Elwyn Returnity

Lecic said:

I don't have a toaster. Large ships in combat cause extreme lag even if you've got a great box, even if you set your segments low.

Click to expand...

Starmade still has large issues and inefficiencies on both the server and client sides. Using a higher spec server, we are doing all we can to brute force our way through most of these obstacles, removing, or mitigating them as much as possible. A small quantity of common sense and using a computer not made with assorted fruits and vegetables for its components means that the game is still more than playable at the larger scale we are aiming for.
For those that dislike this idea or still have troubles, there are servers with build size limits for this reason.

Beliskner504 said:

using a computer not made with assorted fruits and vegetables for its components

Click to expand...

Welp, that's me out

Yeah, I'm still really up in the air about doing anything on ER. No offense, but I really like the Taw.net server.

The real argument for mass limits is that having none inherently favors large factions. Knowing the multitude of issues with AI fleets, small factions have very few options in repelling an attack from a larger, well established faction with a good supply of resources to crank out megaships with. The most viable option at that point is to simply build bigger, and the vicious cycle continues until the server buckles under the ridiculous size of ships flying around and bumping into stuff. Mass limits are hte easiest way to combat this, although there are others. If there was a shitty mining bonus, it'd be a different story. The sheer amount of time/effort needed to gather resources would justify the deployment of such super ships. However, the mining bonus is going to be pretty decent on here from what I've read, meaning that large ships will be easily available.

neber mind :DDDD

Comr4de said:

The real argument for mass limits is that having none inherently favors large factions.

Click to expand...

The game as a whole already favours inherently larger factions, regardless of mass limits.

Comr4de said:

. Knowing the multitude of issues with AI fleets, small factions have very few options in repelling an attack from a larger, well established faction with a good supply of resources to crank out megaships with.

Click to expand...

Even with a mass limit, what would stop a faction with many members like FCM invading a faction with like 3 using ships at the mass limit? Dicks are always going to be dicks, regardless of where you draw an arbitrary line. If you have a mass limit, rather than a faction concentrating on having a few, larger ships, you'll have a faction that fields many, smaller ships. Once fleet AI gets fixed (they're supposedly working on it right now), you could have factions with many smaller ships all controlled by AI... which is worse as a whole for the server and client. A mass limit doesn't limit a faction, it just moves their focus a little.

Bigger army diplomacy will always be a thing.

Comr4de said:

bumping into stuff.

Click to expand...

We firmly stand by the fact that idiots get punished. If you fly a ship like you've got mental issues, you get your ship deleted, no refunds. Active, heavy handed admins are the way to ensure this does not happen.

We're also planning to have large sector sizes, with large weapons ranges, to help ensure that in combat, you're alot less likely to drift across a sector border, and to make sure it's unlikely for 2 titans to be booping noses with each other.

Comr4de said:

However, the mining bonus is going to be pretty decent on here from what I've read, meaning that large ships will be easily available.

Click to expand...

Personally, I believe just turning down the mining bonus to be the lazy option to solve issues with gaining resources. If issues arise, it's always an option to rebalance the crafting config so that you're less likely to be willing to field such a large ship because of the cost in repairs.

Resources gathering will be at, or at the very least near, default at opening. If we feel the need to change things, we will. This is why we're going to be having forums, so people have a proper place to suggest changes like this.



The simple answer here is that at first, we're bringing Elwyn back. If we feel the need to change as we go, we're not going to be so boneheaded to say that we won't. But we're not going to change the fundamentals of the server before it's even launched because some people fear it can't be done properly.

Ithirahad said:

I kind of want Fertikeen's refining amount (capsules per ore) to increase, though...

Click to expand...

I'll look into it.

Move the schedule up boys, TAW appears to be gone now.

BDLS said:

Move the schedule up boys, TAW appears to be gone now.

Click to expand...

Server will be delivered shortly, once it's arrived, we'll be moving as fast as possible to get it online, Crusade and Block_Fortress have already begun construction of the spawn station, Nauvran has provided a starter ship with Crusade building a second option, config is being decided on as we go.

Deadlis said:

We will be using the reversed FP config because it's too good of an idea not to implement, and as for the config, we are going to be keeping it as close to vanilla as possible, we're only tweaking a few things to keep things consistent with our larger sector sizes.

Click to expand...

Care to elaborate a little? One of the biggest problems of servers with stupid large sectors is that weapons ranges get stupid long too. The biggest casualty with this is drones and fleet ships, which currently go to max range and orbit. At those ranges, they can't hit the broad side of a barn and are useless, especially vs smaller ships. They also wander out of sector and become unloaded. Granted, this is a problem with AI and Schine could fix this, but there is no telling WHEN that's actually going to happen.

Personally, I'd love to see practical ranges for weapons:
1-2km for cannons, 2-4km for cannon-beam
750m - 1.5 km for beam, 1.5-3km for beam-beam
Missiles 1/4 sector, 1/2 sector for missile-beam

This makes drones and fleet ships not fly away in combat, and buffs AMS as they will be only shooting missiles that are closer. The current weapon mechanics are arguably built around default sector sizes, and break down when ranges are stupid long. Also, noobs don't die to pirate stations 3 sectors over.

Projectile speeds are also an issue, as if you adjust top speed, projectile speed goes way up as well. The biggest effect is for missiles, as they can get to ungodly speeds, and AMS doesn't have a chance. Consider changing the speed of projectiles if you increase server speed.

If you don't agree, I'd like to propose a second solution, keep beam ranges much lower than cannon. Drones and fleet ships currently use the range of their longest range weapon to set the orbit distance. If beam ranges were set relatively low (1km or less) that would give us the ability to make beam-based fighters that kept close to their target, and have a decent shot at killing smaller fighters.

And while I'm writing a wall-o-text, I might as well argue for the buffing of armor stats. One of the biggest issues with the new aux blocks replacing docked reactors is that they explode when hit. Buffing armor absorption rates to 74% (99% with passives) means that until your armor HP pool is depleted, you are much less likely to get penetrated and start taking hits to generators. This adjustment also doesn't require ships to be refitted, and vanilla designs can benefit.

So you guys are just gonna call it simply "Elwyn" right?

TheGeek007 said:

Care to elaborate a little?

Click to expand...

First of all, it is our goal to keep the config as close to vanilla as possible, (faction point system aside), making only tweaks and adjustments instead of overhauls. This will allow vanilla ships to be used just as effectively without the need for much or any refit work.

A design choice was made to significantly increase the size of sectors, as to prevent ships passing sector boundaries while in combat, and other issues with borders. Keeping in line with this, all weapons and AI have been scaled appropriately to match.

TheGeek007 said:

Projectile speeds are also an issue

Click to expand...

We are aware of the issues that arise, and have accounted for them. This config will be managed and updated by both myself and Deadlis , who created and managed the configs for ElwynEternity, so we are very familiar with the process, even the changes made after our work on EE.

The ranges for weapons will follow that missile are ROUGHLY equal to cannon, with beams being much shorter, with a small damage buff to compensate. Multipliers for slave systems are currently the same, but of course, all of this is very subject to change, which is the reason no numbers are listed here.

TheGeek007 said:

Buffing armor absorption rates to 74% (99% with passives)

Click to expand...

In all seriousness, we haven't discussed absorption rates, nor have we seen a need to. If the need to change that arises, either through our own testing, or through the feedback of the community when the server is live, it will of course be looked in to, as will changes to any other parts of the config. The config is always subject to change, both now and when the server is live, to better accommodate the community. However, we do understand the frustration of having to refit ships, so we will of course try to keep major changes to a minimum.

BDLS said:

So you guys are just gonna call it simply "Elwyn" right?

Click to expand...

How far would you go for a shitpost?

Beliskner504 said:

In all seriousness, we haven't discussed absorption rates, nor have we seen a need to. If the need to change that arises, either through our own testing, or through the feedback of the community when the server is live, it will of course be looked in to, as will changes to any other parts of the config. The config is always subject to change, both now and when the server is live, to better accommodate the community. However, we do understand the frustration of having to refit ships, so we will of course try to keep major changes to a minimum.

Click to expand...

Oh well, it was worth a try. I don't expect you to try and fix every problem Schema has. For the record, this adjustment wouldn't require refitting any ships, it would simply buff a mechanic that desperately needs to be buffed. Any chance I could convince you to buff it to 60% with a large donation?

Good to see you have put some thought into the configs though. This server looks like one worth playing on.

Ithirahad said:

You mean, much shorter than normal? Or just much shorter in relation to cannons, like it is in the default config? You do realize that beams are already cursed with crappy damage application to armoured targets (which gets worse at range due to reduced focusing ability) and they by default have a range penalty to compensate for the hitscan, especially against shields; they don't need to be given an even shorter range...

Click to expand...

yeah, beams are fine. They're hard to use already enough as is, stop fucking with them

TheGeek007 said:

Any chance I could convince you to buff it to 60%

Click to expand...

We can certainly investigate it further, and ask the community for their opinions, but I can't promise any changes will be made.

Ithirahad said:

You mean, much shorter than normal?

Click to expand...

As it stands, beams are mostly vanilla, with small adjustments to account for sector size. What we are looking in to is whether we are able to make other weapon combinations, eg. nukes, viable in any sort of role, when compared to the go-to missiles under the vanilla config.

Sweet :D I might end up getting my gaming clan to expand to ER once it comes up :P

no mass limit.

yay

blease :-DDDD where is serber x-DDDDD