Prerelease v0.200.250

    Joined
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages
    42
    Reaction score
    50
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    I certainly don't think fighters should be required to have an interior. An F-14 is 19m long and an X-wing is 12.5m long, and both of those have only a cockpit. Fighters should be small and deadly and dogfights should be fast and fun. You should be able to pack enough firepower into a 19m long craft to handily destroy another 19m craft in a few solid hits at high speed. Otherwise fighters are RP only.
     

    ZektorSK

    Poor boi from northern Hungary ^^
    Joined
    Aug 31, 2015
    Messages
    407
    Reaction score
    121
    • Legacy Citizen 2
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    I certainly don't think fighters should be required to have an interior. An F-14 is 19m long and an X-wing is 12.5m long, and both of those have only a cockpit. Fighters should be small and deadly and dogfights should be fast and fun. You should be able to pack enough firepower into a 19m long craft to handily destroy another 19m craft in a few solid hits at high speed. Otherwise fighters are RP only.
    Well, RP is the thing that keeps this game alive. I rarely see anyone playing this game by it's set rules.
     
    Joined
    Jul 22, 2013
    Messages
    76
    Reaction score
    27
    Well, RP is the thing that keeps this game alive. I rarely see anyone playing this game by it's set rules.
    that's a bullshit excuse for the current state of affairs, the opposite actually: goes to show that the current set of rules need to get fixed

    I'll just wait till "final release" in 2127, and I'll have my great grandkids show me how to change all the block configurations, since they'll likely have a good grasp of a few programming languages under their belts by the time they hit high school
    here's a controversial alternative: finish starmade with ship as it were, fixes to bobby ai and fleets. then go work for starmade 2. make us pay twice but release at least one finished game in our time frame!


    anyway, in a game based on block building, one of said blocks being a conduit, why in hell do we have a purple turd snaking on ships now?
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Jul 5, 2017
    Messages
    35
    Reaction score
    6
    Some Basic Sociology:

    The way people act is naturally distributed across random populations. This game's player base is a random population drawn from the same statistical pool of people as any other gaming community you would find on steam. Therefore, if this is the saltiest player base you've ever seen, then the extraneous variables are the game and the development team, not the player base.
    You're wrong. I've played plenty of games before where things broke, or development was slow. That's pretty much every game ever, if you're given access to a game that's actively in development. I've never seen a prerelease game with such whiny, entitled players.

    If anybody thought that an overhaul to the power system (which a lot of people seemed positive about, iirc) wasn't going to break their designs then they're foolish. That was basically the entire point of overhauling power, to get rid of the old spaghetti ships. Old complaints are basically the same as new complaints - that optimal design favors certain forms. That's going to happen no matter what, and my advice to the devs is basically the same as my advice to players: don't worry about it.

    The devs should continue making their game as they see fit, because you people are impossible to please. They might as well make a game they enjoy playing and call it a day. The players who find current builds unplayable are hopefully able to say "here's what i'd like to see and why" without being massive jerks. If you're a fan of human behavior studies then perhaps you can appreciate the difference between moving toward a positive vs moving away from a negative, in terms of successfully navigating toward a favorable outcome.

    Unless you were saying "the salty starmade players are dicks everywhere they go, and you just happen to see them all here because they happen to play this game" in which case i'll take your word for it.

    Not that everybody here is garbage, but i really have a hard time reading the forum because of all the useless junk i have to scroll past to get to anything useful. Including my own replies along this vein, so i'll give it a rest.
     

    Matt_Bradock

    The Shrink
    Joined
    Aug 4, 2013
    Messages
    798
    Reaction score
    464
    • Purchased!
    • Thinking Positive
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    You're wrong. I've played plenty of games before where things broke, or development was slow. That's pretty much every game ever, if you're given access to a game that's actively in development. I've never seen a prerelease game with such whiny, entitled players.

    If anybody thought that an overhaul to the power system (which a lot of people seemed positive about, iirc) wasn't going to break their designs then they're foolish. That was basically the entire point of overhauling power, to get rid of the old spaghetti ships. Old complaints are basically the same as new complaints - that optimal design favors certain forms. That's going to happen no matter what, and my advice to the devs is basically the same as my advice to players: don't worry about it.

    The devs should continue making their game as they see fit, because you people are impossible to please. They might as well make a game they enjoy playing and call it a day. The players who find current builds unplayable are hopefully able to say "here's what i'd like to see and why" without being massive jerks. If you're a fan of human behavior studies then perhaps you can appreciate the difference between moving toward a positive vs moving away from a negative, in terms of successfully navigating toward a favorable outcome.

    Unless you were saying "the salty starmade players are dicks everywhere they go, and you just happen to see them all here because they happen to play this game" in which case i'll take your word for it.

    Not that everybody here is garbage, but i really have a hard time reading the forum because of all the useless junk i have to scroll past to get to anything useful. Including my own replies along this vein, so i'll give it a rest.
    I don't know about the rest but MY main problem isn't simply the new system favoring certain forms; my problem is, that unlike with the previous system, this one hurts those who don't build "meta", e.g. actually care about their ships' looks, by limiting legitimate design options. Before structural integrity, stabilisers and only one active reactor group per ship allowed, people including me, were able to curve the systems, primarily the power lines and shields, around their interiors however they saw fit. You could make any hull with any interior layout functional, and you could build your hull and interior first, however you imagined it, without having to worry about where exactly you place the power generation and storage, the thrusters or the shields.
    Now, not only do you have to worry about distance between reactor and stabiliser groups, you also need to worry about placing the chambers, structural integrity of the shield and thruster groups (both recharge and cap, and both require single, dense blobs opposed to the old system where their layouts didn't matter) but also have to keep in mind the giant red beam of bullshit connecting your reactor and stabiliser, going across your entire ship. Meaning you'd best first take the new system into account when designing your ship shape which limits your options, then you have to place the systems first in order for them to be efficient, which limits your interior design options. No update in the history of this game ever came nearly as close to this one in terms of hurting creative freedom and limiting viable design options.
    And mind you, this is a game which chose creativity and unlimited options as its main appeal, also, even has the key slogan "Build anything, build everything" IN ITS OFFICIAL TRAILER
     
    Joined
    Jul 12, 2013
    Messages
    295
    Reaction score
    112
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    If anybody thought that an overhaul to the power system (which a lot of people seemed positive about, iirc) wasn't going to break their designs then they're foolish.
    I've barely heard anyone cry about it breaking their designs. The players that don't want this are mostly the vets that understand the imbalance P2.0 brings to the game and are standing up against that.

    That was basically the entire point of overhauling power, to get rid of the old spaghetti ships.
    No it wasn't.

    It was created to limit power output relative to ship size in order to reduce the amount of system blocks a ship could support.
     
    Joined
    Jan 28, 2015
    Messages
    492
    Reaction score
    149
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    I've barely heard anyone cry about it breaking their designs. The players that don't want this are mostly the vets that understand the imbalance P2.0 brings to the game and are standing up against that.
    Back in early 2015 we had another power update. It lowered the amount of power being generated by power modules. It also at the same time raised the power use of weapon modules. Result pretty much nothing designed up to that point could function anymore.

    I warned before they did this that if they did it. StarMades player base would collapse. Since that is the ultimate betrayal you can pull on people in a build game.

    The devs played this down. They still say it did not happen. But everyone EVERYONE I knew than and played with said fuck that and walked away from the game.

    Can you imagine spending months or more time on your designs, server setups "we had awesome custom servers then" only to have it trashed by the games creator. Because some muppets complained that a few people had build stuff in lets call it unexpected ways.

    You could not redesign your ships or stations because there was no way to pack the extra power needed into the small finished designs. It simple did not fit! Result everything after that got bigger! Yeeeee more blocks for the servers to choke on.

    Later those same devs upped the power generation limit from 1.000.000 sec to 2.000.000 a sec as a crude fix. But the weapon modules still needed more power then before so it still did not function.

    The alpha sticker is being abused as a reason that change any change is to be expected and accepted.

    NO

    You have to acknowledge the people that play and use your game. They are designers to! They invest hundreds of hours into there creations. Thousands of dollars in server upkeep! This is not some simple Tetris game.

    Back then we all toughed that StarMade was going to be the Minecraft killer. Because all those people would gaze up to the stars wonder about what is out there and play StarMade! Throw away that wooden sword and go and command your very own self build Starship! How wrong we were.

    And now they pull another one! Let just trash the existing system completely. Because again some muppets complain other people build stuff in unexpected ways.

    NO

    Any change must work seamlessly, flawlessly and perfectly with whatever has been designed up to that point. It simple must! That is your obligation as a game designer of a build game like this.
     
    Joined
    Jul 12, 2013
    Messages
    295
    Reaction score
    112
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    I can't speak for everyone but if it will make the game better I will gladly rework my designs.

    If they develop a balanced power system, broken ship designs would never come close to being this widespread.
     
    Joined
    Jan 28, 2015
    Messages
    492
    Reaction score
    149
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    if it will make the game better I will gladly rework my designs.
    It will not make the game better. That to is an empty excuse to kill off all discussion and just command everyone to shut up and accept or walk away. What ever change comes because it will be better after the change. Schema for President and the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

    People who know a few things about how StarMade works on the inside know that Power 2.0 will not do or bring the things as they are for seen.

    If they develop a balanced power system, broken ship designs would never come close to being this widespread.
    There will always be broken ship designs. As far as you can even speak of broken designs since all were build and work within the confines of the StarMade universe.

    Server admins can place rules that can tell people how to build or play in a more regulated way. But Schema should design for all. There is no right or wrong way in StarMade.

    And yes past choices do add up and place limits or effect the future choices in this game development because they must be compatible with that that came before it.

    That is my personal opinion. I do respect yours but also respectfully choose to disagree with it.
     
    Joined
    Jul 12, 2013
    Messages
    295
    Reaction score
    112
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    I can't think of any change, be it additional mechanics or simple numbers tweeking, that wouldn't require ships to be updated by the players. The only way to prevent broken ships would be to halt starmade's development. Which I don't believe your advocating.
     
    Joined
    Jan 29, 2015
    Messages
    191
    Reaction score
    284
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    It will not make the game better. That to is an empty excuse to kill off all discussion and just command everyone to shut up and accept or walk away.
    I said this from the moment a new power update was considered.. That all they would be doing is switching out one set of power issues for another set that will not only set them back development wise (by a lot). But ruin practically everything up to this point. Except that this new system will be the final nail in the player base simply because the devs have no real set plan or foresight with their constant changing of core mechanics.. Everything changes at whim with these people and has since the games inception, when what is really needed is to simply settle with a certain mechanic and then refine, refine, refine... Its the lack of faith in the devs abilities to plan and execute in which has destroyed this games once immense potential. Shame to have witnessed it all before i finally realized it was too late.. But i'm off to Empyrion where i have been for the last 6 months (who has achieved immense amounts of game play development) while these devs have achieved little to nothing of worth.

    I really hope Schine figures it all out.. But if the last year is anything to go by.. Then i suspect they have lost their motivation and way now that they spent so much time changing mechanics only to make the game worse for wear. When they should have been focusing on gameplay, story and or player features all along..
     

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,105
    Reaction score
    1,222
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    If anybody thought that an overhaul to the power system (which a lot of people seemed positive about, iirc) wasn't going to break their designs then they're foolish.
    No one thought a power overhaul wasn't going to break their system designs. The problem comes from the fact that it breaks many HULL designs. A hull meaning the semi-decorative outer layer of a ship that all the systems and thicker armor are placed into to make it into a real ship. NO OTHER UPDATE has ever broken people's aesthetic designs. Up until 2.0 with its stabilizer distances, never before has an update made anyone's aesthetic choices into garbage. Yes, some shapes have and always will be slightly favorable due to simple geometry, but it never really mattered much in actual play.

    That was basically the entire point of overhauling power, to get rid of the old spaghetti ships.
    No, it fucking wasn't. Schine didn't even think spaghetti ships were even a problem until most of the PvP community managed to convince them after weeks of trying to tell them this. And power 2.0? It doesn't even fix spaghetti! A completely different system, the structural integrity check, was used to fix it.

    The point of power 2.0 was to do three things.
    1) Simplify ship design and make it easier to learn
    2) Base ship "power" off of its size (which Schine thinks should mean dimensions in a single direction)
    3) Make ships have less dense systems so that interiors are not "wasted space."

    Furthermore, we are not bitching about our spaghetti ships getting removed from the meta, which YOU seem to be implying. Spaghetti was a looming danger that no one ever used in our small community due to gentleman's agreement. Our concerns were with what would happen if they were not fixed and the community grew larger and "gentleman's agreements" would no longer hold water. We are glad the devs have tried to remove them.

    We flew normal ships 99% of the time. These are the ships we are complaining about being made useless. PvP factions that have been accumulating hull designs for, in some cases, half a decade, are now being forced to choose whether to use a now extremely unoptimal design and risk losing their battles and wars, or to switch to the new meta hull designs of needles and dumbbells. We are complaining because most of us care both about aesthetic design and system design, and we see this update as damaging to BOTH.

    Old complaints are basically the same as new complaints - that optimal design favors certain forms.
    Old complaints- Newbs and noobs complaining that doomcubes are sooper op guiz!!!! I got killed by one once!!1!

    New complaints- Experienced PvPers desperately trying to tell you that you are going to break the game for anyone who cares about aesthetics.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: The Judge
    Joined
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages
    23
    Reaction score
    1
    I think they might need to take in some core design framework like mass and e/s energy being the only limits to players creations.
    Power update needs to be redesigned it seems like a small group of hardcore players had way to much influence in the process.
    As a player in a beta game I expect my ships to break, I expect new mechanics but I expect to be able to rebuild similar ships that fulfill all the same roles and have similar sizes and functions. This new power update makes early game milk run and gunship size support ships impossible and add hours of grinding to the game. The ai sized salvagers are unrealistic for players to be using, most early gamers I know use support ships at least 8x that that mining head size and are half as long.
    People don't decorate a lot early game for obvious reasons.
     
    Joined
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages
    15
    Reaction score
    1
    • Legacy Citizen 2
    • Legacy Citizen
    You're wrong. I've played plenty of games before where things broke, or development was slow. That's pretty much every game ever, if you're given access to a game that's actively in development. I've never seen a prerelease game with such whiny, entitled players.

    If anybody thought that an overhaul to the power system (which a lot of people seemed positive about, iirc) wasn't going to break their designs then they're foolish. That was basically the entire point of overhauling power, to get rid of the old spaghetti ships. Old complaints are basically the same as new complaints - that optimal design favors certain forms. That's going to happen no matter what, and my advice to the devs is basically the same as my advice to players: don't worry about it.

    The devs should continue making their game as they see fit, because you people are impossible to please. They might as well make a game they enjoy playing and call it a day. The players who find current builds unplayable are hopefully able to say "here's what i'd like to see and why" without being massive jerks. If you're a fan of human behavior studies then perhaps you can appreciate the difference between moving toward a positive vs moving away from a negative, in terms of successfully navigating toward a favorable outcome.

    Unless you were saying "the salty starmade players are dicks everywhere they go, and you just happen to see them all here because they happen to play this game" in which case i'll take your word for it.

    Not that everybody here is garbage, but i really have a hard time reading the forum because of all the useless junk i have to scroll past to get to anything useful. Including my own replies along this vein, so i'll give it a rest.
    Wrong, plain and simple. I've been here awhile, and the meta was NEVER restricted to a single shape. EVER. And we've been asking nicely for stabilizer removal for awhile now, and they just keep trying to rework it which made it even worse. So yes, a large number of people who enjoy the game and want it to succeed are getting angry and are going to vent their frustration until the problem is fixed or we get fed up and leave.
     
    Joined
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages
    42
    Reaction score
    50
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    In real life, you can't fill an aircraft carrier with lawnmower engines to make it go faster. And bigger engines cost more than an equivalent power sum of smaller engines.

    If the goal the devs are trying to accomplish is trying to prevent players from filling every meter of their ship with power generation (where power generation is used as the limiting factor for systems), maybe the answer could be 3 types of reactor blocks - like the 3 types of armor:

    Basic reactor blocks have the highest output per block and the lowest power cap - maybe 20K. Only one reactor at a time per ship.

    Standard reactor blocks have lower output per block and a higher power generation cap - maybe 200K. These blocks will cost more than basic blocks and it will take a larger number of blocks to hit the cap.

    Advanced reactor blocks have lower power output per block than standard blocks and cost more per block, but have a higher power cap - maybe 2mil.​

    Filling the rest of the space in your ship with diminishing return blocks won't be an option - it's a hard cap. Filling it with systems won't make sense because energy is the limiting factor. Designers are unconstrained by forced dimensions. Ships requiring more than 2mil energy have to wait for Starmade 2.0.

    ???
     

    Valiant70

    That crazy cyborg
    Joined
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages
    2,189
    Reaction score
    1,167
    • Thinking Positive
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    What is the size limit for non-stabilized reactors? I like complexity and this new update looks like it adds lots of deapth to ship building, but will new players be able to build starting ships at "Reactor 101" before having to jump in the deep end?
    Keep adding blocks until you drop below 25% stability. You'll find out. IDK what it is in the current build.
     
    Joined
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages
    42
    Reaction score
    50
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    In real life, you can't fill an aircraft carrier with lawnmower engines to make it go faster. And bigger engines cost more than an equivalent power sum of smaller engines.

    If the goal the devs are trying to accomplish is trying to prevent players from filling every meter of their ship with power generation (where power generation is used as the limiting factor for systems), maybe the answer could be 3 types of reactor blocks - like the 3 types of armor:

    Basic reactor blocks have the highest output per block and the lowest power cap - maybe 20K. Only one reactor at a time per ship.

    Standard reactor blocks have lower output per block and a higher power generation cap - maybe 200K. These blocks will cost more than basic blocks and it will take a larger number of blocks to hit the cap.

    Advanced reactor blocks have lower power output per block than standard blocks and cost more per block, but have a higher power cap - maybe 2mil.​

    Filling the rest of the space in your ship with diminishing return blocks won't be an option - it's a hard cap. Filling it with systems won't make sense because energy is the limiting factor. Designers are unconstrained by forced dimensions. Ships requiring more than 2mil energy have to wait for Starmade 2.0.

    ???
    The obvious flaw with this is that some people will build 2mil cap ships with guns and no interior. But so long as they have no advantage over people who actually put time into designing interiors, is that a bad thing?

    The thing a hard cap prevents is planet-sized blobs filled with 25e/s blocks just because bigger always wins.
     

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,105
    Reaction score
    1,222
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    In real life, you can't fill an aircraft carrier with lawnmower engines to make it go faster. And bigger engines cost more than an equivalent power sum of smaller engines.

    If the goal the devs are trying to accomplish is trying to prevent players from filling every meter of their ship with power generation (where power generation is used as the limiting factor for systems), maybe the answer could be 3 types of reactor blocks - like the 3 types of armor:

    Basic reactor blocks have the highest output per block and the lowest power cap - maybe 20K. Only one reactor at a time per ship.

    Standard reactor blocks have lower output per block and a higher power generation cap - maybe 200K. These blocks will cost more than basic blocks and it will take a larger number of blocks to hit the cap.

    Advanced reactor blocks have lower power output per block than standard blocks and cost more per block, but have a higher power cap - maybe 2mil.​

    Filling the rest of the space in your ship with diminishing return blocks won't be an option - it's a hard cap. Filling it with systems won't make sense because energy is the limiting factor. Designers are unconstrained by forced dimensions. Ships requiring more than 2mil energy have to wait for Starmade 2.0.

    ???
    You may think you're doing something to help with performance by putting a hardcap on ships, but you're actually making things worse. 1 50k mass ship causes a lot less lag than 5 10k mass ships. Non-linear systems in Starmade correlate directly with lag.
    [doublepost=1514684574,1514684488][/doublepost]
    just because bigger always wins.
    Oh, also, bigger doesn't always win. Bigger is generally worse even with pure linear systems just on a basis of how many targets and how many places a number of ships can be at one time.

    EDIT- A quote from my friend Comr4de on the matter
    "between two forces of equal weight, the one made up of more ships is more efficient. Say that you have 2 100k mass ships vs 10 20k mass ships. if the force of smaller ships takes out one of the larger vessels, that force has lost 50% of its firepower, whereas the loss of one ship in the other fleet is only a loss of 10%"
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: Magrim