Prerelease v0.200.250

[Non]

Honestly yeah probably. When every other question I have for you is responded with "omg do you even read our posts?" I have to ask myself why I bother trying to communicate. That's a shame. I should want to communicate with our players. I've been excited to do so before.

If you consistently get that response, it might be fair for you to assume that you are missing something. You and the other devs seem to have this idea stuck in your head that the animosity shown toward you comes at no fault of your own and that there is nothing you can do about it besides ignore us, which is precisely what made this happen.

If you actually listened, our problems might have been solved a while ago, so please don't give us this bullshit.

 

[Dire Venom]

Seems like a lot of wasted blocks, calculations and effort to do something that could be easily rolled into reactors for the same effect. And the effect is not very good due to how it encourages highly spread out ships and makes dense ships even more vulnerable.

Good point, Ironicaly I mentioned how important simplicity was at the start, then I wrote a 5 page essay XD
[doublepost=1514032866,1514032376][/doublepost]

Okay, that makes sense. What I need to know is how you would change this from a one dimensional issue into a multi-dimensional solution. I'm not sure I could see it any way other than the three examples I gave earlier. Additive stabilizers does not seem to do it for me. It makes non-needle ships more attractive shapes, but I still feel like needle ships using that system would be the best solution.

Ok, I think I've learnt my lesson. Keep ideas short and sharp, simplicty matters Dire!!
_________________________________________________________

Onward to further suggestions:

One mechanic that has also been suggested is Heat.
Having a go at the idea: (Theres some great threads about this btw)

Reactors generate both heat and Energy (with a straightforward relation between the two).
Stabalizors (could now be called heat sinks) Dissapate heat.
Ship systems getting hit could also create additional heat on-board the ship. (Heat is not localised).
Armour blocks can Store heat.
This is your ships Heat Capcitance (Heat levels could use the position of the old power capacity bar on the HUD)
Your ships heat levels going about your Heat C. causes very bad things to happen to your ship.
Enough heat could even overheat your ship.

Simple, engaging and effective :3

 

[Edymnion]

One mechanic that has also been suggested is Heat.
Having a go at the idea: (Theres some great threads about this btw)

Reactors generate both heat and Energy (with a straightforward relation between the two).
Stabalizors (could now be called heat sinks) Dissapate heat.
Ship systems getting hit could also create additional heat on-board the ship. (Heat is not localised).
Armour blocks can Store heat.
This is your ships Heat Capcitance (Heat levels could use the position of the old power capacity bar on the HUD)
Your ships heat levels going about your Heat C. causes very bad things to happen to your ship.
Enough heat could even overheat your ship.

Simple, engaging and effective :3

I'd add to this that using systems generates heat, mainly so that constant bombardment on shields would cause them to start heating up. Or so that weapons start heating up as they are fired and have to be cooled.

And I would say to require the heat sinks to be physically connected to the system they are cooling via conduits, which could be cut in combat to make things overheat faster.

But then, I am still a big fan of requiring physical connections between systems that aren't just hull. I like the idea of having to actually make power conduits running from the reactors to the various parts (and even from docking block to turret axis) so that everything feels like I'm building an actual system instead of just a hull with stuff shoved into it.

Make planning out HOW to get power to everything be as important as figuring out how to generate that power in the first place.

 

[Non]

Or so that weapons start heating up as they are fired and have to be cooled

Thats basically what reload time is already, so no need.

 

[Edymnion]

Thats basically what reload time is already, so no need.

Eh, depends on how you look at it.

X/Cannon systems with rapid fire currently do minimal damage because the main balance point is trying to keep DPS the same, which means from a practicality standpoint they're inferior because its really damage per projectile that matters.

If a heat mechanic were added, then instead of lowering the damage per shot, we could increase the heat generated. If the overall number of heat sink blocks ended up being about the same as the extra weapon modules, the price in blocks/mass would stay the same while giving better flexibility options.

Like burst fire.

Imagine a Cannon/Cannon that does the same damage per projectile as a straight cannon, but by changing up the number of heat sinks on it you could change it's firing pattern. Not just "it fires incrementally faster", but "Fires a 3 round burst, then has to cool down for a second or two before firing another three round burst" because there was a difference between "how hot it can be while still firing" and "how cool it has to get before it re-enables".

Make reload time how long it takes to actually load a round, and then cooldown be a separate mechanic that limits how fast it can fire. For a straight up single block type weapon, cooldown time could equal the current reload time. If you want it to shoot faster, you need to cool the barrels. If you want to shoot bigger shots thanks to things like explosive, it generates more heat so an unmodified system shoots slower.

Then give each weapon system a default reload time that would equate to it's maximum fire rate, and use heat to modify it instead. So say the cannon reload time would be the current cannon/cannon rate, beams would default to a reload time of 0, etc.

 

[beeez]

First, relevant dev power discussion:

I dunno if it's me being forgetful or what, but it seems like the last time i played, my test station had 100% stabilization. Now it has just over 25% stabilization without any real changes to the reactor or stabilizers. It seems like they scaled down the effectiveness of the stabilizers by 1/4 and just made it possible to build without penalty as long as you're over 25% stabilization. Nothing really seems mechanically different, or maybe i should start over with a fresh test to be sure.

Groups merge when they are too close to each other. You can't put a hallway or interior through the middle of a stabilizer group. Time to take some screenshots and go bug Lancake. XD

Yep, killed the design i was working on, as now there's an immovable eyesore taking up at least some portion of each main hallway.

I haven't figured out how to use the stream nodes to reroute yet though. I tried placing some near existing lines, but nothing happened. Will need to play with it again sometime to figure out what's up. Maybe my symmetry settings nullified the node's effect?

~~~~

And now, a lecture. Players on this forum seem to be forgetting that:
1) It's a prerelease game. The game's not finished.
2) We're discussing DEV BUILDS in a prereleased game. Not only are they unfinished, but they're specifically for testing.

So we're talking about super extra in-progress stuff here. Everybody shits their pants like it's the end of the world, but this is all changing. Not only is it all changing, but it's the first major system change of several planned, so for all we know future systems updates may make this 100% reasonable.

Here's a thing, Criss, and I suppose you should tell Schema about it too (your discretion, he seems really occupied or simply reclusive enough not to want to directly communicate with the community.)

See:

I have to ask myself why I bother trying to communicate. That's a shame. I should want to communicate with our players. I've been excited to do so before.

It probably applies to anybody on the dev team. They probably hate coming here, since any changes or adjustments are met with immediate and overwhelming hostility. That squarely falls on the community. If you people want more dev participation, try cutting back on the demands, insults, and general vitriol.

I'm not even a dev, but i avoid this place sometimes because i want to see discussion on how people are faring relative to me with the new systems but i have to wade through pages of "ARRRGHHHH IT'S THE WORST THING EVER" in order to glean some photos of working builds or tips on useful design.

The devs are aware of the implications for current mechanics. Needles are a thing. Islands are/were a thing. If you don't see changes addressing these issues, then maybe they don't give a fuck or maybe they're working on it in ways you haven't seen yet. These things aren't as simple as everybody in their armchair would presume.

Just build a needle if you're worried about being 100% space efficient instead of coming here to vent your anger that the game's design aesthetics don't match your own. I recently quit a game because of updates exacerbating its cancerous, inflexible top tier pvp. Take a break for a few months and come back to see if things are different.

~~~~

Last, a request to the devs.

Could we get some builds released simultaneously that are mechanically altered from the current? If it's a matter of changing some lines in a settings file, it shouldn't be too much work, and this way you can collect feedback from players on some forking lines rather than trying to run one line and changing directions repeatedly.

Say, for example:
v0.200.xxxa - main line, current stabilizer distance and effect
v0.200.xxxb - stabilizer distance reduced logarithmically
v0.200.xxxc - stabilizer distance reduced linearly, effect of each stabilizer block reduced
v0.200.xxxd - stabilizer distance same as main, stabilizer effect reduced, block efficiency reduction can't dip below 10%

Not that these have to be the way, but if there are multiple ideas floating around the office that aren't wholly incompatible (i.e. requiring lots of code time) then perhaps exploring them in parallel could help more quickly hone in on what works or eliminate what doesn't.

For my part, i think the current stabilizer distance mechanic is burdensome. Extremely burdensome. If i'm in creative mode it's no problem, but it's harder to work in a real game because i can no longer build compact ships above the threshold size. I get to a breakpoint where the distance requirements start to scale upward, and i end up mining not just for the upgrades i want, but for enough material to wholly redesign a ship with runaway distance requirement.

I'm not opposed to just having large empty space in my ships (as opposed to others here who seem to find it offensive) but it looks funny because my designs are so barren. At least before i could have a solid interior minus the cockpit. Now i'm just walling off empty space to reduce the lag from seeing an open interior coated with shield capacitors.

Is it possible to request a skin that has no animated blocks? My graphics card is old, and it seems like a waste to coat my interior with a layer of hull just to protect myself from the lag. Or if there's a way to replace the texture pack on my end, maybe i'll be able to figure that out.

 

[Zarth]

buttsecks

 

[Edymnion]

And now, a lecture. Players on this forum seem to be forgetting that:
1) It's a prerelease game. The game's not finished.
2) We're discussing DEV BUILDS in a prereleased game. Not only are they unfinished, but they're specifically for testing.

So we're talking about super extra in-progress stuff here. Everybody shits their pants like it's the end of the world, but this is all changing. Not only is it all changing, but it's the first major system change of several planned, so for all we know future systems updates may make this 100% reasonable.

Careful, the people who whine about this stuff don't like being reminded that the game is an alpha.

They seem to think that everything has to be perfect right out of the gate or its not worth doing.
[doublepost=1514050622,1514050366][/doublepost]

For my part, i think the current stabilizer distance mechanic is burdensome. Extremely burdensome. If i'm in creative mode it's no problem, but it's harder to work in a real game because i can no longer build compact ships above the threshold size. I get to a breakpoint where the distance requirements start to scale upward, and i end up mining not just for the upgrades i want, but for enough material to wholly redesign a ship with runaway distance requirement.

Just as an FYI, they are trying to push away from people building large/complex ships by hand in "real space", and encouraging the use of shipyards (where you get basically creative mode).

This could be part of that.

Or you can do what I do. Have one game set to creative mode where I build my stuff, and then simply move the blueprint over to my survival game and mine/produce to fill it there.

 

[Magrim]

And now, a lecture....

Dude, you are so out of touch with what's going on here that it's hilarious.

We are trying to tell the devs that their stab distance mechanic can never be balanced without heavy restrictions to creative freedom, taking the fun out of the game in the process.

If you want a more detailed response, there are numerous threads on the dock outlining why this is a bad move, created by players that arguably have a more intimate knowledge of the mechanics involved than the devs themselves.

 

[Captain Fortius]

A lot of these are a given though. These are all things that absolutely have to happen in order for those areas of the game to be successful. I would never say the sound system is fine as is for a final release. Thats absurd. Frankly I don't know why we would have to state that either. Players have known we have not been satisfied with sound for quite some time.

Then you need to get better in planning stuff, for the game's sake.
Even if it is obvious, you put it on a list, chalk it up on a blackboard among all the other issues so you don't lose sight of your priorities.

Even as we write these words, work is underway on an unnecessary and generally reviled feature that does less for the game's enjoyment value than anything I listed in my previous post, or what a hundred players could come up with in moments if asked.

Not to mention, all I wrote were mere examples. The point is you should have solid, well defined end goals down to specific systems and functions. Contrary to this, the official document could in no way be considered a functional checklist, or even a vague promise.

As for how obvious a new sound system is - which is once again, merely one of the many examples-, well, I've never heard any official statements, and I tend not to expect what I haven't been promised.
(even though numerous people tend to think in reverse nowadays and get mad when they find out there's no free candy inside, because nobody hung a sign at the entrance that says so.)

 

[beeez]

Dude, you are so out of touch with what's going on here that it's hilarious.

I'm playing the dev builds, same as anybody else. If i'm out of touch with the forum culture it's because the culture (just judging from these threads) is garbage. I come here specifically for updates on the new system, and there's enough trash to sift through that i have a hard time getting anything useful out of it. If it's the case for me, it's probably the case for devs too.

All i'm saying is the players need to be aware that shitting on the devs doesn't do anything useful. It doesn't make them want to fix things. They'll keep working at the same speed if you tell them they've ruined your life, so all you're doing with it is making them feel awful about the community.

You have a dev in this thread saying they wish they looked forward to coming here. That's a signal, man.

I'm not saying there aren't problems with the new system, but the players who hate on the devs for not listening are also largely the reason the devs aren't listening

 

[Non]

the players who hate on the devs for not listening are also largely the reason the devs aren't listening

The cycle has to start somewhere.

 

[Lecic]

Honestly yeah probably. When every other question I have for you is responded with "omg do you even read our posts?" I have to ask myself why I bother trying to communicate. That's a shame. I should want to communicate with our players. I've been excited to do so before.

I keep asking you if you're even reading our posts because you keep cherry picking single lines and then asking questions that have already been answered in earlier posts, or even in THAT POST, and then asking those same questions AGAIN later in the thread after we answered it for you.

NOW ANSWER MY QUESTION.

WHAT BREAKS IF YOU REMOVE STABILIZERS? YOU SAID THINGS BREAK. GIVE US THOSE THINGS. TELL US THE CONSEQUENCES AND STOP PUSSYFOOTING AROUND.

EDIT- Wow, nice rating Criss. Real classy. Makes Schine look great.

 

[Spartan-228]

I feel that it should be pointed out that there is a group of players that is not being thought of in this discussion about reactors.

Wile you all go around dreaming up exotic ways of making power and other systems work. There are the casual players who don't nesisarly get on the forms or even know about them.

Many of them did not come to Starmade because they wanted to spend days, months, or in some cases years to build a ship or station. They don't want to spend hours resurching how to build a space ship. They started playing this game because it was less restrictive and had less of a lerning curve than things like Space Engineers.

So when you come up with new ideas stop and think about it a minute longer. Sure it might sound easy to you, but you dreamed it up. I think a good rule of thumb would be. If it's considerably more complicated then the current system, you might want to rethink it.
Another idea would be, could you resnobly expect some on who has never played Starmade, to know how to use it after doing a five minute tutorial.

 

[Non]

I feel that it should be pointed out that there is a group of players that is not being thought of in this discussion about reactors.

Wile you all go around dreaming up exotic ways of making power and other systems work. There are the casual players who don't nesisarly get on the forms or even know about them.

Many of them did not come to Starmade because they wanted to spend days, months, or in some cases years to build a ship or station. They don't want to spend hours resurching how to build a space ship. They started playing this game because it was less restrictive and had less of a lerning curve than things like Space Engineers.

So when you come up with new ideas stop and think about it a minute longer. Sure it might sound easy to you, but you dreamed it up. I think a good rule of thumb would be. If it's considerably more complicated then the current system, you might want to rethink it.
Another idea would be, could you resnobly expect some on who has never played Starmade, to know how to use it after doing a five minute tutorial.

Starmade has a very high learning curve and its what keeps a lot of people here. Even if power were simplified, no way could a player learn SM well in 5 minutes.

 

[Matt_Bradock]

As a psychologist it is interesting to see the dynamic of this conversation, even though I have to pick a side in it.

True, there has been 3 kinds of posts on this thread (primarily):
- Constructive feedback pointing out existing flaws of the new system
- Whining without any particular useful information
- Topic derailment and personal back-and-forth insultfest

So, trying to see this from both sides' perspective, I can understand why Criss is getting too much of it and started to try avoid being engaged in debates often ending in personal insults.
On the other hand, the whole update DOES seem kind of forced.
It does seem like the devs have a very specific image of the game they are trying to create, which includes beautifully detailed ships with beautifully designed interiors that could house an extensive number of crew.
However, this game still comes down to stats, when played in survival PvE or PvP context. While I'm absolutely amazed at how much talent people have for building mind-blowingly beautiful interiors, the majority does not want to follow suit. This probably has a couple of reasons behind it:

- They don't want to invest the amount of time it takes to create such detail, especially that you'll rarely see another player ever setting foot on board. Let's face it, the majority of ships never ever see more than one player ever setting foot on board, and even that player won't really use the interior more than taking the corridor from the airlock to get to the control room. Maybe the teleporter. Without crew, all those fancy quarters or med bays, or bathrooms, rec rooms, mess halls, observation decks - they are pretty damn useless. So why spend days, even weeks, just to have every room detailed down to the last nightstand next to the bed?

- They want their ships primarily functional, since space, especially on PvP servers, can be a cruel, harsh place where every single block can be the dividing line between survival and demise. Being able to perform whatever purpose the ship was built for, takes priority over its aesthetics, especially that the majority of other players will never ever take a look inside. Maybe only after tearing it open with a well-placed missile.

- They simply feel like they lack the talent to pay that much attention to detail. Everyone has their limits, and while I dare say I pay attention to interior, I also have to admit I'm not even close (and never will be) to the glorious craftsmanship Tshara , SkylordLuke , Raiben , Saber or even Drakkart feature on their designs. I'm just not there. And honestly, I'm not even sure I can ever be. God knows I tried, and I only got frustrated, when in the end it still only looked barely above average. I made peace with that being all I can do. And looking at what people fly on servers and what people post on the Community Content, I'm not alone with that.

So, before you expect everyone to build your level of detail and exterior to interior ratio, ask yourselves, WHY would they want to do that?
"Because we leave them little other option" is not a good answer to that question.

 

[Spartan-228]

Starmade has a very high learning curve and its what keeps a lot of people here. Even if power were simplified, no way could a player learn SM well in 5 minutes.

I am not saying they would learn in 5 minutes. I said could use it in 5 minutes.

The current power system I can explain in 1 to 2 minutes to a new player. This new one would take a little longer, but it's not too bad. However some of the ideas that people have come up with, although very creative and good. Would take a vetran player to explain it to the new player and then help them build something so they know how to use it. There will not always be someone there to hold their hand when they start.

I know Starmade has a steep learning curve in some areas, and I know that many veteran players are still learning new tricks. But we do not want the game to hard to pick up for new players.

 

[Non]

They don't want to invest the amount of time it takes to create such detail

Thats it for me, I'm working on a 300k battlecruiser, its currently battle ready, if I were to make an interior, it would take at least another month.

I am not saying they would learn in 5 minutes. I said could use it in 5 minutes.

The current power system I can explain in 1 to 2 minutes to a new player. This new one would take a little longer, but it's not too bad. However some of the ideas that people have come up with, although very creative and good. Would take more than a minute explanation and another two or three building an example.

I know Starmade has a steep learning curve in some areas, and I know that many veteran players are still learning new tricks. But we do not want the game to hard to pick up for new players.

Starmade pvp is not something that someone can play lightly and be very good at. I could probably spend half an hour teaching someone about docked hulls alone (maybe a slight exaggeration). Trying to make this game accessible to new players would take a complete redesign, which nobody needs or wants.

 

[Spartan-228]

Starmade pvp is not something that someone can play lightly and be very good at. I could probably spend half an hour teaching someone about docked hulls alone (maybe a slight exaggeration). Trying to make this game accessible to new players would take a complete redesign, which nobody needs or wants.

Again I am not saying they should master the game in 5 minutes.
With the current system a player can get in build a ship and start flying rather quickly. However if you make somthing as important as power overly complicated. You will loose new players five minutes after they start the game. I am not saying dumb it down. I am saying as we go forward and make suggestions on updates, take the new players into account.

 

[Ithirahad]

I love communicating with you too :P



Good point!
It certiantly is a bit of a head scratcher.

Just throwing some ideas out there (From various places on the forum or out of thin air, but maybe there could be something of worth in them).
(I will probably make a variety of assumptions here as well)

Stabalizors do not have distance penalties, and instead create "Low Energy Fields".
I address common concerns near the bottom of this post, such as Ship Size to Reactor Size relations, and how this does not encourage Islands, Needles as design choices, allowing a regualr ship to beable to be just as effective, or more than them.

Forward:
An important part of designing these Base Game Mechanics (I feel) is to make them easily understandable by even the simplest of players. On screen prompts, Pop-up windows with simple visuals telling you how the system works would be a fantastic addition with a new power system!
Whenever a player has a Reactor, Shield OR Stabalizor block selected it would help a lot if there were some simple, yet clear instructions/infographics on how the system works and how to add it to your ship. This would do wonders for new players in particular and help them immediatly engage with the game!

I digress, onto the (I spent quite a few hours so I hope it has something of worth) hopefully not a fail stabalizor concept:

The Concept: (Based off the new Shield Coverage Bubbles)

• Stabilizors placed in multiple or single groups contribute the same ammount of stabilization regardless of distance.
• However, each Stabilizor group generates a (Low Energy Field, Low Stabbalization Area or something like that) around it, which grows with the size of the group. This could be represented using the cool new Shield Bubble coverage.
• The Reactor could also (Potientialy) create a Low Energy field around it (But not a singnificant distance like the current Stabilization distance, just so the reactor isn't encased in a stabilization bubble)
• Any stabalizor group which crosses too much with another stabilizor bubble is "switched off" and provides 0 Stabilization, just like Crossing 2 shield bubbles (with the lower value bubble being switched off).

• There is a base size of the Low Energy Field per Stabilizor group (to be balanced) that would mean ships that spam multiple small Stabalizor groups simply would not beable to acheive much Stabilization. (This is exactly how the Shield Bubbles Work atm, using the same concept for both would likely reduce development time)

(I know, a bunch of badly explained mubo Jumbo. Please do point out any holes!)

Basicaly Stabilizors "Require Area" to stabalize a ship.

For a worked example: (Probably a lot easier to understand!)

Here is a beautiful Yatcht ship (Props to the creator!).
It has a reactor that has been lavishly designed and built near the center of the ship. It doesn't matter where the reactor is, however you would want to protect it.

Now we want to start adding Stabilizors. Like always the ammount we need for 100% is fixed by the largest reactor.
Say we create a small stabilizor group part way down the ship.

Just like with shield bubbles:

This stabzlizor group creates a "bubble" around it that can be seen when holding Stabalizor blocks.
Just like Shields they have a set minimum size.
You get what we're getting at here :P????

Now, you might ask, why not spam them all across your ship?
Well, just like Shield bubbles that doesn't quite work.

What if we went for larger groups?

Ah ha! There we go.
This ship:

• Looks like a ship.
• Does not need to expand in only one direction to support a larger reactor.
• Does not spam stabilizor groups.
• Does not need to build them off as islands.
• Increasing the size of the ship in any direction allows for more area for Stabzlizors to make use of (Think of it as Stabilizors using the intergrity/holding together the surrounding blocks for lore or something) and thus a larger reactor.
• Wings, Spikes, Warp Narnacles etc would actualy be benifical for a ship short of stabalization space rather than just making the ship longer.
• As Schema wants, there is a relation between Ship and Reactor Size.
• Ships are not forced into needle or island designs.

Concerns:

• But why wouldn't players just create islands to house stabilizors groups on to ignore the bubbles? Good point you ask!
• Potiential Solutions (or a combination):

1.System groups within a stabalizor bubble are granted a bonus. Thus players WANT to put stabilizors inside their ship.
2.Stabalizor groups could stop working if they are too far from the reactor

• Wouldn't players just create one large group so there is never any overlap??? Another important point. We want this system to work for ships of all sizes.

1.We do not want to hurt small or large ships. Thus Stabilizor groups could have an Effciencey stat. How this could work: The larger the reactor the lower the effciencey. To counter act this loss of effciencey you need to add additional Stabalizor groups with at least (x%) the ammount of blocks of your reactor. This would be to prevent small group spam to get past this.

An info graphic on solving scalability of this system:
(Just to make it clear Stab. Eff caps at 100%, maybe bonus for more? Idk. Mainly intended as a buffer zone so you don;t have to add more Stab groups every 5 blocks.

Small ship with this system: (1 Stab group does just fine!)

Slightly bigger ship with a larger reactor, but only 1 stab group. (Blue Circle= Reactor, Orange square=Stab Group)

We are losing Stab. Effciencey due to only having one Stab group for this larger reactor! This means it requires more blocks and thus wastes space to get back up to full stabalisation.

A far better option than adding more blocks to the exsiting group would be to create a new group!

Now we are back up to full effcicency for our Stab. Groups!
And thus the Cycle continues round and around as the ship gets bigger and bigger!


Any feedback is appreciated.
Maybe this is a stupid suggestion imo. But if it encourages some other potistive thought then I won't have wasted my time :P
Just exploring options!

Thank you for discussing this with us Criss , I really enjoy it :3

Whoa. This is probably a better use for the current shield mechanics than shields. :P

As for the islands concern, we already have a mostly decent fix for that implemented. They just have to shrink the conduits (they honestly don't need to go above 1 block in diameter) and fix the routing so they don't try to count multiple groups as one and screw people's builds up (they wanted to avoid performance issues with tons of conduits but it is not needed if the mechanics require space between stabilizers anyway).