StarMade - PvP & PvE balance, Perspective & Direction

[EricBlank]

Im glad to see the focus back on better all around gameplay instead of the problems with PvP exploits and meta. I do, however, hope that bugs that allow for exploitative behaviors are still being fixed.

And yeah, decorative effects like the power stream/nodes are definitely something i think we could use more of.

In fact, ive noticed a persistant failure of the beacon slabs and rod to emit the beacon effect, which made my awesome hotrod speederbike with headlights look funny because i had to use the full cube. Any chance we can het that little oversight looked into?

 

[Muffin_man17]

Can't wait for the next update, great work Schema!

 

[splatthecat]

I think this is a step in the right direction.

While on the idea of server rules, it would be fantastic to include some faction creation rules and the like. For example, servers could be set up with two opposing factions (kinda like the LvD idea) where players could choose a side (or be added to the side with fewest players?)

Being able to micro manage a server to that degree may help to make more and more diverse servers beyond build, survival, PvP (with or without written rules) and RP. Servers could be tailored to encompass two or more genres so you could have a true RP/PvP server where people build RP capable ships and be able to fight each other that way.

If done right, and by adapting many of the mechanics that already exist in game, THIS could be huge for ALL players.

Good Luck!

 

[MilitantCollective]

Might return for this.
Finally the ability to limit designs by server.

 

[aceface]

• Outputs per weapon computer

this i like a lot. also an important one could be numbers of weapon computers as well as separate values for numbers of weapons computers / outputs for turrets & main ship

also rule could have a mass/ block count function function. what i mean by this is for every x blocks you can have y turrets or z computers or a outputs etc etc

 

[EricBlank]

Few rules useful on servers i can think of:

• warhead blocks count as missiles for ams targetting purposes.
• Make sure weapons range is modifiable, so servers can set stations to have 3x weapons range on all weapons, so that sieging a station mandates you get within weapons range. This would help make non-hb stations viable assets.
• Make possible that firing on and hitting an object immediately gives it basic scan data for the attacker (visual lock at least for turrets so they can shoot back even if they cant lock) for x number of seconds.
• Setting that gives stations permanently online scanner even without scan duration chambers. Allow this to inherit other scan chambers like strength and power efficiency.

That should allow servers to give a more fair fight to undefended stations like for gate networks.

At the same time though, it should be possible to make stations with a warpgate linked to another station with a warpgate to be invulnerable, which works just as well.

 

[RoyalWolfe]

I have Nothing but positive things to say about this change in direction. I am glad you saw the problem with where the game was going overall. I feel many were a little shall we say Nonconstructive in voicing the problem but in a nut shell you finally put it into words.

"What is taking the fun away from the game?" Schema clearly you have asked this question. and the answer wasn't to decide what to take out but rather find out how to turn off the parts that you find a problem with. these game rules are a lot like game modes in other games. this is a good direction to let the players decide how they play rather than try to police how you intended them to do so. overall a good if not messy way of doing things.

I have a quick suggestion here on a Q.O.L feature, how about some way to find a console command in game. this would be something like the /help command in Mine Craft which let you quickly look up what a command is and does in the game without having to leave the game look it up yourself. and this can be easily set up to update itself every time you add new commands as adding them would already require the metrics to update this one command to look them up.

 

[Reilly Reese]

I have Nothing but positive things to say about this change in direction. I am glad you saw the problem with where the game was going overall. I feel many were a little shall we say Nonconstructive in voicing the problem but in a nut shell you finally put it into words.

"What is taking the fun away from the game?" Schema clearly you have asked this question. and the answer wasn't to decide what to take out but rather find out how to turn off the parts that you find a problem with. these game rules are a lot like game modes in other games. this is a good direction to let the players decide how they play rather than try to police how you intended them to do so. overall a good if not messy way of doing things.

I have a quick suggestion here on a Q.O.L feature, how about some way to find a console command in game. this would be something like the /help command in Mine Craft which let you quickly look up what a command is and does in the game without having to leave the game look it up yourself. and this can be easily set up to update itself every time you add new commands as adding them would already require the metrics to update this one command to look them up.

Pressing / and then adding any letter and pressing tab will show all commands that start with that letter. It's pretty helpful.

 

[fokko]

I wish there would be some compatibility between servers, as of now every server has other configs for cargo, chambers, turretcount, beamgroup count . And Servers offer different Ping and most importantly online Players. It would be really nice to be able to change to another server with all blueprints not needing to update them just for making them work or beeing usefull. I suggest a Option to disable Groups and Turrets , and not the computers or whole ship or thrusters. Reduction of dps Output should also be possible, without changing blocks. Shipsize.. maybe just render outside and dont render all inside.

 

[EricBlank]

Thadius Faran I legit didnt know that either, thanks!

One more thing i think is appropriate for the rulesets is being able to define faction point gains and costs for various things like

• Territory ownership, whether or not any players are online, number of players online, cost to host a homebase, number of faction points at which homebases, territory claims and property protection rights (like for ships) cease to function, etc.
• Option to hide location of homebases from non members or even members dependent on certain conditions.
• Separate territory claims from mining claims, so small factions that cant have territory can still get a mining bonus

Then some servers who are upset about, say, too many dormant one person factions or alt account faction territory claims can implement rules that make it more or less impossible for a single player faction who is only on for a few minutes a day to host territory, but game the numbers to accomidate a player that is consistently online (like i would never ever be...)

Also, i would vote to keep the bubble shields. I love the way they let me prioritize what is protected by shields and when. What id really like is to be able to reduce the radius of a shield as an option, or otherwise separate the shield radius from recharge (like split the recharger into a recharger and an expander), so i can have stronger localized shields if i wanted.

[Edit for more;]

• Turning rate penalties should be applicable
• Directional axis acceleration penalties (can restrict left-right, up-down or specifically forwards or backwards or only up, whatever)
• Turret turning rate penalties based on total mass
• Rail speed and rotation penalties
• Apply penalties based on # of active rails (where speed is not set to zero by a rail controller and at least one entity docked to them)
• Apply penalties not just on hard caps, but as functions of another property, like a turrets mass or a ships mass. With support for both linear and exponents, with softcaps and hardcaps applicable.

That will let servers make rulesets like, ships over x mass begin to lose acceleration on the sideways and vertical thrust axes of up to 95%, and lose rotation speed up to 90% on all axes. That would let servers deal with the gigantic capital ships that can outrun and outmanuever fighters less than 1% their size. Which is neither fun nor reasonable. Also lets servers deal with gigantic multi thousand mass turrets half the size of their parent behaving like a tiny ams turret just because youve got mass enhancers.

 

[OfficialCoding]

What id really like is to be able to reduce the radius of a shield as an option, or otherwise separate the shield radius from recharge (like split the recharger into a recharger and an expander), so i can have stronger localized shields if i wanted.

I think this was the original purpose of Bubble Shields, but that was kinda phased out in The Weapons Update. It would be nice to have a Shield Expander that increases or decreases the range - Smaller shields being stronger than expanded ones

 

[Zekester81]

I think you have made a good choice. Glad to hear you're about to move on to the universe update. I play SP when I have time, so really looking forward to it.

You should include a shield bubble overlap rule to allow shields to function within another shields bubble if desired. And possibly primary/secondary color options for the logic pipes in the server or game config menu, I mean, if I haven't just overlooked something thats already there.

 

[El_Poulpy]

I think that just removing integrity is a mistake. Integrity forced to concentrate systems giving ships vital points that could be targeted, a feature that could be useful in the future ( for instance target thruster to stop a cargo ship and board it). The only problem according to me was that the rules to keep integrity were to harsh. An other solution may be to replace integrity by grouping bonus to system in order to still encourage people to build grouped systems

Except that i agree with the direction you decided to go

 

[Zylofan]

Death to the purple worm!

I am all for this new direction!

 

[JackBeFlippen]

My Body is ready....

 

[spaceinvaderzim]

I really embrace the concept of giving server owners the ability to set up the strategy of handling certain builds according to their server concept.

Furthermore, I am glad to hear that the universe update is still in progress. I am pretty curious ...

 

[Sachys]

Yes to the remove shield bubbles and going back to the older shield system; it was far simpler and less annoying to set up.

No to the nerfing shields; if anything, shields need a buff, or weapons in general a nerf, because of how much disparity is between weapons and shielding right now.

Having been building a new station as a result of Schemas post, yours has summed up my #1 ongoing frustration with the game right now. I can deal with power being different (though its still seriously bad for stations), I can deal with learning chambers etc, but shield bubbles are utterly atrocious.

 

[Captain Fortius]

Removing integrity and conduits is the right decision.

I believe it'd be beneficial for future updates to let the community veto certain ideas, even before they are implemented. Work done in vain is the worst kind of work.


If integrity is going, bubble shields should be removed as well, and the shield system returned to the previous, global method.

-They limit creative freedom in a similar way to integrity.

-With integrity gone, they can be worked around by connecting distant groups of shield blocks
with an 1x1 "snake" that wiggles through pretty much anywhere.

-Thus bubble shields become nothing more than excess lines of code and unnecessary calculations.

 

[Dire Venom]

All salt has now been removed, could we please have our reactions back so we can give your posts love hearts:?
Way to go Schema, sounding very positive and it has certiantly encouraged me to dive back into the game.

 

[Skwidz]

I think this was the original purpose of Bubble Shields, but that was kinda phased out in The Weapons Update. It would be nice to have a Shield Expander that increases or decreases the range - Smaller shields being stronger than expanded ones

Something to modify the shape of the shield would be a lot better for smaller ships and when you don't need so much recharge. The reason why shield expansion devices don't exist yet is because Schema probably wants to have separate shield generators instead of one big one which is a good thing because your ship could be be taken out easier if it has only one generator running