Prerelease v0.200.250

    Criss

    Social Media Director
    Joined
    Jun 25, 2013
    Messages
    2,187
    Reaction score
    1,772
    • Master Builder Bronze
    • Video Genius
    • Competition Winner - Stations
    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.
    I can't even tell you how many lists we've made with regards to where the game is going. We haven't lost sight. It's a matter of process. If we need to introduce decent AI factions into the game with their own assets, then we need to ensure that most of the building mechanics are finished. Before we can work on a proper universe, we need some AI framework in place for how they operate. Before we can get a true PvE experience, we need to ensure the AI is worth engaging. It's a list of dependencies.

    WHAT BREAKS IF YOU REMOVE STABILIZERS?
    Really? You claim I haven't read your posts, but it's clear you need a refresher on the power proposal that came out months ago.

    The goal was to create a system that prevented players from filling their ship to the absolute brim with reactors and systems, because frankly that's bad engineering. I never found it exciting. The players that excelled often delved into a bit of math as well, which should not be necessary to judge the effectiveness of your gameplay experience. I remember players telling me to aim for a very specific number on my last damage penetration for weapon systems so that not an ounce of my cannons was being wasted by damaging a block instead of outright destroying it.

    Furthermore, we had an issue where small vessels had a more respectable surface area vs internal volume ratio. Larger ships did not, as the surface area increased, but not nearly as quickly as internal volume. Players packed ships full of systems. It got to the point where it wasn't engineering at all. It was spamming a block, either to place down or to remove it so that you got the values you wanted. Power lines didn't matter past a certain point because of the cap on power.

    For a while smaller ships were more effective, but that doesn't mean it was any fun to design a larger vessel if you wanted to do it.

    Regardless, that is why we used stabilizers. The engineering aspect came from chambers. If stabilizers is the wrong way to do it, then perhaps we can fix it with crew quarters instead. Removing them basically goes back on our efforts to combat those problems with large-scale building. I'd rather fix them than remove them entirely and have wasted a lot of time.
     
    Joined
    Feb 27, 2014
    Messages
    1,074
    Reaction score
    502
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    • Top Forum Contributor
    Matt_Bradock thank you for chiming in. That was a solid evaluation.

    However Lecic I was just starting to have a productive discussion with Criss . While you do have valid points, and while a direct awnser would be appreciated I don't think that needs to be aggressively pushed when we are actually making headway. Criss has already made it quite clear that he heard the first 50 times, weather he choses to reply or not.

    Not ment to be an attack since you often do get results, it just feels like Criss is a Turtle and every time he pokes his head out you hit him on the head since he nibbled on your slipper.

    He understands our concerns, but needs our help to come up with a clean solution to the power system :3
     
    Joined
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages
    629
    Reaction score
    243
    frankly that's bad engineering.
    delved into a bit of math as well, which should not be necessary
    pick one, good engineering requires math.


    I remember players telling me to aim for a very specific number on my last damage penetration for weapon systems so that not an ounce of my cannons was being wasted by damaging a block instead of outright destroying it.
    so by the way you wrote this, i take it you think this is a bad thing?
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Non

    Non

    Joined
    Nov 17, 2013
    Messages
    296
    Reaction score
    157
    The goal was to create a system that prevented players from filling their ship to the absolute brim with reactors and systems, because frankly that's bad engineering.
    Bad engineering will happen no matter what the system is. People think what they build is great. Dont think youll fix human arrogance with this update. Nor is filling a ship necessarily bad engineering (it is, mainly because ships with more space survive better), if a US naval vessel sailed from port for combat with only half of its usable space occupied, it would be mocked. Granted what goes in that space is very different, in the navy's case its people and machines and stuff, in ours its solid blocks of shields or whatever, but still, flying around with your ship half empty is dumb. It uselessly adds size which makes you easier to hit.
    The players that excelled often delved into a bit of math as well, which should not be necessary to judge the effectiveness of your gameplay experience.
    Holy shit. Do you realize how much math I do before building a ship? Thats 90% of what keeps me engaged, the steep learning curve that requires a lot of careful consideration. Making a complex and involving game in which math doesn't help you play is probably pretty hard. If there is a problem, its that the math is not easily available to all players.
    Power lines didn't matter past a certain point because of the cap on power.
    Yeah, thats why aux exists bud.
    Removing them basically goes back on our efforts to combat those problems with large-scale building
    Why are those even problems? The people who spam blocks now will spam blocks regardless of the system. More space means more faces which is harder on computers. The best thing you can do to encourage less block spamming is make the design process more math intensive, otherwise its spam enough blocks till you learn to spam them correctly.

    In short, nothing actually seems to break if stabilizers are removed.
     

    Ithirahad

    Arana'Aethi
    Joined
    Nov 14, 2013
    Messages
    4,152
    Reaction score
    1,330
    • Purchased!
    • Top Forum Contributor
    • Legacy Citizen 8
    Really? You claim I haven't read your posts, but it's clear you need a refresher on the power proposal that came out months ago.

    The goal was to create a system that prevented players from filling their ship to the absolute brim with reactors and systems, because frankly that's bad engineering. I never found it exciting.
    That's purely subjective; seems to me that the main people complaining about that are you and... maybe Lan? In any case, some people agree and some disagree with this; no idea what the majority wants. It's not necessarily 'bad engineering' to me, but if we want to call it that, then I fail to see how the new system is 'good engineering' just because ships now must have empty space... 'good engineering' would be more like From the Depths, where you actually have to arrange components in certain ways to produce certain results and optimization is more than just running some simple numbers and placing blocks to suit. (mind you, there will still be math involved - just as in real life - because frankly that's good engineering. I don't always find it particularly exciting, but it is what it is.)
    The players that excelled often delved into a bit of math as well, which should not be necessary to judge the effectiveness of your gameplay experience. I remember players telling me to aim for a very specific number on my last damage penetration for weapon systems so that not an ounce of my cannons was being wasted by damaging a block instead of outright destroying it.
    What? First of all, if your game's systems are based in any way upon mathematical formulas internally, math will be involved in optimization of ships on the player's end. This system doesn't even change that. It's entirely possible to build ships without getting into the math, though, they just won't be optimal - which doesn't actually matter too much unless you're going up against people who build optimally. :P

    If you can think of a system that somehow removes math from the shipbuilding process while retaining mechanics that allow for strategic design and thinking beyond a kindergarten level, I'd like to hear it out of pure curiosity.
    Furthermore, we had an issue where small vessels had a more respectable surface area vs internal volume ratio. Larger ships did not, as the surface area increased, but not nearly as quickly as internal volume. Players packed ships full of systems. It got to the point where it wasn't engineering at all. It was spamming a block, either to place down or to remove it so that you got the values you wanted. Power lines didn't matter past a certain point because of the cap on power.
    Sure? There are better ways to compensate for that though, I suspect.
    For a while smaller ships were more effective, but that doesn't mean it was any fun to design a larger vessel if you wanted to do it.

    Regardless, that is why we used stabilizers. The engineering aspect came from chambers. If stabilizers is the wrong way to do it, then perhaps we can fix it with crew quarters instead. Removing them basically goes back on our efforts to combat those problems with large-scale building.
    See, the thing with this is that 'large-scale building' is just fine, it seems, as of the build mode update. The problems you're describing are more with small-scale building, and a rough solution to this already exists in the form of the dual power system we have in release. If the curves involved in that need to be tweaked some more to make everything work nicely, or mechanics need alteration, then so be it. But that would've been the place to start looking.
    I'd rather fix them than remove them entirely and have wasted a lot of time.
    Well, if the system is bad then the time is already wasted. Keeping/modifying them won't really reclaim any of that time, it's just a quicker option. Something something sunk cost fallacy.
     
    Last edited:

    FlyingDebris

    Vaygr loves my warhead bat.
    Joined
    Sep 6, 2013
    Messages
    2,458
    Reaction score
    1,312
    • Top Forum Contributor
    • Councillor Gold
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    I can't even tell you how many lists we've made with regards to where the game is going. We haven't lost sight. It's a matter of process. If we need to introduce decent AI factions into the game with their own assets, then we need to ensure that most of the building mechanics are finished. Before we can work on a proper universe, we need some AI framework in place for how they operate. Before we can get a true PvE experience, we need to ensure the AI is worth engaging. It's a list of dependencies.


    Really? You claim I haven't read your posts, but it's clear you need a refresher on the power proposal that came out months ago.

    The goal was to create a system that prevented players from filling their ship to the absolute brim with reactors and systems, because frankly that's bad engineering. I never found it exciting. The players that excelled often delved into a bit of math as well, which should not be necessary to judge the effectiveness of your gameplay experience. I remember players telling me to aim for a very specific number on my last damage penetration for weapon systems so that not an ounce of my cannons was being wasted by damaging a block instead of outright destroying it.

    Furthermore, we had an issue where small vessels had a more respectable surface area vs internal volume ratio. Larger ships did not, as the surface area increased, but not nearly as quickly as internal volume. Players packed ships full of systems. It got to the point where it wasn't engineering at all. It was spamming a block, either to place down or to remove it so that you got the values you wanted. Power lines didn't matter past a certain point because of the cap on power.

    For a while smaller ships were more effective, but that doesn't mean it was any fun to design a larger vessel if you wanted to do it.

    Regardless, that is why we used stabilizers. The engineering aspect came from chambers. If stabilizers is the wrong way to do it, then perhaps we can fix it with crew quarters instead. Removing them basically goes back on our efforts to combat those problems with large-scale building. I'd rather fix them than remove them entirely and have wasted a lot of time.
    You can't fix an inherently flawed system. Stabilizers are so fucked there's no conceivable way you can do it without ruining something or making them pointless.

    Perhaps this might be a learning experience that listening to your playerbase can save you a lot of wasted effort and make your game better.
     

    Non

    Joined
    Nov 17, 2013
    Messages
    296
    Reaction score
    157
    The math thing is still amazing to me, like, that tell me so much.
     
    Joined
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages
    15
    Reaction score
    1
    • Legacy Citizen 2
    • Legacy Citizen
    Let me try again. YOU CAN'T MAKE THE POWER SYSTEM BE THE RESTRICTING FACTOR THAT ENCOURAGES PEOPLE TO NOT SYSTEM SPAM AND MAKE INTERIORS! We like the power system minus stabilizers. It's not wasted effort to toss just stabilizers out the door, we still have a good system here. People can and will game whatever restrictions you put in place when it comes to power. If you want interiors, tie it into the crew system.

    Insert bonus for, or just make having crew mandatory, the more mass the ship has the more crew you need to get the maximum bonus/avoid penalties, every crew member needs X amount of interior space and decorative blocks placed to count towards the total. Sure, the crew areas will most likely end up as spaced armor but atleast the ships will have crew areas, and it makes sense that functionally useless areas are between the explosions and the systems. That's how actual ships are made anyways.
     
    Joined
    Jul 12, 2013
    Messages
    295
    Reaction score
    112
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    If stabilizers is the wrong way to do it, then perhaps we can fix it with crew quarters instead. Removing them basically goes back on our efforts to combat those problems with large-scale building
    Crew can not fix this because it has nothing to do with interior space and everything to do with using the dimensions of a ship to calculate the power output of said ship. Stabs aren't the problem here, it's the distance requirement that needs to go.

    If you guys want to limit output relative to ship size in order to keep system sizes smaller, have stabilizers correlate with something that is already balanced like the mass or block count of a ship.

    The reason being is this: When you compare two ships against one another, do you use their length? No, no one does this because it's a terrible measure of a ship's capabilites, they use mass or block count.

    Using a single dimension for power is inherently unbalanced because two ships of the same length can have vastly different sizes yet generate the same power. Why would a player make the larger ship if it isn't going to be better?
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Ithirahad

    Crimson-Artist

    Wiki Administrator
    Joined
    Sep 10, 2013
    Messages
    1,667
    Reaction score
    1,641
    • Video Genius
    • Competition Winner - Stations
    • Wiki Contributor Gold
    I say remove the distance requirement from stabs and make the stab tether beam invisible but reveal-able with scanning.

    That way stabs are still in the game so no massive recoding to take them out but are now not as obstructive to player creativity. With the stab tether beam invisible (perhaps only visible while in the core of the ship in question and completely invisible to everyone else) players dont have an ugly beam that might be too massive to to adequately redirect from sight. Besides it makes no sense for such a massive weakness to be obvious to everyone and it would promote the scan/stealth mechanic.
     

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,105
    Reaction score
    1,222
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    The goal was to create a system that prevented players from filling their ship to the absolute brim with reactors and systems, because frankly that's bad engineering. I never found it exciting. The players that excelled often delved into a bit of math as well, which should not be necessary to judge the effectiveness of your gameplay experience. I remember players telling me to aim for a very specific number on my last damage penetration for weapon systems so that not an ounce of my cannons was being wasted by damaging a block instead of outright destroying it.
    Ah, the classic "blablah stuffing!!!! its evil because uh.... reasons!!!!" shit. Just because YOU couldn't figure out the depth behind things like the layering and compartmentalization of systems doesn't mean it wasn't there.

    And your comment on weapons? Very concerning for what you have planned for Weapons 3.0. If you're hinting at adding prefab weapons I guarantee you every PvP player will be dropping Starmade.

    Do you REALLY want a game where MATH isn't needed to optimize a ship? Really? Is Schine's end goal to create a game where math doesn't matter? Where every ship is equal and engineering doesn't matter? A game with no depth?

    Regardless, that is why we used stabilizers. The engineering aspect came from chambers. If stabilizers is the wrong way to do it, then perhaps we can fix it with crew quarters instead. Removing them basically goes back on our efforts to combat those problems with large-scale building. I'd rather fix them than remove them entirely and have wasted a lot of time.
    Crew quarters DO NOT fix stabilizer distance. I don't know how many times we can tell you this. They would do the job you want stabilizers to accomplish, which is make ships have interiors. Stabilizers do not do this. They cannot do this. They are a failed mechanic.

    I'd rather fix them than remove them entirely and have wasted a lot of time.
    Sunk-Cost Fallacy
     
    Joined
    Feb 27, 2014
    Messages
    1,074
    Reaction score
    502
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    • Top Forum Contributor
    Just think it's relevent here as well:

    The devs have said they have heard what we have to say, over and over and over and are sick of hearing the same thing repeated and yelled in their face.
    Weather they take it to heart is a different matter.

    Yes, I am frustrated too at some of the lack of communication and issues that has happened.

    Yes, many valid points have been brought up.

    Yes, the devs are a bit stuck on where to go atm with the power system.

    Does continuing to yell in their face improve the situation and point out the many faults improve the situation?
    I would hazard a No.

    Offer solutions instead of repeating the same rehotoric please
    . (Yes, many solutions have already been offered from the player direction and the developer direction. However most of these tend to conflict with each other)


    Through calm, constructive feedback the devs have been able to understand our issues.
    By not yelling in their face every 2 seconds we have been able to understand their position and what they want to acheive.


    Now both of those need to be brought together to create a solution.
    (Note this is how I understand it from what both groups have said. Please do inform me if I've missed something vital)


    The key player Goal is to have an un-biased power system that encourages creativity, does not punish players or force them towards exteme designs.

    The key developer Goal was to create a system that prevented players from filling their ship to the absolute brim with reactors and systems


    The goal was to create a system that prevented players from filling their ship to the absolute brim with reactors and systems.

    Regardless, that is why we used stabilizers. The engineering aspect came from chambers. If stabilizers is the wrong way to do it, then perhaps we can fix it with crew quarters instead. Removing them basically goes back on our efforts to combat those problems with large-scale building. I'd rather fix them than remove them entirely and have wasted a lot of time.
    The devs are a key party in this, thus their opinion and desires matter. We can certiantly dissagree with them, but we still have to work with them if we want SM to move forward. Thus, working with what we have got:

    How can we mesh these two goals into one system?
     
    • Like
    Reactions: kiddan

    TheDerpGamerX

    Lord of Lawnmowers
    Joined
    Sep 18, 2017
    Messages
    214
    Reaction score
    206
    • Legacy Citizen 6
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    Hostility/Flaming I
    I kinda hope Schema just claims that power 2.0 was just a prank, and then releases competent ai, better fleet mechanics, bugfixes-you know, stuff people actually wanted rather than just some dumb power bullshit designed to prolong the game's livespan for at least another few months. Cuz thats all power 2.0 really is. If Schine actually gave two fucks about fixing the game, they would take our suggestions. Instead of listening to the community, (who frankly at this point knows more about the game and what they're doing than the devs themselves) they came up with this bullshit "power stream" shit. Tell me, did anyone ask for this? Did anyone say "You know what would fix stabilizers? How about a shitty power stream system that does essentially the same thing as aux only worse!". Thats what this is. And as for the shields, come on. Really? Your solution to spaghetti was to essentially limit ship sizes by adding bubble shields that only cover a certain amount of blocks. Again, we gave tons of ideas about this, all backed up by math, and you still refuse to listen. Thats why this game's playerbase is dwindling. It's because you guys REFUSE to listen or take suggestions. In case you don't believe me, tell me, when was the last time a player suggestion in the "suggestions" thread actually got the planned tag. Hell, when was the last time one got the "read by Schine" tag? The latest thread to get any sort of tag at all (meaning Schine at least read it) was posted on MARCH 25, 2017. So don't sit here, claiming you are listening to the community. Because you're not.
     
    Joined
    Feb 27, 2014
    Messages
    1,074
    Reaction score
    502
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    • Top Forum Contributor
    Criss regarding not having ships full of systems, was this concept ever looked at for ships to have interiors/open space?

    Crew Minus Crew

    Even a simplified varriation of it could have the effect of 95% of ships build and using noticeble interiors on their ships.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: cdl3050

    Criss

    Social Media Director
    Joined
    Jun 25, 2013
    Messages
    2,187
    Reaction score
    1,772
    • Master Builder Bronze
    • Video Genius
    • Competition Winner - Stations
    i take it you think this is a bad thing?
    Well, I'm a casual builder to be sure. I wasn't expecting the B-190 to be amazing, but I think it turned out alright. Then I'm being told to whittle down various blocks to a point so that a very obscure bit of damage penetration numbers maximize it's effectiveness. Whether it's because a casual player doesn't even look at that stuff, or because a casual player doesn't really care, it just made the process a bit more tedious. Those assets are more for visuals than anything. An example for new players to look at so they can design their own cool creations. I'm sure if I was building pure PvP ships I'd care more.

    Just because YOU couldn't figure out the depth behind things like the layering and compartmentalization of systems doesn't mean it wasn't there.
    Okay, great. But when someone that works on the assets for the game finds little enjoyment in how to optimize a ship, vs the system that came out I think that's saying something. A system like chambers is something I've wanted for a while. It was something we would have done solely with crew before. If math is going to be in the game, then it can be simple. You yourself have already expressed concern over learning curve. Well personally I'd rather not tell a new player that they need to learn the power formulas that the game runs on just to get the most out of this game.

    That's not what StarMade is about. We know that. Players delve into that territory because there is little else currently. I get that.

    If you're hinting at adding prefab weapons I guarantee you every PvP player will be dropping Starmade.
    I don't even know why you are suggesting such a thing. How and why would we ever do that. Stop suggesting things I am not explicitly stating. You're just causing more of a rift by implying things that aren't even true.

    Do you REALLY want a game where MATH isn't needed to optimize a ship?
    Simpler math. With chambers you get X amount of points, and can dedicate it to chambers till you run out. I don't think math is where I want to focus the learning curve. I would rather players focus on chamber combinations, chamber placement, how a reactor is laid out, how a ship is laid out, etc. The actual designing of a ship should be more important in a game like this than math.

    Crew quarters DO NOT fix stabilizer distance.
    I will ask in the meeting tomorrow if we can reduce distance then. What I meant is that crew can be the alternative to adding interior space to ships instead of the stabilizer mechanic.

    was this concept ever looked at for ships to have interiors/open space?
    That is the exact same system I was thinking of regarding crew. It may be something others have seen. I do not know what specifics Schema might have in mind.

    Mind you all, I personally have no problem changing stabilizers or removing them. I get the concern and if what you are saying is true I will find myself in a world of hurt when we get to renovating our assets. I will see what's up tomorrow.
     
    Joined
    Feb 27, 2014
    Messages
    1,074
    Reaction score
    502
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    • Top Forum Contributor
    Well, I'm a casual builder to be sure. I wasn't expecting the B-190 to be amazing, but I think it turned out alright. Then I'm being told to whittle down various blocks to a point so that a very obscure bit of damage penetration numbers maximize it's effectiveness. Whether it's because a casual player doesn't even look at that stuff, or because a casual player doesn't really care, it just made the process a bit more tedious. Those assets are more for visuals than anything. An example for new players to look at so they can design their own cool creations. I'm sure if I was building pure PvP ships I'd care more.

    Quite true! Building an optimal weapons setup certiantly does require a lot of extra work, and for the casual player that is not something they should be forced into doing just to make their designs somewhat effective.
    Sure, some players can try and optimize every part of their ship and get a superior craft from it. But as long as the difference isn't game-breaking it should be fine I would hope.

    I quite like building a good looking hull (Like WW2 planes) and then seeing how effective I can make the design. Those projects are always a ton of fun :3

    _________________________________________________________________

    I will ask in the meeting tomorrow if we can reduce distance then. What I meant is that crew can be the alternative to adding interior space to ships instead of the stabilizer mechanic.

    That is the exact same system I was thinking of regarding crew. It may be something others have seen. I do not know what specifics Schema might have in mind.

    Mind you all, I personally have no problem changing stabilizers or removing them. I get the concern and if what you are saying is true I will find myself in a world of hurt when we get to renovating our assets. I will see what's up tomorrow.
    Thank you for putting it forward!
    I think even just a "Chamber" orientated system with automated workstations could work quite well.
    If system blocks do not work within the bounds of these "chambers"/rooms then they would provide the open space desired in ship hulls.

    Chamber Rooms could each have their own ammount of "Tech Points" based on their size vs the connected system.
    When connected to a system you can use what was previously the reactor Tree to add bonuses (e.g connected to a thruster group would only get the part of the reactor tree avliable to thrustersavliable for selection).
    E.g:


     
    • Like
    Reactions: Lecic

    FlyingDebris

    Vaygr loves my warhead bat.
    Joined
    Sep 6, 2013
    Messages
    2,458
    Reaction score
    1,312
    • Top Forum Contributor
    • Councillor Gold
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    I feel like the whole thing could have been simplified in the way Schine wants without the weird, unnecessary mechanics by simply requiring that all groups need a conduit from the reactor to touch them to work.
     
    Joined
    Oct 8, 2014
    Messages
    138
    Reaction score
    220
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 9
    I feel like the whole thing could have been simplified in the way Schine wants without the weird, unnecessary mechanics by simply requiring that all groups need a conduit from the reactor to touch them to work.
    Um, thats what I suggested a few days back, but there's a problem with that- What limits how many conduits can be connected? To be safe, people would have the whole space between reactors and stabilizers filled with conduits. This just brings us back to square one- ships filled to the brim with stuff.

    Also, excellent idea Dire Venom +1
     
    Joined
    Aug 14, 2017
    Messages
    354
    Reaction score
    165
    The goal was to create a system that prevented players from filling their ship to the absolute brim with reactors and systems, because frankly that's bad engineering. I never found it exciting. The players that excelled often delved into a bit of math as well, which should not be necessary to judge the effectiveness of your gameplay experience. I remember players telling me to aim for a very specific number on my last damage penetration for weapon systems so that not an ounce of my cannons was being wasted by damaging a block instead of outright destroying it.
    And all you have achieved is made combat ships longer and more needle like. The basic Isanths and other ships will continue to not present any danger due to their armor/decor to systems ratios. When the ship of the same mass sports 5-10 times the power and also probably has better acceleration ships with a lot of interiors don't stand a chance.

    The fact that reactors are now single targets instead of being spread throughout the ship will make ships with less power, and weaker shields, even more vulnerable. The nice thick power stream will only exacerbate this development.

    Let's delve a little into "filling to the brim"

    What is a space ship? A space ship is something that could travel through space and allows to complete certain tasks that are impossible without it. What allows to do it ? Systems. The space ship IS its systems. Without systems you don't have a space ship, you have an asteroid, an those are not very good at completing any tasks, beyond going in orbits and falling down on planets, rarely.

    The more systems (and not in Starmade system block sense) the ship has the better it could deal with its supposed tasks. Or allow it to tackle more different tasks. Or complete them faster. And so on.

    Engineering is actually making the ship perform as close to optimal as possible for a given task. So of course ships would be filled with as many systems as possible for a given resource / mass / size pool to be as good at the task as possible. Everything else just makes them closer to asteroids than ships - and those are things you mine for resources.

    Furthermore, we had an issue where small vessels had a more respectable surface area vs internal volume ratio. Larger ships did not, as the surface area increased, but not nearly as quickly as internal volume. Players packed ships full of systems. It got to the point where it wasn't engineering at all. It was spamming a block, either to place down or to remove it so that you got the values you wanted. Power lines didn't matter past a certain point because of the cap on power.
    It is engineering. Because this is how your game systems are designed. That "spamming" blocks to a certain amount/ratio is the best method to achieve the optimal ship performance at a given task (there are some additional considerations for combat ships). You didn't actually change it much with the new update, except designating two parts of the ship where the blocks would be "spammed" the most.

    I will ask in the meeting tomorrow if we can reduce distance then. What I meant is that crew can be the alternative to adding interior space to ships instead of the stabilizer mechanic.
    Reducing the distance won't help. Because the sole purpose of the stab mechanic is enforcing a certain length on the ship. If you don't reduce it enough the ships just become a little shorter but still stick like. If you reduce it enough the stabilizers no longer matter and could be as well removed with no difference for the ship shape.

    You could try and spend a couple of months looking for that perfect distance for them, but it would be broken any time you make a new update to the systems or tinker with their stats.
     

    Matt_Bradock

    The Shrink
    Joined
    Aug 4, 2013
    Messages
    798
    Reaction score
    464
    • Purchased!
    • Thinking Positive
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    I can't even tell you how many lists we've made with regards to where the game is going. We haven't lost sight. It's a matter of process. If we need to introduce decent AI factions into the game with their own assets, then we need to ensure that most of the building mechanics are finished. Before we can work on a proper universe, we need some AI framework in place for how they operate. Before we can get a true PvE experience, we need to ensure the AI is worth engaging. It's a list of dependencies.


    Really? You claim I haven't read your posts, but it's clear you need a refresher on the power proposal that came out months ago.

    The goal was to create a system that prevented players from filling their ship to the absolute brim with reactors and systems, because frankly that's bad engineering. I never found it exciting. The players that excelled often delved into a bit of math as well, which should not be necessary to judge the effectiveness of your gameplay experience. I remember players telling me to aim for a very specific number on my last damage penetration for weapon systems so that not an ounce of my cannons was being wasted by damaging a block instead of outright destroying it.

    Furthermore, we had an issue where small vessels had a more respectable surface area vs internal volume ratio. Larger ships did not, as the surface area increased, but not nearly as quickly as internal volume. Players packed ships full of systems. It got to the point where it wasn't engineering at all. It was spamming a block, either to place down or to remove it so that you got the values you wanted. Power lines didn't matter past a certain point because of the cap on power.

    For a while smaller ships were more effective, but that doesn't mean it was any fun to design a larger vessel if you wanted to do it.

    Regardless, that is why we used stabilizers. The engineering aspect came from chambers. If stabilizers is the wrong way to do it, then perhaps we can fix it with crew quarters instead. Removing them basically goes back on our efforts to combat those problems with large-scale building. I'd rather fix them than remove them entirely and have wasted a lot of time.
    I see where you're coming from. This actually cleared up some things for me. I do not know what your build process is, but during the time I spent playing Starmade on a dozen different servers, including 3 build servers, and in 3 larger factions, I want to share my experience about the build processes the community generally uses, so you and the Schine team are clear with that, and that may give you a better insight at how the current method hurts. The thing is - many players use 1 of the 3 following building methods:

    1. Build the hull first, with estimations of how the internal volume will be to match your desired end mass. Build an interior, as detailed as you want it to be. Build the power grid, to the best efficiency for the internal volume. Fill the rest with systems and fine tune them to be the most efficient for the end mass. (PvE, aesthetic builders mostly, and myself)
    2. Build the interior rooms first. Build systems around it, until you match the stats you desired, and have a rough shape of what you want it to look. Build a hull around it, add detailing to exterior and interior to your liking. (PvP builders mostly)
    3. Don't give a **** about looks and build only systems, in the shape currently most efficient (or a brick) to match the stats you want with the least amount of blocks used. Interior only consists of a control room and access to it. Leave as is, to spare mass, or cover it with one or more layers of standards/advanced armor (PvP min/maxers and meta builders).

    In each case, by the time we start adding systems, we already had either a full interior or a roughly shaped interior in place, and the old system allowed us to wrap the system blocks around the rooms without messing up the aesthetics of the hull or the insides. Hell, my old faction had the tasks divided, we had great cosmetic builders who produced the hulls, and then some who were better with system distribution and fine tuning, who then installed them in the already built hull.

    I HUMBLY ASK THE COMMUNITY TO DESCRIBE WHICH BUILD PROCESS THEY USE, TO PROVIDE INSIGHT.

    Anyway, the current power system requires players to place the reactor system before anything else.
    That's the only way to do it, since you absolutely have to save the space for it and the stabilisers and chambers, since they all require a very specific placement and amount of blocks. Then you have to shape your interior around these already placed systems not to ruin their efficiency, while avoiding giant red beams across your rooms and corridors between the reactors ands stabs. There goes creative freedom. While we used to be able to adapt the systems to our hull and interior, now we have to adapt the hull and interior to our systems. That's the biggest problem with the new update, and that's why we've been begging for a review.
    Because this hurts both #1 and #2 building style. And you know which one it does NOT hurt at all? #3. The minmaxers who never gave a damn about how their ships looked inside or outside, only about the math. They will adapt the fastest, because they won't have issues to work around to still be able to produce aesthetically pleasing yet sufficiently performing vessels.
     
    Last edited: