A Solution To Flying Spaghetti Monsters

[JinM]

So when it's about stating that stabilizers are shit, it's right that forced design choices are a bad idea. But when it comes to other problems, all of a sudden forcing certain designs and limiting build freedom is good again?

 

[Az14el]

when he's referring to actual people being the same level of problem as an unfinished mechanic it is a bit frustrating yes

if you mean the thread as a whole, well unlimited build freedom means some ships that simply opt out of taking damage in any way comparable to "regular" looking ships which is kind of annoying too

Encouraging a mid ground is a nice thing in both cases if i may say something so crazy

 

[GDPR 302420]

But when it comes to other problems, all of a sudden forcing certain designs and limiting build freedom is good again?

Some designs are better off with you being forced to build something else.

 

[apelsinsaft]

Some designs are better off with you being forced to build something else.

I have issues with this statement. Power and systems in their current (old) configuration let you design virtually any shape of ship and have it be relatively competitive, so long as you completely fill up the interiors and minmax that shit. One of the design goals of the new systems was to preserve this freedom, to at least some degree. What you are saying goes against what the devs want for the game, keep that in mind.

Im a little frustrated to see so much arguing in circles around the stabilizers. Im questioning whether or not its a sane design decision to leave so many variables up to how you design your ship down to WHERE you place the blocks. In my honest opinion, i don't think it should matter where you place ANY block, maybe with reservation for adjacency in groups. What all these rules eventually do is just stop me from doing what i want, in a sandbox where it was previously possible and even viable. If i wanted to make a croissant shaped ship, or a ship that is two detached pods, or a really long dong ship, it's impossible to make ONE set of block rules that works for ALL shapes. There will always be minmaxing and it will never be perfect.

What i think might be more sane to do instead is look at the ship's shape as a whole to eliminate minmaxing, and then appeal to minmaxers with a different system that is easier to control and apply changes to for the developers. What matters the most is that the system should be easy for the developers to control if minmaxers encounter something broken; enforcing rules on the block level is completely counterproductive.

 

[GDPR 302420]

Wall of text

Balance must always come before freedom.

 

[apelsinsaft]

Balance must always come before freedom.

I posted a way to let the developers more easily tweak balance. Read the last paragraph. Maybe the entire post.

edit - TL;DR since you seem impatient: Look at the silhouette of the entire ship from every angle, assign a score depending on the total surface area of every silhouette, and use this score to determine where the power limit begins. Then give the player points that they can assign to boost their ship in various areas if they are below the power "limit", or points that they must assign to penalties if they go over the "limit".

 

[Zoolimar]

Your proposed suggestion assumes that ship is always built before player knows what limits it will have. And may actually need to completely rework all the systems inside the hull after the calculation is done.

Also completely kills building systems first.

 

[apelsinsaft]

And may actually need to completely rework all the systems inside the hull after the calculation is done.

Nope, just shift some bonus points around and its still functional.

Also completely kills building systems first.

You're right. I didn't consider that some people build ships that way. Still, lets look at why people build ships with systems first: It's because they don't want to have to rework their systems repeatedly within a set hull. Hmm, this is going full circle, isn't it? (edit: i guess some people also design their systems to fulfill a specific objective, like making a main gun deal exactly 125k alpha and then build the hull around that. i'm not sure how to address that)

 

[Zoolimar]

It's because they don't want to have to rework their systems repeatedly within a set hull

Mostly because hull is armour. It is built to protect the systems. If you don't have the systems you can't effectively design armour to protect them.

 

[GDPR 302420]

I posted a way to let the developers more easily tweak balance. Read the last paragraph. Maybe the entire post.

edit - TL;DR since you seem impatient: Look at the silhouette of the entire ship from every angle, assign a score depending on the total surface area of every silhouette, and use this score to determine where the power limit begins. Then give the player points that they can assign to boost their ship in various areas if they are below the power "limit", or points that they must assign to penalties if they go over the "limit".

I read your post and all the suggestions you linked already.

Firstly, neither of the suggestions you have linked will fix the problem of Spaghetti ships nor will they fix other "broken builds" so that is a moot point.


Secondly, the freedom to build you speak of is what is allowing broken builds like this to exist, broken builds need to go for the sake of balance whenever it conflicts with "muh freedoms" or not.

So I will repeat myself: Balance comes before freedom.

 

[apelsinsaft]

Firstly, neither of the suggestions you have linked will fix the problem of Spaghetti ships nor will they fix other "broken builds" so that is a moot point.

No suggestion will ever make spaghetti builds impossible. After some consideration, you're right about my suggestion not fixing spaghetti ships too: a "noodly" ship that makes all its blocks visible from every angle will always have a bigger total "silhouette" per block, so if anything it would be basically the same as the current (old) system. (That being said, it's still a bigger total silhouette: given random weapon spread, its still more ways to hit the ship) The only thing that can remove spaghetti builds, other than implementing breaking ships apart (which would hurt the creative freedom about as much as anything else) is moderation and curation, and in my opinion this is how it should be done - let server owners crack down on players who build ships minmaxed into unfairness.

There are also other ways to make noodly and hard to hit ships less viable, like making projectiles have a way inflated hitbox.

About freedom, i feel that starmade IS the freedom to build whatever shape of ship you want. NO OTHER space voxel game lets you do this. A shit ton of players would consider the game worse off with less freedom to build, because that's what's become the games identity over time. Even Avorion forces some design rules on you. Lets be honest, what is Starmade without the complete freedom?

Mostly because hull is armour. It is built to protect the systems. If you don't have the systems you can't effectively design armour to protect them.

I understand this. I personally don't think it matters so much whether you build your armor inside-out or outside-in, but this is a style of building i've seen a bunch of people use and i understand it. This is where the stabilizers have an edge: they conserve this style of building ships where you build systems first.

 

[Zoolimar]

The only thing that can remove spaghetti builds, other than implementing breaking ships apart (which would hurt the creative freedom about as much as anything else) is moderation and curation, and in my opinion this is how it should be done - let server owners crack down on players who build ships minmaxed into unfairness.

Or just seriously penalizing line systems. So that 1 to 3, 1 to 5 ratios for group hitbox are still ok, but 1 to 100 and more is not.

let server owners crack down on players who build ships minmaxed into unfairness.

How it is unfair if the rules are the same for everyone?

 

[apelsinsaft]

Or just seriously penalizing line systems. So that 1 to 3, 1 to 5 ratios for group hitbox are still ok, but 1 to 100 and more is not.

Something like that could be done. I think i saw a suggestion along those lines somewhere, where the less a system looks like a "blob", the more it gets a penalty to efficiency. Still, that's again leaving the balance of the entire game down to the block rules, and i don't think it's a very sane way to do things. Changes in meta means changes to block rules means changes to ship design, which is tedious and what schine wanted to avoid anyways with things like the chamber system. But "blobbiness" rules aren't a bad idea; it's just hard to tell if it's going to need adjustments.

edit: There it is.

How it is unfair if the rules are the same for everyone?

You know what i mean, aesthetics yadda yadda. Nobody wants to play a game of noodle vs noodle, i get that much.

 

[Zoolimar]

Still, that's again leaving the balance of the entire game down to the block rules, and i don't think it's a very sane way to do things. Changes in meta means changes to block rules means changes to ship design, which is tedious and what schine wanted to avoid anyways with things like the chamber system.

If placing of a blocks won't matter it is no longer actually would be a building game.

You know what i mean, aesthetics yadda yadda. Nobody wants to play a game of noodle vs noodle, i get that much.

Yes I do. I just disagree on how it should be done.

 

[apelsinsaft]

If placing of a blocks won't matter it is no longer actually would be a building game.

I guess here is the fundamental disagreement. In my opinion, every block always matters where it is placed, even if there are no rules to dictate optimal or required placement. After all, its a sandbox where we are building "our" ships, where we decide where we want to put our blocks and we build something we like, something we want and something we will call ours. Sometimes i feel like the child is missing from the equation in these discussion, but i digress.

I definitely understand where you are all coming from and i love that style of gameplay where appropriate, like in for example From The Depths: a game about building the systems in your boat first and foremost, and the boat itself second. But to me, Starmade was always the game where the ship is first and foremost; and the systems second.

 

[Zoolimar]

In my opinion, every block always matters where it is placed, even if there are no rules to dictate optimal or required placement.

If there will be no rules at all, just blocks that you can place anywhere you'll get something like noodles or ships that have a mush of systems in them. Where each 10x10x10 cube has 1 block of every system in it. This way ships would become HP blobs, because you will need to destroy around 50% of ship mass before it becomes combat incapable or overheats.

 

[jorgekorke]

No, it isn't. I mean maximum efficiency (power per block), not just best efficiency for certain parameters/configurations. I suggest you look at the link I posted previously and refresh your memory.

I think I worded it wrong. What I tried to say is, the difference between the old power efficiency between a common ship shape and a perfect cube is barely notable, comparing to the new power difference between common shapes and a japanese hentai tentacle monster.

 

[apelsinsaft]

If there will be no rules at all, just blocks that you can place anywhere you'll get something like noodles or ships that have a mush of systems in them. Where each 10x10x10 cube has 1 block of every system in it. This way ships would become HP blobs, because you will need to destroy around 50% of ship mass before it becomes combat incapable or overheats.

Well obviously there are some common sense rules that players typically expect and unconsciously design after, like adjacency for groups and potentially also "blobbiness". Such rules are pretty harmless.

 

[Panpiper]

You're right. I didn't consider that some people build ships that way. Still, lets look at why people build ships with systems first: It's because they don't want to have to rework their systems repeatedly within a set hull. Hmm, this is going full circle, isn't it? (edit: i guess some people also design their systems to fulfill a specific objective, like making a main gun deal exactly 125k alpha and then build the hull around that. i'm not sure how to address that)

I ALWAYS build systems first. The form of the ship always follows the function, always. Frankly IMO anyone not building that way is building seriously substandard. Implementing a system that required me to build a hollow shell first and then fill it in would be a MASSIVE downgrade of the game to me.

 

[Lecic]

I think I worded it wrong. What I tried to say is, the difference between the old power efficiency between a common ship shape and a perfect cube is barely notable, comparing to the new power difference between common shapes and a japanese hentai tentacle monster.

The most efficiency ship in the old system was also a flying pile of noodles, though, and the efficiency between it and a "common ship shape" were incredibly notable then as well.