Game Balance Suggestions

[Gasboy]

Thrust is a force, mass is an inertial value (resistance to force)
They ARE a valid ratio...

Weight is a force, determined by mass and gravity. The proper term is thrust to weight ratio.

 

[DrTarDIS]

Weight is a force, determined by mass and gravity. The proper term is thrust to weight ratio.

...ONLY in a gravitational reference frame. Starmade is inertial, not gravitational. (exception; close to planets, close to wormholes)

Thrust to Mass is the right terminology. Weight is a byproduct of mass and acceleration(AKA Gravity). If you're at an amusement park in a spinny cup ride, you have greater "weight" because of the acceleration frame of the rotational force (also known as spin gravity) you will feel this increased weight, but it's all based on your Mass in frame of acceleration. Starmade doesn't have that sort of a frame. They'll use T:W ratios in a flightsim game In a planet's acceleration frame and be "mostly right" (T:W changes at every altitude because Gravity is different at altitude from barycenter) but in any inertial engine MASS matters, Weight is a sub-unit derived and relatively useless.


TLDR: You're wrong. Learn to Physics.

 

[Gasboy]

...ONLY in a gravitational reference frame. Starmade is inertial, not gravitational. (exception; close to planets, close to wormholes)

Thrust to Mass is the right terminology. Weight is a byproduct of mass and acceleration(AKA Gravity). If you're at an amusement park in a spinny cup ride, you have greater "weight" because of the acceleration frame of the rotational force (also known as spin gravity) you will feel this increased weight, but it's all based on your Mass in frame of acceleration. Starmade doesn't have that sort of a frame. They'll use T:W ratios in a flightsim game In a planet's acceleration frame and be "mostly right" (T:W changes at every altitude because Gravity is different at altitude from barycenter) but in any inertial engine MASS matters, Weight is a sub-unit derived and relatively useless.


TLDR: You're wrong. Learn to Physics.

Sure, but you still need something for when you ARE around planets and wormholes. Possibly stars too, assuming they go that direction.

 

[Nebulon-B_Frigate_FTW]

...ONLY in a gravitational reference frame. Starmade is inertial, not gravitational. (exception; close to planets, close to wormholes)

Thrust to Mass is the right terminology. Weight is a byproduct of mass and acceleration(AKA Gravity). If you're at an amusement park in a spinny cup ride, you have greater "weight" because of the acceleration frame of the rotational force (also known as spin gravity) you will feel this increased weight, but it's all based on your Mass in frame of acceleration. Starmade doesn't have that sort of a frame. They'll use T:W ratios in a flightsim game In a planet's acceleration frame and be "mostly right" (T:W changes at every altitude because Gravity is different at altitude from barycenter) but in any inertial engine MASS matters, Weight is a sub-unit derived and relatively useless.


TLDR: You're wrong. Learn to Physics.

Even so, thrust/mass is a rate, not a ratio. Thrust to weight is a ratio, although only one that makes sense with a particular gravitational reference frame.

 

[DrTarDIS]

Even so, thrust/mass is a rate, not a ratio. Thrust to weight is a ratio, although only one that makes sense with a particular gravitational reference frame.

no, it's a ratio. How much force vs how much resistance. The end result turns into object's acceleration in m/s/s. The acceleration AFTER the ratio is a rate, so the SOLUTION to the division is a rate, but you're mixing terminology AFAICT.

Thrust is force, often measured in Newtons. Mass is resistance to force. Mass and weight are tangled up in each other in most people's heads because our brains evolved to dodge proto-lions on the savanah, not to intuitively understand the forces required to accelerate a cubic decimeter of water at 1m/s/s. That's a ratio. Perps L2Math before L2Physics?

 

[AlVonWolf]

-Undo the armor block weight changes.

Reason; Everything is too heavy now, while thruster capacity remained the same. Extra weight is also a problem for radar jammers and jump drives. Now, we need to build disproportionately large engines and reactors for ships that worked fine before.

Common sense: Armor plating can contribute to a large percent of a vehicle's weight, yes. But it's a lot of weight because you use a large amount; The metal itself is not heavier than the metal you use to build your engine (aka thruster blocks) or guns (aka weapon blocks)

Why am I right; All the replica ships I built are ponderously slow if I put thruster blocks only in the parts that are supposed to be the engine. Some of those ships were quite nimble, or at least capable of immense straight-line speeds. You can't say all other sci-fi sources were wrong.

before power changes, the Meta for a OP ship was a spaghetti ship with no hull. Meta after power update. borg cubes with no hull. Meta after weapon rework, still borg cubes with no hulls and added a beam stick. Armor doesnt even matter untill someone pulls a head out of their ass and make it where large ships with no hull explode just like straight line power ships do now.

 

[MacThule]

The meta was never spaghetti. Only a few ever appeared on public servers, and when polled no server admin said they had ever seen their server have more than a couple spaghetti ships appear for a brief period.

You say badly built ships should blow up when hit. That already was a thing. The community wailed for a year about how that was ruining the game and finally got it removed. As predicted, now we are right back to this, which sort of complaint is why Schema gave us integrity in the fist place...

If he implemented ships instantly blowing up if hit in an unarmored location, the players would rend their clothes and gnash their teeth yet again because "the exposed tip of my beam is now an achilles heel that kills my whole ship."

If just having "some" armor on a ship prevented explosion when systems were hit (which makes zero sense, but assuming), minmax players would simply put the minimum amount of armor blocks on, and regardless of the ratio half would complain "not enough armor required, head up ass!" And the other half would cry "too much armor required, game ruined!"

That aside, how would taking away player freedom by forcing armor prevent noob-cubes?

Easy enough to armor a cube.

 

[AlVonWolf]

The meta was never spaghetti. Only a few ever appeared on public servers, and when polled no server admin said they had ever seen their server have more than a couple spaghetti ships appear for a brief period.

You say badly built ships should blow up when hit. That already was a thing. The community wailed for a year about how that was ruining the game and finally got it removed. As predicted, now we are right back to this, which sort of complaint is why Schema gave us integrity in the fist place...

If he implemented ships instantly blowing up if hit in an unarmored location, the players would rend their clothes and gnash their teeth yet again because "the exposed tip of my beam is now an achilles heel that kills my whole ship."

If just having "some" armor on a ship prevented explosion when systems were hit (which makes zero sense, but assuming), minmax players would simply put the minimum amount of armor blocks on, and regardless of the ratio half would complain "not enough armor required, head up ass!" And the other half would cry "too much armor required, game ruined!"

That aside, how would taking away player freedom by forcing armor prevent noob-cubes?

Easy enough to armor a cube.

Not anywhere close to where i was coming from. your assumptions are cute, unreasonable and somewhat rude.
1. assumption: "he would implement ships instantly blowing up if hit in an unarmored location," really?
2. assumption: i have a problem with cube ships. NO. cube ships are fine. and why say its a nood-cubes. those cube ships are OP af.
3. assumption: im done. i didnt use enough words to get any idea across. but making assumptions and putting words in my mouth is rude.

But let me just go over what i was actually thinking about.
right now in the game minimax players dont use hull cause it serves little to no purpose. in fact. it makes their ship cost more and slows them down. So why use it at all. and i see their point .. weapons either have too high dps or hull need way more hp not sure what they could there, so im gonna move past that. Cause after 10-esh years of Alpha with rebalances, they still dont have it balanced

but let me give a example :

"i have a well made ship that looks nice, has many turrets, has 5-8 thick adv-hull, 5mil shields , rest of ship is filled with basic hull for more armor and so on. A minimax player with a ship that is about the same size of my ship, with no hull, far less mass, you know just a big cube with beam sticks and a few missiles on it. showed up and took down my 5mil shields and blew large holes in my ship's hull in a few secs. so i just jumped away cause i couldnt believe how dumb that was."

hull is very costly, but for pvp, you dont want it at all. and forcing minimax players to have to atleast add it to their ships would atleast bring them to the same playing field. even if its just large cube. still it works. and what do i mean by this.? they would have the same cost/loses chances as others. everything else in the game is fairly easy to get or really easy, where building up hull takes alot. making the hull cheaper wouldnt do anything on its own cause minimax players still wouldnt use it. hull is too weak with to many negatives . but what you could do is make it where largers ships have to have atleast some sort hull. im not sure how they would do it. there is so many ways to choose and i dont know witch would work best for thier vision.

But beside all that. it just makes sense, how many sifi ships do you see with no hull? none right. How about ships in RL? again NONE.
most anything in space need hull. A prob, ship or station wouldnt last without it.

 

[kiwispike]

Seems straight forward to me. Add peircing to the game. Systems have low HP don't they? So even a couple percent peircing would seriously push for using Hull.

I havn't been in a battle with the newer setup (except pirates ) so this may not work nowadays with the new armour rig.

So ignore if it wouldn't.

Even in startrek, with full shields, the ships still take Hull damage. Or system damage.

Though I think a 5mil shield is a problem in itself.

But everyone is different. I'd love to uncloak a small torpedo ship off the stern of a titan and take out its turrent while zipping around faster than its 5k dps turrent can track at close range.

Its just not feasible last time I checked. I need a huge ship to send out a 1mil torp and the shields would simply regen.

Turrent would sustain no damage.