The Quickfire Initiative: Rebalancing StarMade.

[Ithirahad]

No I have 100%, the recharge is fine but modules are using more power.

I think this is a really bad idea to increase power requirement of rechargers. Just reduce how much recharge a block gives and you'll make regen tanks less effective. The same outcome will happen but shields aren't needed to be refitted. These are the kind of things I'm talking about in my previous post.

IIRC we did this initially, but the shield systems ended up HUGE.
[doublepost=1565709495,1565709209][/doublepost]

Well just to getr in on this thrusters discussion...
I'll let the PICs speak for what the configs changes actually do...

1. BossHossRaider from here: https://starmadedock.net/content/boss-hoss-raider.7753/
Mass & top speed on current vanilla settings.
View attachment 54409 View attachment 54410

2. New BossHossRaider stats on Quickfire :
It even has a few blocks more.
View attachment 54411

First thoughts:
I thought the thruster changes would slow "bigger ships" down, but BossHossRaider is now cruising like a demon... I am not exactly sure how to feel about the proposed changes...
Given BossHossRaider is not very large @150 meters, but it's no fighter class.
It would seem reducing mass equaling bigger ships (up to what mass?) go faster maybe counter productive.

7k mass isn't really a "bigger ship." By our reckoning (intended to be in line with typical ship sizes on servers, in major factions, etc.), those start at like 30-50k. That being said, if you upgraded your armor or shields you still might not have enough power for that high of a TWR. It's a tradeoff. If shield capacity still isn't worth the trade/necessary additional shield rechargers to deal with upkeep, or if armor is a bit too light to weigh down ships at that scale by any amount, we might need to adjust that. (I was messing with armor on tiny ships last night though, and for good all-around coverage it starts to get heavy)

Considering the proposed 16km default sector size and all this stuff I am starting to wonder, is this all geared towards MP servers or SP?
100k ships zipping around in 16km sectors on MP servers sounds equiptment heavy. :poop:

Larger sectors don't directly cause performance issues, if that's what you mean. It actually gets worse with small sectors because sector loading/unloading happens more. The only time larger sectors are worse is if people start packing tons of entities into sectors, which doesn't actually happen much. Usually the amount of stuff per sector stays pretty much the same regardless of sector size, unless the sectors are really tiny (which causes playability issues), so the load on servers remains around constant. The only difference is that with larger sectors you get less of the annoying sector transitions in combat, but flying around takes longer. 16km is a good balance between those.

 

[aceface]

IIRC we did this initially, but the shield systems ended up HUGE.

they arent "huge" now? they seem perfectly okay in size now? the only difference is theyll be less effective if you change the recharge value, the size of rechargers will obviously be the same. i really dont see the point of this.

 

[Ithirahad]

they arent "huge" now? they seem perfectly okay in size now? the only difference is theyll be less effective if you change the recharge value, the size of rechargers will obviously be the same. i really dont see the point of this.

Without stabilizer constraints you have a lot more freedom with how large or small you want your reactor relative to your hull. At the larger end, shield systems got pretty massive.

 

[aceface]

Without stabilizer constraints you have a lot more freedom with how large or small you want your reactor relative to your hull. At the larger end, shield systems got pretty massive.

ive built 100k + ships and see no problems with the relative size of shields to reactors to weapons or vice versa. this is all a "what feels best issue".

what i do see can be improved are how effective weapons and recharge, so I agree with you strongly on this one. I personally think regen tanking is boring because theres no chance to get through the shield if you have less dps no matter what you do. I also have a problem with how much damage in general is able to be dealt and how fights can end really fast. This is all solved by dampening values that dont have to do with power like weapons damage and shield recharge --> no refits required.

but then again, if you feel that the size of weapons and shields is not right, then its your decision. But I see it as completely unecessary and a non issue just creating tedium. I thought the point of power 2.0 is so that you dont have to refit and the values are all changed in the reactor/chamber system itself instead of having to adjust the mass of everything else to abide to the passive effect ratios. now Ill just make my reactor bigger (and also chambers) and have to find a new sweet spot ratio between shields/weapons/power.

 

[Kommisar]

Hello there.

So this is my first time posting on here but I have been casually been playing Starmade on single player on and off for quite a long time. With that said I have been playing around with the current Quickfire Config files before the official integration into the full game … soonish.

While I certainly do like some of what has been changed <Cough>Stabiliser distance<Cough>Chamber size<Cough> …I also … have some issues with others.

Needless to say all of my current ships have been hit hard by most of the changes, with the only survivor to not have a meltdown being my 700+ length slow lumbering Colony ship equipped and lvl 40 reactor. (And a 300+ Stabilisation buffer with Quickfire.)

My poor, poor fighters however are just simply broken. (Fighters being a relative term in Starmade I know, one man's fighter is another mans cruiser) So I can see what Aceface is talking about when after this update goes live there will be a lot of refits needed for every ship. And from first impressions the first solution I can see is just to build a bigger reactor and strip out any unneeded stabilisers and thrusters, which honestly is going to leave me with a mostly empty shell until the sweet spot is found.

So while I am looking forward to any updates this game receives, I am not looking forward to refitting my fighters.

 

[Tsnonak]

Well, to keep it simple, I have no interest to discuss back and forth about something, which by the sound of it, has already been given the green light, bickering about it here will not change much, not much happening here anyway...
but I will share my impression anyways...

These changes are pretty heavy hard, once again breaking everything built since Power / Weapons 2.0 hit release.
Balancing the Weapons is one thing, but a complete systems overhaul in the name of fixing / balancing PVP ?(rings bells for me).

I had hoped to see some real improvements but could not see any real advantages over the current systems.
Basically this Config seems to consist mainly of "tradeoffs", a giant ractor/stab combo and less of everything else while super sucking your power generation dry and some weapon twerking.

I was very sad to hear no actual "balancing" of effects in the block config have been done:

<EffectArmor>
<Heat>0.0</Heat>
<Kinetic>0.0</Kinetic>
<EM>0.0</EM>
</EffectArmor>

I have personally tested these with good results, they have a significant "effect" on balance.
Many of the current weapon problems can be balanced with these while generating strategy, live and learn or die trying.
Many of the current problems affecting both PVE and PVP game play have nothing to do with unbalanced configs, AI for example is a major problem for both.

Personally I find much of the "reasoning" from Quickfire today (here and ingame) to be rather distractive, presumtious, subjective and without any real good reasons for doing so. It really just begs the question...

Why, what is it all about, has anyone outside of Quickfire even tested this?

I'll just leave it here, with a couple Quotes...

Sounds like a one sided debate was had without any real opposition or alternative views discussed.

this is all a "what feels best issue".
just creating tedium.

usually is...

P.S. sorry @ Quickfire, just my impression... and good building to everyone with all the needed new assets... I am out of this debate.

Edit: forgot sumtin: they say, "its all in a name"...
Quick fire, that sure is an interesting name, I think that is exactly what is going to break out if this hits vanilla!

 

[DukeofRealms]

Well, to keep it simple, I have no interest to discuss back and forth about something, which by the sound of it, has already been given the green light, bickering about it here will not change much, not much happening here anyway...

These changes are going into a dev build for testing and public feedback... if you're not going to give feedback because we're putting them into a vanilla dev build, that seems counter-intuitive no?

Why, what is it all about, has anyone outside of Quickfire even tested this?

The thing about Quickfire is that it's a community project, anyone has been free to contribute. Additionally, anyone has been free to make their own config suggestions.

 

[MrGrey1]

The current convention in PvP is to compare with mass. If you want to compare using power, or reactor level, you can still do that with linear levels and if anything it will be more accurate. The optimization zones are just too restrictive to preserve that mechanic, and the in-betweens don't offer "tactical options" - just pitfalls for players.

The problem with the clique.
It is demonstrably a better way to do something but it's offhandedly disregarded because everyone's doing it another way...everyone in the circle is following the ass in front of them and they refuse to change for fear of falling out of the clique... round and round you go.

The current convention can go blow! Mass is a ridiculous way of measuring a ships performance. Mass is based on POWER as is every other variable in a ship. Power is the first system put down. Everything else depends on power. Power is the real measure of a ship and it's effectiveness and efficiency for task. When power is based on mass come talk to me and I'll change my tune. You know, basing my perspective as much as I can in the numbers and logic of it I'll be perfectly happy to change my opinion if /when power is made dependent on mass... (pretty sure you could make a mathematical proof that power was a superior way to measure performance as one is fundamentally based on the other? /shrug.)

"The optimization zones are just too restrictive to preserve that mechanic, and the in-betweens don't offer "tactical options" - just pitfalls for players."

Opinion. I disagree completely for reasons I have stated as clearly as I can. You guys are homogenizing the system and in the process you are removing gameplay and tactical options for the sake of homogenizing PvP when in reality the changes that are being made to the stabilizers doesn't effect PvP at all. You've disregarded my entire perspective... anyone want to actually discuss what I've said without disregard would be great? They are sincere concerns from a guy who has a lot of building experience and bobby wars practice in this game.

Homogenizing the reactors is bad.

• You are removing a built in classification system.
• You are removing variability in ship design and purpose.
• You are removing tactical options.
• You are reducing the chance of two random forces coming together and having ships of similar sizes.
• You are removing a BUILT IN CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM. (You MUST have classification if you are to have competition!)

Removing the stabilizers is bad.

• You are removing one of, if not THE last engineering challenge left in the systems by removing stabilizers and reactor planes.
• It's not that difficult. Don't lie.
  
• You are removing an element that gives players a rough idea of the power of ship they're up against.
• You're removing any and all restrictions on building flying brick reactors.
• You're taking the fun out of building the systems.

This is supposedly so ships are all 'equivalent in power V mass.'

This does not fly if.

• By definition you can not have competition without certain ground rules.
  
• A fair fight is an equal fight.
• An equal fight is judged on the power output of each ship because that is the only way to fairly compare them.
  
• Ships of the same power will have the same handicap.
  
• Ships of different power do not need to be compared as they are in different classes.

All engines have sweet spots in the ratio of power : mass : efficiency. That's called physics.
The benefits of having sweet spots in the reactor ratios FAR OUT WAY the negatives.

 

[Tsnonak]

These changes are going into a dev build for testing and public feedback... if you're not going to give feedback because we're putting them into a vanilla dev build, that seems counter-intuitive no?

My last post is "feedback", compact and to the point.
It highlights the overall direction of Quickfire's Config and points out the most imortant factors:

1. A crucial "balance" component is not even adressed; the Blockconfig-Effects.

2. In its current state is simply a "trade-off": huge reactor/stab combo and less everything else with some weapon twerking.

3.It breaks everything all over again, without any serious, justifiable reasons or advantages aside from: "what feels best" according to Quickfire (yes I have pics of the ingame public convo).

It clearly states my impression, concerns, and my view regarding breaking all assets built since the last major updates.
It does not anywhere state that I will not provide feedback, but simply that I will not partake in a pointless debate, argueing about "what feels best".

The thing about Quickfire is that it's a community project, anyone has been free to contribute. Additionally, anyone has been free to make their own config suggestions.

The community...

As a public MP server administrator, the "community" is important to me.
I found it vital to collect information about StarMade's Alpha-status, bugs and server stability issues and "community" in order to be a good Admin. I have a lot of free time and this allowed me to do so over the last year, I have interacted with the community here, on Discord and the server. This has helped "form a picture" of what has been going on here...

This forum is living proof of (too many) ill fated suggestions and mislead direction of developement in the battle against PVP-Exploits.

This sums it up well, seems there are other "community" members that have also noticed it...

The problem with the clique.
It is demonstrably a better way to do something but it's offhandedly disregarded because everyone's doing it another way...everyone in the circle is following the ass in front of them and they refuse to change for fear of falling out of the clique... round and round you go.

Anyone not fitting in, is spammed out of existence.
It reminds me of Eve Online Metagaming spam-tactics.
It is no secret that the Quickfire small group of selected players all belong to the same "clique".
This is why I no longer partake in Discord, and am finding it progressively useless to partake /debate here in the forum.

I feel some of the Quickfire changes are good, but also some really bad, like the simple tradeoff mentioned above, it does not "balance" anything, it changes the system numbers in an extreme way, which could be done in a much less "invasive" way. The current systems are in my opinion fine, they just need balancing.
I have done "some" tests with effect-configs and also use custom stabilizer config on the LK server, working pretty darn good so far.

Last I heard Quickfire was mostly stalled out, now this sudden upwind out of the blue...
The Quickfire Balance-Config, coming to a "Dev-Build" near you in a couple weeks... where did this suddenly come from?

It is good to see the community actively take part, but um, not much left, and like, there is more to the community than just Quickfire.


Apologies if I upset some... that is not my intention, I have an objective / neutral stand and cannot help it, if it upsets anyone.

 

[SchnellBier]

The current convention can go blow! Mass is a ridiculous way of measuring a ships performance. Mass is based on POWER as is every other variable in a ship. Power is the first system put down. Everything else depends on power. Power is the real measure of a ship and it's effectiveness and efficiency for task. When power is based on mass come talk to me and I'll change my tune. You know, basing my perspective as much as I can in the numbers and logic of it I'll be perfectly happy to change my opinion if /when power is made dependent on mass... (pretty sure you could make a mathematical proof that power was a superior way to measure performance as one is fundamentally based on the other? /shrug.)

The ship mass in the QF config is now mostly tied to systems so in a way your power is a huge part of the mass. Armor is a lot lighter so you can easily use a lot more to protect yourself. If your ship has a high mass you can expect one of 2 things:
1. The ship has a ton if systems which will also mean it needs a lot of power. -> high reactor size (which sounds exactly like what you want)
2. The ship is basically an armor tank.
In conclusion if not one of the ships has a ridiculous amount of armor they are very much comparable by mass since it translates well into system amount. If you only compare by power you will deliberately ignore the armor used on the ship which will change the defensive capabilities of the ship immensely.

"The optimization zones are just too restrictive to preserve that mechanic, and the in-betweens don't offer "tactical options" - just pitfalls for players."

Opinion. I disagree completely for reasons I have stated as clearly as I can. You guys are homogenizing the system and in the process you are removing gameplay and tactical options for the sake of homogenizing PvP when in reality the changes that are being made to the stabilizers doesn't effect PvP at all. You've disregarded my entire perspective... anyone want to actually discuss what I've said without disregard would be great? They are sincere concerns from a guy who has a lot of building experience and bobby wars practice in this game.

Homogenizing the reactors is bad.

• You are removing a built in classification system.
• You are removing variability in ship design and purpose.
• You are removing tactical options.
• You are reducing the chance of two random forces coming together and having ships of similar sizes.
• You are removing a BUILT IN CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM. (You MUST have classification if you are to have competition!)

There is no build in classification system. The system as it exists in vanilla simply forces people to build reactors a certain size to not have an excessive amount of useless mass. You need to build there to make your ships faster. Being fast is the best defense in vanilla. So there was no other way than using these few mass effective levels and go to x99 of the next level. There were no options to do anything else. The pitfalls Ith mentioned for new players are not to use these few reactor sizes and get a major disadvantage without realizing it.

The linear reactor levels do exactly one thing. Equalize the levels. so if someone has a level 40 reactor you know exactly how much power his ship has. Also there won't be any unreasonable mass spikes due to suddenly expanding chamber sizes anymore. The building of ships gets instantly a lot more predictable which helps everyone.

Does that sound bad to you? Not to me.
Does this prevent you to use your own classification system based on reactor levels? No it doesn't.

You can simply use you own system that uses reactor level ranges as classes.
1-2: Drones
3-5: Fighters
6-10: Heavy Fighers
...
100-150: Frigates
...
I think you get the idea. You're trying to force a system on players that was never intended to be a system to begin with.

Removing the stabilizers is bad.

• You are removing one of, if not THE last engineering challenge left in the systems by removing stabilizers and reactor planes.
• It's not that difficult. Don't lie.
  
• You are removing an element that gives players a rough idea of the power of ship they're up against.
• You're removing any and all restrictions on building flying brick reactors.
• You're taking the fun out of building the systems.

First of all we don't remove stabilizers we just remove the distance attached to them. Secondly there is no engineering challenge. What you think is a challenge is just rebuilding the same setup over and over again. This will be really obvious if you take the mass effective steps of the reactor level system into consideration. In the current vanilla system there are like 4 or 5 different reactor sizes and once you've build them you can copy/paste them over and over again since there is not a single reason to use a different one.

The only thing the stabilizer setup does is limit creative players by forcing them to integrate a stick into their ship. It does nothing for balance it does nothing for gameplay.

Players can still estimate the power of ships based on ship volume which is probably easier than estimating the power of a small thin stick (Because that's how effective ships with stabilzer distance enabled look like.).

Yes we're removing restrictions because these restrictions hit the wrong kind of players. PvP players don't care about them, they're building their vertical sticks no matter how high you turn up the stabilizer distance. The creative builders have to encorporate them into their ships and struggle to make them look nice. This change will not make ships uglier. It will make it possible to build pretty high performance ships again so people don't have to hard choose between design and performance.

I hope this will give you some insight into this topic and why we're convinced that these steps are necessary.

 

[Scypio]

Wew, a lot of reading.

Concerning refitting our ships. I don't like refitting everything, like everyone else, but at some point it has to be a thing. For the sake of the game. For example power consumption has been linearized for a lot of systems. To put some numbers :
- each reactor blocks can produce 100 e/sec
- each weapon blocks draw 100 e/sec
- each shield recharger draw 50 e/sec
- each thruster module draw 25 e/sec
I think your are starting to understand why theses numbers have been chosen. They are very friendly to newcomers and easy to keep in mind for keeping track of power consumption. But you'll have to refit. That's a necessary thing to do anyway.

As for the built-in "classification system". Because let's be honest your whole point is just that. The rest is just arguing over other elements around this one.
So this has been removed because it is not a healthy game mechanic. Someone that doesn't want to go into the mold will be punished by the game for no reasons. Then what if i want to call your titan a fighter ... ? Or vice versa ? The game doesn't have to force a ship classification. It is not the job of the game. USD's has been made by players first then used by everyone, including the devs, because it was a good idea.

If you still want to use reactor level to force a classification you can still do it. Just that you'll have to be more forgiving on numbers. Like schnell did while i was writing this post.
[doublepost=1565780431,1565779685][/doublepost]

I was very sad to hear no actual "balancing" of effects in the block config have been done:

<EffectArmor>
<Heat>0.0</Heat>
<Kinetic>0.0</Kinetic>
<EM>0.0</EM>
</EffectArmor>

Yes because you are looking at the wrong place in the configs. If you looked a bit more you would have realized that the armor formula doesn't use the linear part but the exponential part. Which use different sets of configs. And if you look at ArmorEffectConfiguration... You'll have what you want.

Here is an extract from our script pulling out configs to print the values in a discord channel. Which is why you should join our discord.

SHIELD
[Kinetic][0.0]
[Heat][0.0]
[EM][-1.0]

[ArmorEffectConfiguration]
[Kinetic][0.0]
[Heat][-1.0]
[EM][0.0]

SYSTEMS
[BasicEffectConfiguration]
[Kinetic][-1.0]
[Heat][0.0]
[EM][0.0]

 

[SchnellBier]

1. A crucial "balance" component is not even adressed; the Blockconfig-Effects.

The main reason why we didn't touch that too much yet is because we know from multiple talks with Schema that these effects will likely play a big role in the universe update (Ion storms, Nebulas, etc.). Because of that simple fact we didn't want to encorporate it into the base balance of the game. Too heavy changes will have unpredictable consequences once the universe update drops. The plan is to revisit them once we know how these effects will be used.

 

[Tsnonak]

Yes because you are looking at the wrong place in the configs. If you looked a bit more you would have realized that the armor formula doesn't use the linear part but the exponential part. Which use different sets of configs. And if you look at ArmorEffectConfiguration... You'll have what you want.

I was not refering to Armor specifically, as usual, it was just a general statement.

 

[Scypio]

I was not refering to Armor specifically, as usual, it was just a general statement.

Why should i bother to change every blocks manually when there is configs that does it for me ?

Shields are weaker to EM. Systems are weaker to kinetic. Armor to heat. All of that done simply in blockbehavior. I'm not going to take the time to do so in blockconfig.

And as schnell said there will probably be other effects there when the universe update comes out.

And then the others points. Really, ai ? Like we can do something about it... ?
What feels right ... ? So something that doesn't feel right is supposed to be right ... ? I changed the power consumption of every major systems "just because they feel right". Because what feels right helps newcomers to get the hand of power consumption more easily than before. With no changes in balance.

 

[Tsnonak]

long pause...





... so make it even heavier?
I may be a little confused, but this is sounding very presumptous, situational, and subjective to me.

Bottom line in my opinion is: this does not justify breaking everything all over again.


Lets take this one step at a time please, I'm slow like that.
Power / stabilisation...
Yes stabilizers need to be balanced / buffed, the current config is a problem, no question there.

My test-config:
Raised "free" stabilization from 10 to 50, (for small ships).
Max power regen @ 90% stabilisation (Quickfire = 100%).
We have reduced the distance from -7.5 to 1, (Quickfire = 0).

With these settings ships and stations will see an improvement, unless you're banking on the 25% stabilisation.

re-aranged it*

 

[aceface]

Why should i bother to change every blocks manually when there is configs that does it for me ?

Shields are weaker to EM. Systems are weaker to kinetic. Armor to heat. All of that done simply in blockbehavior. I'm not going to take the time to do so in blockconfig.

And as schnell said there will probably be other effects there when the universe update comes out.

are shields weaker to em and system kinetic etc in quickfire or old vanilla?

 

[Scypio]

are shields weaker to em and system kinetic etc in quickfire or old vanilla?

Quickfire. In vanilla there is no weakness to any effects of any sorts.
[doublepost=1565783976,1565783046][/doublepost]

... so make it even heavier?
I may be a little confused, but this is sounding very presumptous, situational, and subjective to me.

To what are you talking about specifically ? Reactors ?
The main point about bigger reactors is RHP. And Ith explained it pretty accurately in your screenshots. RHP is that bad and we often had in our playtest with ith several ships completely disabled because of some huge shots to the reactors to the point where you couldn't even power anything onboard. But that was not enough rhp to overheat the ship. (Even with current configs btw)
Making reactors heavier is easy but doesn't change this fact. Because reactors are small in size, ie block count. So it is hard to hit and thus when shooting at your opponent you don't see the holes you blow up. Just the rhp bar that doesn't change. Then one lucky shot later he goes from 100% to overheat : You've won.
There is no fun in that and no progress in the fight. You could sit at 10 km away thinking you deal no damage while tearing out whole parts of the ship. But not the reactor so you have no indicator of it.
That is why reactors are so big now.

As for stabilizers. I'm sorry but the distant doesn't bring anything to the game. Just punishes the wrong kind of players. I'm pointing you toward schnell's post that explains it more accurately.

 

[Tsnonak]

The main reason why we didn't touch that too much yet is because we know from multiple talks with Schema that these effects will likely play a big role in the universe update (Ion storms, Nebulas, etc.). Because of that simple fact we didn't want to encorporate it into the base balance of the game. Too heavy changes will have unpredictable consequences once the universe update drops. The plan is to revisit them once we know how these effects will be used.

Noted, thank you.

Why should i bother to change every blocks manually when there is configs that does it for me ?

Shields are weaker to EM. Systems are weaker to kinetic. Armor to heat. All of that done simply in blockbehavior. I'm not going to take the time to do so in blockconfig.

And as schnell said there will probably be other effects there when the universe update comes out.

And then the others points. Really, ai ? Like we can do something about it... ?
What feels right ... ? So something that doesn't feel right is supposed to be right ... ? I changed the power consumption of every major systems "just because they feel right". Because what feels right helps newcomers to get the hand of power consumption more easily than before. With no changes in balance.

Well there would be a couple things here

1. + individual block defence (set in BlockConfig.xml per block)

2. Last time I pulled Quickfire config there were vanilla settings, not this:

SHIELD
[Kinetic][0.0]
[Heat][0.0]
[EM][-1.0]

[ArmorEffectConfiguration]
[Kinetic][0.0]
[Heat][-1.0]
[EM][0.0]

SYSTEMS
[BasicEffectConfiguration]
[Kinetic][-1.0]
[Heat][0.0]
[EM][0.0]

Clearly that is one step in the right direction, (global modifier).

Quickfire. In vanilla there is no weakness to any effects of any sorts.
[doublepost=1565783976,1565783046][/doublepost]
To what are you talking about specifically ? Reactors ?
The main point about bigger reactors is RHP. And Ith explained it pretty accurately in your screenshots. RHP is that bad and we often had in our playtest with ith several ships completely disabled because of some huge shots to the reactors to the point where you couldn't even power anything onboard. But that was not enough rhp to overheat the ship. (Even with current configs btw)
Making reactors heavier is easy but doesn't change this fact. Because reactors are small in size, ie block count. So it is hard to hit and thus when shooting at your opponent you don't see the holes you blow up. Just the rhp bar that doesn't change. Then one lucky shot later he goes from 100% to overheat : You've won.
There is no fun in that and no progress in the fight. You could sit at 10 km away thinking you deal no damage while tearing out whole parts of the ship. But not the reactor so you have no indicator of it.
That is why reactors are so big now.

As for stabilizers. I'm sorry but the distant doesn't bring anything to the game. Just punishes the wrong kind of players. I'm pointing you toward schnell's post that explains it more accurately.

I was referring to this:



I was confused, forcing them to do this... make it even heavier?

Yes I understand the RHP thing, thank you, but it doesn't change this fact: it only seems to be a Quickfire problem, I have seen no complaints about it anywhere before, nor does it Justify breaking everything all over again.

This stuff is all highly "presumptous, situational, and subjective to me".

Feels like sticking your finger ina aquarium full of piranhas here :D

 

[Scypio]

2. Last time I pulled Quickfire config there were vanilla settings, not this:

Theses settings are located in blockbehavior and are lost in the middle of the general part, where there is a lot of stuff. I personnaly made this changes one or two month ago.

Yes I understand the RHP thing, thank you, but it doesn't change this fact: it only seems to be a Quickfire problem, I have seen no complaints about it anywhere before, nor does it Justif

It is not a quickfire problem. Rhp sucks and brings its whole lot of problems. This has been brought several times on our discord and this is an observation made from vanilla configs. Not from the quickfire point of view configs.

The change was necessary. And asking a complete rebalance of the configs while not refiting any ship is wishful thinking. The simplification of systems power draw was enough to force you refit everything.
[doublepost=1565791690,1565791081][/doublepost]

I was confused, forcing them to do this... make it even heavier?

Imagine one box. Then imagine another, smaller and inside the first box.
The total aera of the inside is the aera of the first box minus the aera of the second box.
Then if you remove the box on the inside your total aera is the aera of the big box. So in the end you have more useful stuff (your systems) while using the same amount of armor covering the first big box. So armor is used in a better way, or to cover the same aera (amount of systems) you need a larger big box. Which means more armor to cover it.

 

[Tsnonak]

Theses settings are located in blockbehavior and are lost in the middle of the general part, where there is a lot of stuff. I personnaly made this changes one or two month ago.

Thank you, I am aware of the location, I pulled it July 05.

Who is forcing them... nobody.