This makes sense, though it could also be cool to have client-side options to enable viewing aspects which would normally be hidden by the current server rules. This could make it easier to build ships which also satisfy some rules not present on the current server (for wider use, if the build happens to have some flexibility), or to check out a downloaded blueprint and view it "as the builder intended" without having to change rules in a single-player game first.
So if, say, stabilizer streams are disabled normally but can be enabled by a rule, a player might want to place some stream nodes if they have a few blocks of extra space. Or similar thing with integrity, if the builder has plenty of space then they may want to adapt the reactor/shields/etc. shape to make the ship more adaptable for use on other servers.
Having the option(s) be available and dynamic in the in-game UI would be ideal, and of course would only affect the information which the local player can see and not the actual gameplay.
You could suggest a general flight-simulator within SM to test builds before purchasing them with original, adjusted and imported rules.
I'll leave it to you to do it if you like to.
I suggest, that the flight-simulator can also test different scenarios, which the server admin or SM-dock hosts for players, to make overall acceptable ships.
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.
I'll place my answer after the spoiler.
I think armour is a fun concepts, making that useless and relying on only shields as we have seen makes a boring battle, also I don't want any ship to 100% fine after a battle, more fun with some wear and tear aspects. Hell, would actually be great if shields protected and absorbed like 70% of damage, not all!
I'll place my answer after the spoiler.
I think it's important to add to this that defenses in general, not just shields, are outscaled by weapons
Generally I agree. While 5 Gunships focus-firing on 1/5 enemy Gunship, it may redistribute power for weapon perks/actives to get temporarily more shield perks/actives and die slower while the allied Gunships deal damage.
This would generally buff small ships in battles with big ships involved when they are about 1/5 (variable) the size of a big ship.
Smaller ships don't have time to re-adjust perks/actives and bigger ships would be less flexible with ship-global settings.
Yes it looks allright for a few builders.
But most of the people, including me, had troubles routing this stream. In the case that I needed to route a stream over 3 or more nodes, and there were multiple streams close to each other, it was unmanageable: On sector reload all the connections were randomly broken and all the tedious c-v work was lost.
[doublepost=1539606548,1539606339][/doublepost]
Please don't forget this part next time people talk about pvp mechanics. Fun > Meta. A percentage of players don't enjoy minmaxing and building hardcore pvp oriented builds (and it doesn't matter if they are majority or minority).
Own rules means booth: server side restrictions that get checked by the code, and own rules (like for example agreeing to only use cannon primary weapons and for example only 50m/s max ship thrust. - no matter what the server dictates).
Thanks for the idea! I have written my more refined idea above the Spoiler.
I also found the stream good, it is logical that systems need energy... streams...
I also integrated them into my builds and will be sad to see them go...
EPipes may buff a system, but distributing power over the magnetic field of a ship is nothing too implausible.
Alternatively e-pipes would make systems more power-drain resistent or enable manual e-distribution management - a priority system.
See? You present the problem calmly and don't resort to name calling, and actually give 'em time to mull things over, and stuff gets changed. The devs are listening. Only thing the ranting and the name calling does is make 'em dig their heels in and double down.
That said, kudos on being man enough to admit that things were potentially going in the wrong direction and backing down from some of it.
I'm very happy to see the server side rules that will allow actual server types to be set up without needing custom configs all over the place (especially if those conditions are editable on the fly in game). Couple of things I'd like to see as conditions:
- PC vs. NPC indicator. Specifically a flag that would allow the system to differentiate between something made by a player and something made by an NPC (such as pirates and NPC factions) so that different rules can be applied to just one group or the other.
- Increase defenses for/decrease damage against specific groups. For example, if someone wanted a PvE server with limitations on PvP, you could simply adjust how much damage is done to/taken by PC vessels when attacked by other PC vessels. Make it so that player weapons end up doing a scalable amount of damage to other players (so the server could set it to say 50% normal damage, or 10%, etc). On the flip side, a PvP server could be set up to decrease the damage done by NPCs to players.
- Time played should be a condition as well. That way the server could set up things like new player protections if they wanted. Like being able to say that if a player has less than X hours played on the server, increase their defenses or something so that they are harder to kill. Could give new players say 100% invincibility against other players (or even NPCs) for the first 24 hours played (and vice versa, make it so that new players can't attack other players for X hours to prevent griefers).
Yeah, I'm seeing TONS of great ways that these rules and conditions could be used to fine tune a server. I like 'em!
I'll also second/third/fourth the "Let us keep the stabilizer/reactor beams as decorative items". I also incorporated those into builds as decorative pieces, and I'd like to be able to keep them.
Very nice ideas!
I think about Increase/dec. defenses for PvP systems and rogue/company-leader chars if my idea of a family of characters per player is accepted (using account name as family/-tree name).
Schema and team. Thank you for really great solutions to some of the directional problems, to really great flexibility and an emphasis on FUN.
Starmade is a tricky game to bring together. With so many different ways to play, the most difficult thing is to balance the very diverse desires of many different players and still have the game get finished.
[...]
Some rules I would like to see:
• Shield effectiveness (a percentage of how much a shield can mitigate)
• Thrust to mass ratio (the relationship between ship mass and the effectiveness of thrust modules)
• Chain dock depth
• Weapon size to power requirement ratio (the relationship between the number of weapon blocks and the power draw for reloading those weapons
Thank you.
I wrote about vector shield below. Every emitter could use different "technology-settings" like being more efficient but let some dmg through or using additional power to mitigate dmg.
They would be additional to global shields, so we would have basic protection against stray attacks, an option to better protect us while we are on the run or for a frontal assault and to survive in a damaged but still valuable ship if the enemy attacks from different directions.
Cool, I'm looking toward to the updates. Will make my refiting of old ships much easier. Also, can you have someone update the tutorials and ADD more of them? Other than that I'm looking toward to the new update.
Will you make the list which part of which tutorial needs to be fixed?
ooh very big Schema post! So, what about chambers? Are they remaining? Seems a bit silly for things like jump drives and scanners
Power 2.0 is nice, but something which Carrier-ships can insert into the captains vessel to outfit it for the current mission would not work.
5x5x20 plugins would not take as much hangar space as a hollowed out ship.
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!
Yup. I want a "NeonSturm family/-tree" with a Cyborg-Hitler in place of StarTreks Borgs and he would mindfuck every enemy over the chat (according to RP rules) using the Cyborg-Zombie-Nazis characters as Church-Nazi-Bell-Ship-flying assasins to convert everyone.
At the same time, I could have a "Atlantria NeonSturm" character which acts as the Ambassador of "Deutschluft", "Deutscherde", "Deutschwasser" und "Deutschfeuer", which hate that Cyhit char created by Neonazis and try to add a bounty and kill it again and again and again ... only to see that they only got one of his followers.
So I would have many chars on a server which are named like "Cyhit NeonSturm" or "Cykos NeonSturm" or "Atria NeonSturm"
but still only one account. And you will likely be attacked by Nazi-Bells when you broke the contract with my "Orden der Verteidiger/Assasinen" organisation which acts together as Military supported by "Orden der Wächter/Polizisten".
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
Stupid SM-Computers because they cannot run Beam/Cannon/Missile software simultanously =P
I hope you have thought through the possibility of 1 heavy turret and 3 antimissile turrets, because it affects which tools for your rules you need to suggest.
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.
A good rule might be to buff Ships while they are in a friendly sector when there is a station around which has a certain upgrade.
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.
Perhaps we could use cannon-modules like cargo-crates?
The server could then auto-adjust the number of weapon blocks which fit inside such a weapon-system, as long as all weapon-modules, which work as cargo-crates for weapon-blocks only, can hold the desired ammount.
The user has then the option to remove some to save mass or spawn cost.
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. [...]
[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.
Yup. But I prefer to use the nearest shield-emitter to define how a shield works.
Perhaps you can even apply different rules for a turret depending on the purpose of a turret,
but I don't want to suggest anything which could create massive ammounts of lag.
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.
I have to disagree (at least in parts)!
Yes, bubble shields and integrity is not fun atm.
But how does the community use their veto right? How is it policed? Some may rage about imbalance of power.
You may have a look after my Spoiler where I describe how vector-shields tie into the new rule system.
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.
I'd like a 5-Star rating system. Even if you only give 1 Star, it took you time to give it.
The stars can also be replaced by following to make it easier-to-use:
- Lense+Star (yes, I noticed your post)
- Paper+Star (good enough to post)
- Thumb+Star (Like)
- Heart+Star (Love)
- 3 Hearts+Star (Adore a perfect post)
If you don't like a post/thread at all, don't do anything to boost it's occurence in the thread/forum.
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
I have written after the spoiler =)
So hey, serious question.
If we're going back to more "make it fun instead of chasing the pvp-meta around in circles" approach...
Can we get docked reactors back?
Things don't go flying off and causing collision checks in battle anymore, and frankly trying to re-engineer reactors is kind of a pain right now. Being able to hotswap reactors would be really nice.
I'll admit, I kinda miss making docked reactors. Not so much because it was how you got around the power cap, but because it just felt good engineering discreet systems that you loaded into place.
I fully agree to a degree that I want your post in my Spoiler!
I never understood why this capability remained in the game to being with. I don't think any other type of beam was able to hit and affect entities in its own docking chain. That power supply could only provided a means to defeat the game's designed power scaling and per-entity soft cap. Technically that would make it an exploit.
(I had a creative mining ship in progress which would use docked power as part of a split-hull design, but I'm not broken up about losing that possibility. Basically I can roll with or without the docked-power "feature", but I think its existence needs some explaining and evaluation for consistency with other aspects of the game.)
They encourage using multiple entities which is usually good to break down massive bricks or buff defending ships around a station.
Vs Bugs, I would make them so that they don't require a beam but use jump-drive-tech to instantly link a target object over your ships magnetic or shield field (plus GFX).
No to old power.
I'd just like to see docked reactors come back because I like modularity. I like being able to build discrete self contained systems and then swap them in and out. I honestly never liked the "just fill the hull with random systems" style of Starmade to begin with. Heh, hell, if I had my way it would require conduits to every system to supply them power. No more of this "energy magically transports itself through empty space" stuff.
Which means I actually like reactors and chambers, I just wish we had the ability to swap pieces in and out easily to better create multipurpose ships that can just trade out say a weapon's module or a reactor core to make hulls more general purpose instead of custom built.
Me too.
Make Systems with something like cargo-crates and fill them with modules - as long as enough fit into that space you can adjust numbers easily and still use conventional blocks to create your energy links.
<serious>
- Docked reactors were used to bypass the soft power cap. The soft power cap is gone.
- Docked reactors (and every other docked entity) could cause performance problems when undocking, primarily due to rail blocks being destroyed. Entities no longer undock when the rails are destroyed.
There may be other technical issues with allowing docked reactors that make it sensible to not have them in the game, but from a "fun" perspective it is annoying that power can only flow one way, making modular ships non-functional unless the root entity can have a large enough reactor for all other parts.
</serious>
Yes!
SO wrong. I had several experimental builds tear themselves apart because their own turrets would try to shoot things through their own hull. When damage beam was first introduced it was suicide to put on any but the most carefully engineered turrets... Eventually they made it so you couldn't damage back up your own chain, but even that was broken on things spit onto separate chains from the same main. SM's always had issues with intra-entity hitscan.
I dunno why. A simple hyperlink to the master-entity to check IDs of attacker and target by comparing the master-entitie's ID would do the trick of preventing friendly fire.
And since nothing undocks anymore when the docker is destroyed, mostly undocking on purpose should trigger the adjustments of hyperlinks of all sub-entities of the newly undocked entity.
Hard part about docked reactors is balancing it with chambers. If you have a 50k reactor with 100k worth of chambers, but 1/2 your power is going to your turrets, then you could instead reduce your reactor to 25k with 50k worth of chambers, then you could dock 25k of reactors on your turrets at the reduction of 1/2 your chamber cost/mass.
The chamber system would need a significant reimagining to work with modularity. The big problem now is that you can not predict the chamber layout of a mothership to design a modular turret that will contain placeholder chambers to cover the cost, and the mothership can not predict the number of turrets/docked fighters/etc for chamber buffering to make since.
The only solution I can think of that would make this possible and unexploitable would be to remove chambers and just make RP a built in feature of having a reactor, then just let you choose your features based 100% off of your RP pool. I suppose this could be a switch in the new admin system, but it would cause some significant market balancing issues to have the option to remove the cost of chambers 100% from the game.
I agree, especially with the problem of prediction, but generally you would use modularity to add missile defense to a frighter, add a small annoying combat drone or a you-die-with-me-warhead-launcher depending on server rules.
In case of the missile defense it may need more energy and a small included reactor would do the job, but the 1-reactor-rule forbidds it.
The devs haven't even really used their own chamber system in their own NPC ships yet. Once they do I expect it to suddenly stop being as PITA as it currently is.
The hope dies last =D
