[power 2.0] Docked Armor (not shields) solutions and ideas

[Mortiferum]

Any idea suggesting docked armor is retarded.

When that "thing" undocks from your ship, and if the ship carrying docked plate is above 300k mass it would VERY LIKELY choke slam the server.

Then the admins will choke slam you.

 

[GDPR 302420]

Any idea suggesting docked armor is spaget.

When that "thing" undocks from your ship, and if the ship carrying docked plate is above 300k mass it would VERY LIKELY choke slam the server.

Then the admins will choke slam you.

This is undoutably one of the biggest reasons to remove any positive benefit that comes from docked hull. You can easily turn your docked armor plate into a lagbomb.

Zyrr makes a point that we cannot rebalance offence outscaling defence while removing docked armor as it would be counter-productive, however I strongly believe that the solution to that is simply making armor and defences as a whole a lot more usefull than they currently are.

We can remove docked hull assocaited lag, or we can just make traditional usefull, which is one of the reasons that Zyrr mentioned in favor of docked armor.

As it stands, docked armor is a controvertial topic, its first widely known usage at Blood and Steel sparked a massive debate that continues to this day.

I personaly believe that traditional defences should be reworked and docked hull be made useless, however I do not dismiss the points in favor of it, particually by Zyrr.

 

[Zoolimar]

I personaly believe that traditional defences should be reworked and docked hull be made useless, however I do not dismiss the points in favor of it, particually by Zyrr.

Docked hull doesn't need to be made useless. You just need to make the underlying system in such a way that there is not much difference between a docked armor plate and an integrated one.

Even if you remove all the benefits of docked hull over the normal one you still will be left with the ability to swap the plates on rails and probably a couple of other tricks.

 

[Mortiferum]

This is undoutably one of the biggest reasons to remove any positive benefit that comes from docked hull. You can easily turn your docked armor plate into a lagbomb.

Zyrr makes a point that we cannot rebalance offence outscaling defence while removing docked armor as it would be counter-productive, however I strongly believe that the solution to that is simply making armor and defences as a whole a lot more usefull than they currently are.

We can remove docked hull assocaited lag, or we can just make traditional usefull, which is one of the reasons that Zyrr mentioned in favor of docked armor.

As it stands, docked armor is a controvertial topic, its first widely known usage at Blood and Steel sparked a massive debate that continues to this day.

I personaly believe that traditional defences should be reworked and docked hull be made useless, however I do not dismiss the points in favor of it, particually by Zyrr.

I am dissing docked armor because of lag, I really dont care for its effectiveness.

IF your ship is a walking lag bomb which kills the server upon your defeat (IE: armor undocked), then it shouldnt be used. Doesn't even need to be a debate if it just ruins PvP by causing the game to die.

 

[Dire Venom]

sigh...

the conceptual issue is "what is an entity?" + "what is a Main entity (ie a 'ship' ?"

it is clearly daft that i can add 100 armor blocks to my Main entity at 100m distance and loss HP when destroyed, but place same armor on nominally separate-but -permanent-docked element and lose no 'armor' from the 'Ship' when it is destroyed.

I do not think that such constructions are intended by the fundamental mechanics, nor the concept of a 'ship' in the game.


But lets try a more productive approach:

>> make armor / HP of any docked entity additive to the the cumulative total of the main entity it is attached too (while it is attached).

in that way docked armor just becomes pointless, as it is identical to actual armor on the ship (as i believe is intended in the concept of ship armor/hp in the first place)

You get a ful YES for that. I dislike how making fins or bits of your ship move removes them actualy being a part of your ship. We can inherit thrust, so surely we can inherit other charestics too:?

 

[GDPR 302420]

Docked hull doesn't need to be made useless. You just need to make the underlying system in such a way that there is not much difference between a docked armor plate and an integrated one.

Even if you remove all the benefits of docked hull over the normal one you still will be left with the ability to swap the plates on rails and probably a couple of other tricks.

Ideally standard defences should be in a state where using docked hull provides no benefit over standard armor on the main enity. If docked hull is able to provide any benefit over normal defences then a problem still exists and that problem needs to be corrected.

 

[Zoolimar]

If docked hull is able to provide any benefit that a problem still exists and that problem needs to be corrected.

To remove possibilities that rails give to docked hull you'll need to add the ability to move integrated parts of the ship.

 

[GDPR 302420]

To remove possibilities that rails give to docked hull you'll need to add the ability to move integrated parts of the ship.

Mind expanding on this point?

 

[Zoolimar]

Mind expanding on this point?

Docking allows moving, swapping and layering armor plates (or other docked modules) on one direction of the ship. The benefits are marginal but in theory they could be used.

The only way you could do something similar with integrated armor is if it also could be moved through some other means without rotating the ship.

 

[kulbolen]

[doublepost=1511109150,1511108690][/doublepost]

So as long as the docked plate is connected it should be impossible to overheat and break off. However if you shoot the docking system and it breaks off I'm not sure what happens.

they already dont come off when they overheat. the problem is when the docker is shot.

But lets try a more productive approach:

>> make armor / HP of any docked entity additive to the the cumulative total of the main entity it is attached too (while it is attached).

in that way docked armor just becomes pointless, as it is identical to actual armor on the ship (as i believe is intended in the concept of ship armor/hp in the first place)

except this is wrong, and it doesnt become pointless.

**** Edited by alterintel to be less inflammatory ****

 

[JinM]

my point is hes "theorizing" about shit that isnt theory, and he doesnt know what hes talking about. neither do you.

Yes I am theorizing, whatever this means. Because I don't know it. You know that I am not a pvper. Not because I am not up for a competition, but because I only pvp when I like the meta. Dota 2, for example, has a great meta, I play it often. The general and majority of SM pvp...sux right now imo. That's why I used questions like "am i wrong?" and terms like "thesis": I have no clue and wanted to satisfy my hunger for knowledge and maybe to accumulate some nice solutions for the devs.

I ask because I actually don't know if docked armor is a thing, and because i am currious. Curriosity-> please look up the work in a dictionary. You seem to think I am a know it all, quite contrary, I like to know when I am wrong (as long as the people who know it are modest and not like "thats the only truth" and get annoyed when you ask doubtfully stuff). Thats why i used questions. =)

The answer to my questions seems, and please tell me if i am wrong: no, docked armor is not a thing anymore. My theory is not that usefull in praxis and in the future updates will not even a thing at all. But I still don't know why you think my idea is bad. I guess because the docked armor in front overheats and then cant help the ship tank anymore shoots, whereass static non docked front armor still tanks damage even if the ahp is at zero.

 

[JinM]

your opening line was "heres my idea on how to solve this problem" directly followed by a lengthy explanation on what docked armor is and what its benefits are.



View attachment 46315

Whaaat? Ofcourse the opening post has to give one example solution. It's one solution I came up with after 2 minutes of thinking. It's not golden and I know that you guys have better ideas. If you read the post again, I also added in another one from another poster that was in the first 3 replies. After that you guys went totally offtopic into turrets and spagetties, so I didn't bother updating other suggestions anymore into the OP.

Anyway, how do you think I should ve written the op? What's wrong with it exactly? I mean I tried to give the explanation what docked armor is, for everyone new here. I think the majority of reads does not know what it is and what's the idea behind it. Even guys who are advanced in Starmade are often not familiar with all the pvp concepts that evolve around this stupid Starmade "meta". It's a small game and thus poorly documented , but with many new people every day. And the suggestions was just one example, I think when I say "my suggestion" it implies that there might be other who also have other ideas - I mean I clearly stated in the first sentence, that I want to know what the actual pvpers think.

 

[NeonSturm]

I'd like if expensive armor has more efficient shields on them.

But that doesn'T cover what is beneath => Bigger will be better.
If all weapons penetrate before dealing shield damage, they could count what is beneath.
​

I like the suggestion that docked act a bit like warheads if destroyed.

 

[aceface]

Does this cause you physical pain?View attachment 46295

I really like the design. One recommendation is to make the turrets more curvy to go better with the main hull body. Their boxy shape imo doesnt match the curved main ship.

 

[Non]

I really like the design. One recommendation is to make the turrets more curvy to go better with the main hull body. Their boxy shape imo doesnt match the curved main ship.

They aren't meant to, the floating turrets I've built so far are all built specifically for their ships, in a short period of time, so that as soon as I find a better weapon layout I can abandon them without hesitation because I'm not attached, just like my turrets.

 

[kulbolen]

They aren't meant to, the floating turrets I've built so far are all built specifically for their ships, in a short period of time, so that as soon as I find a better weapon layout I can abandon them without hesitation because I'm not attached, just like my turrets.

this is exactly why some of my ships have unskinned, module block layout floating turrets.

 

[Zyrr]

They aren't meant to, the floating turrets I've built so far are all built specifically for their ships, in a short period of time, so that as soon as I find a better weapon layout I can abandon them without hesitation because I'm not attached, just like my turrets.

this is exactly why some of my ships have unskinned, module block layout floating turrets.

seconded

 

[GnomeKing]

So there seems to be a general feeling here that docked hull and floating turrets, while legit design challenges, often exist as fixes for ease of building and to gain benefit through combining results of mechanics, potentially with powerful effects. Docked engines are also possible, although changes to power already made them ineffective as subordinate powered pods ( except perhaps that you can get weakly protected engine pods destroyed without losing 'main ship' systems-HP, and which might be of limited benefit in some situations; and also seems similar to possible benefit from sacrificial 'door shielding')..and of course powered docked weapons are lovely to have, but potentially excessively powerful in an unrestricted min-max build...

These 'docked-build' approaches might not be always the 'best' but there are clearly some advantages that might be gained.

An issue some of us seem to have (and mentioned elsewhere, add ref...) is more about the concept of what defines a 'main entity' vs 'intentional fixed subordinate entity'. I think we all at some point conceptualize our 'ship' as a kind of whole thing; we attach turrets to a ship for example, not just 'collect together various entities'.

Equally it would be a push to conceptualize our undocked armor plate in the shipyard as somehow a 'ship' with the same existential independence as the battleship it has just been unhooked from (though with the power of cube in the cube-verse we can of course add a few thrusters and other bits and pieces and turn that plate into the mobile 'Get Undocked! Absinthe Bar' )

In regard of docked-things and numerical attributes, within the cube-verse of Starmade, it seems to me entirely logical that when entities are docked together, characteristics (ie thrust, hp, and armor) should be combined and summed for the total main-entity, which becomes 'My Ship' in any functional/practical way we have of conceptualizing it.

 

[nulitor]

I do not see stuff as ships.
I see what people call ships as groups of things docked to each other for making the game lag when undocking happens.
People should use drones instead of making super gigantic ships with docked stuff.(cause approximately as much lag but it is much more efficient and it does not explode the universe when undocking happens because there is no undocking)

 

[GnomeKing]

Point about drones noted - but do you conceptualize your drones as 'just a collection of blocks grouped together' ? Or as 'My Drone' ?

Drones, shuttles and 'independent-but-docked' ships etc might be exceptions to above rule > ie no sharing of numerical characteristics via ship/drone docking rails.

I think agree with your view point nulitor, which seems to be that 'Docked Builds' (i would add rotator/rail doors aswell) of all kinds are potentially detrimental to combat gameplay in multiplayer contexts...in which case do you agree that 'Docked Hull' should not be an advantageous build style, any maybe not really possible as a viable 'ship' concept ?