefits for those who spend the time on the engineering > without those kind of people, StarMade would not be the unique game it is today.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

This update does not balance ANYTHING, only make the power system brainless. Apparently you can not see it yet. [Is not all Maximizing number.]

So... a system that makes the game simpler for newbies, casuals, veterans, PVPers, PVEers and RPers to do whatever they want with their designs without binding them to a build meta specific to their play style; thereby allowing them to cross into other play styles without completely redesigning their ships is not balancing?

Believe or not PVP building usually works on other scenarios while NOT PVP only works in certain scenarios. [And most probably on a bad way and that is not interior stuff problem.]

I'm seeing a whole lot of PVP talk and nothing about the update. It would be nice if you would stay on topic.

Small = Less 50 metters for me, at this forums some users have saying i build microships, Unless you build bigger than that i suposse you are wrong.

Again: A swarm of small ships is totally devastating with the old power mechanics if those are used on a correct way. [My crystal ball is shining with the idea that you want to abuse the combo weapon mis-pul-ove when the new power mechanics arrived.]

So you're you're a mind reader now? Then you must be reading someone else's mind since that's not what I had in mind.

I'm really confused with that question since you have given me positive rates in my contributions on why this game should not become a "death match" and now you are asking to me about how impacts anything besides pvp.

PVP is only one of the many faces of this game, if i said you were an RP was not because i am a PVP, i said that stuff because there are 2 type of starmade players:

Those who try to mold the mechanics of the game to a shape and those that mold the shape to the mechanics of the game.

And aparently you are the first one type.

You're confused? Let's recap then.

You've basically tried to turn this discussion into a "PVP vs notPVP" argument at every opportunity. You failed to discuss the power update in any way shape or form other than calling it "brainless". You honestly think that seeing pictures of a player's builds (without specs) allows you to know everything about them and their future plans, with regard to this update. You've made blind assumptions (incorrect) about what I plan to do when the update releases. You've admitted that you don't get the point of several aspects of said update and then you failed to answer when asked how someone else's creativity impacts your gaming experience. You even deflected that last question by switching out the words "your gaming experience" for "PVP".

While I appreciate the civil manner in which you handled our debate, I'd like to get back on topic. Do you want to actually discuss the update or do you want to continue trying to derail the thread?

 

[dwwojcik]

Guys I don't think there's much point in whether or not the power update should go ahead, it's obviously mostly complete already, and turning back would just waste all the man-hours that went into it. Schine decided to take the plunge and I can't imagine them ever going back on it.

Personally, I'm in favor of the change. I don't deny that some amount of depth will be lost in the shipbuilding aspect, but the new system feels a lot more like an actual game mechanic than a technical exercise in optimization, which ultimately I think is a good thing, considering this is supposed to be a video game. Plus the new system could potentially offer a lot of new challenges in the future. Yes, it's easy to make power now, but how you use it still matters just as much, if not more.

 

[Toshiro]

... apparently, yes I am the only one who asks me all these questions.

 

[nightrune]

Yes, it's easy to make power now, but how you use it still matters just as much, if not more.

Starmade should have elements on both. I view chambers and new power as a change towards players making decisions on how they interact with world/other players versus just how they interact with building.

I also have to agree with the earlier comment about geometry in power. It added an abstract puzzle layer to the game. It was very cool and unique to Starmade. The problem is what mechanic it's tied to. Every friend I ever got to try the game scoff'd at power. Really they wanted to build a small brick and do something quickly. Which you can do, but the learning curve is so high in starmade it makes it a bit daunting. Power now reflects most players natural inclination, and chambers reflect a mechanic you must learn and explore for, but the menu/graph will give you something to work towards filling out and playing with. I'd love to reintroduce more geometric puzzle elements like old power but they need to be in the right place during gameplay.
[doublepost=1505573788,1505573599][/doublepost]

Will this new power system be suitable for factories, shipyards, defense turrets and anything else that may be present on the stations?

Of course, we want to balance for this as well. There are chambers planned for stations, but we are open to suggestions as well. Warpgates are one area that we want add depth to.

 

[Drakkart]

So... a system that makes the game simpler for newbies, casuals, veterans, PVPers, PVEers and RPers to do whatever they want with their designs without binding them to a build meta specific to their play style; thereby allowing them to cross into other play styles without completely redesigning their ships is not balancing?

Would have been but they failed at achieving this. even though they were told like half a year back that this system would result in efficient builds are ONLY possible when focusing on one axis... Which is a limitation. This means pvp ships will be either long tall or wide. rethinking that, - most likely just long or tall. also the chandelier design is back as an option...

I really lack the words of expressing my disappointment. Most of all you really had us waiting all the time, - for this?
I recall ideas like reactors need at least one surface being connected to a conduit which leads up to a heatexchanger unit... which would have given potential for awesome depths of reactor design ... but this proposal is - feels like "we want more 9 year olds to play the game".

Schine, you botched it.
i just wanted to add: Yes the old system was not very newbie friendy and it required change absolutely agree, it just feels like you wasted the opportunity to come up with something really outstanding and instead just did what was critizied and ravaged half a year back but you still commited to it. how should we any longer believe in "we are listening to our playerbase".

 

[kikaha]

You can not call that balanced while the power outpout is based on the ship shape.

- New power update is brainless and not balanced. Is based on ship shape, and that will probably cause small ships to be much less useful in front of large ships

I am saying new power system is unbalanced and Brainless. [IS BASSED ON SHIP SHAPE]

But, but NO !!!!

IT IS NOT BASED ON SHIP SHAPE !

The only "thing" necessary past a certain amount of power is some distance between the power blocs and the stabilizer (or whatever the name).
As for size, well even with the current power system, the bigger the ship the more power you need usually.

And a small ship designed to take on big ships (with known characteristics/chamber types) will probably very easyly destroy it.

i believe you only grumble about the new power system because its new and you were comfortable with the old one.

 

[JinM]

About the ship shape: The old system denied us making efficient Tie-Fighters - the new one actually cries out to make some. :D

 

[Top 4ce]

Would have been but they failed at achieving this. even though they were told like half a year back that this system would result in efficient builds are ONLY possible when focusing on one axis... Which is a limitation. This means pvp ships will be either long tall or wide. rethinking that, - most likely just long or tall. also the chandelier design is back as an option...

I really lack the words of expressing my disappointment. Most of all you really had us waiting all the time, - for this?
I recall ideas like reactors need at least one surface being connected to a conduit which leads up to a heatexchanger unit... which would have given potential for awesome depths of reactor design ... but this proposal is - feels like "we want more 9 year olds to play the game".

Schine, you botched it.
i just wanted to add: Yes the old system was not very newbie friendy and it required change absolutely agree, it just feels like you wasted the opportunity to come up with something really outstanding and instead just did what was critizied and ravaged half a year back but you still commited to it. how should we any longer believe in "we are listening to our playerbase".

The complexity has shifted from a convoluted, hard to understand, and overly complicated way to generate power, to a system that generating power is easy and its how you manage that power between chambers (which have set limits, that doesn't make 'larger is better') and what the demands are during different operations is the complexity that you have to master. The shape of a ship means very little in this, and the learning curve has shifted to steep, to a curve to one that is easy to pick up but has depth to master, which in my opinion is much better.

 

[kikaha]

The complexity has shifted from a convoluted, hard to understand, and overly complicated way to generate power, to a system that generating power is easy and its how you manage that power between chambers (which have set limits, that doesn't make 'larger is better') and what the demands are during different operations is the complexity that you have to master. The shape of a ship means very little in this, and the learning curve has shifted to steep to a curve, to one that is easy to pick up but has depth to master, which in my opinion is much better.

Thank you. You worded that way better than i could have.

 

[kiddan]

Are there not disadvantages to building larger, other than diminishing output returns? I feel the 'heat' radius the stabilizers need to be clear of expands exponentially or similar. In that case, a smaller ship can use a larger percent of it's room for shields, weapons, etc. At as some scale, it was shown you don't even need stabilizers.

So why are people who obviously didn't understand the basic math in the stream complaining about something they don't wholly understand?

 

[terra mining corp.]

I'm quite excited about the warpgate mechanics as i'm an avid builder of gates and always thought they could have better control of destination,maybe make a waypoint control for them(ya I know it's a ripoff of stargate but it makes sense),and the amount of power needed for larger gates to even function needs to be looked into it requires incredible amounts right now.

 

[Panpiper]

i believe you only grumble about the new power system because its new and you were comfortable with the old one.

Quoting myself from another thread:
Previously there was a complex system which had to be learned before one could build effective ships. Effective pretty ships could then ensue. Once one had learned that complex system, there were a wealth of ways in which a good engineer could squeeze extra performance out of the system.

Now, there is a complex system (moderately less so for power, but much more so as other things get added) which has to be learned before one can build effective ships. Effective pretty ships can then ensue. HOWEVER, there is no longer any way to squeeze extra performance out of the system. Those are 'exploits', and are bad. I could not disagree more profoundly. Having extremely difficult to master and build mechanisms to exceed normal limits is a feature of fantastic game design, that no longer exists in Starmade.

Starmade is now a building block game with a huge learning curve, power changes not withstanding, in which you can build pretty ships. Your pretty ship will not be better than my pretty ship. It will only be different. There is no 'game' any longer in such building, just work, and pretty.

About the ship shape: The old system denied us making efficient Tie-Fighters - the new one actually cries out to make some. :D

Er... Toss a few of these at your favorite ship, then come back and tell me if the old system couldn't make effective Tie Fighters. In fact the new system actually reduces the effectiveness of such a ship relatively speaking. The linked Tie Fighter has power rod lengths that exploit all three dimensions and it has four such rods. The new system will permit only one dimension and very likely will result in a significantly lower power output.

 

[Ankron]

So much want! Must have...

 

[Equilibrium21]

Very happy about the new power system, it adds a lot more possibilities than the old, dull power system. Also, Repulsors. What else needs to be said?

 

[Groovrider]

Are there not disadvantages to building larger, other than diminishing output returns? I feel the 'heat' radius the stabilizers need to be clear of expands exponentially or similar. In that case, a smaller ship can use a larger percent of it's room for shields, weapons, etc. At as some scale, it was shown you don't even need stabilizers.

So why are people who obviously didn't understand the basic math in the stream complaining about something they don't wholly understand?

lol, remember how having teleporters were going to kill all ship design as player will make massive doom cubes with tiny controls buried deep under layers of adv armor with no corridors?