- Joined
- Sep 29, 2013
- Messages
- 435
- Reaction score
- 1,615
Can’t agree more. The same goes for any logic rail contraptions. They break all the time now.
It’s why I’m going to focus a bit more on the interface issues. It’s a bit of a pet peeve for me.
Devblog 2017 - 10 - 13
- Thread starter schema
- Start date
It’s why I’m going to focus a bit more on the interface issues. It’s a bit of a pet peeve for me.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2013
- Messages
- 626
- Reaction score
- 486
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2013
- Messages
- 435
- Reaction score
- 1,615
Messed around a bit more with this interface chamber info idea.
Came up with this:
Came up with this:
I find it a bit strange that Schine hasn't gotten the turrets working yet. It seems that it would be a big part of drawing any real comparisons between the old and new systems.
I'm also curious as to how the weapons' aiming got messed up.
I'm also curious as to how the weapons' aiming got messed up.
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2013
- Messages
- 435
- Reaction score
- 1,615
This is probably the last iteration of my interface idea I’m going to post here. In line with the colour palate of the current interface. And probably more realistic in implementation. Especially the text only version.
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2013
- Messages
- 435
- Reaction score
- 1,615
Some more thoughts on the new system. It’s a long post so I introduced some spoiler tags
This might not be a solution to the problems but hopefully shed some light on why people react the way they do.
Individuals will always have variations of these opinions or feelings. This is just what I have noticed in general.
Conclusion:
There will most likely not be a ‘one system fits all’ scenario. There will always be people that want things differently. However if a new system manages to accomplish a majority of the main goals that are set you are on the right track.
- People and change -
In my daily job I have a lot of experience dealing with people that get introduced to new software. Did a fair bit of implementation on site with customers as well. Those projects could take up a lot of time but I had a first row seat in watching how organisations and people react to introducing new systems. There are a number of things that I know that apply here.
A prime example I encountered was two different companies that both bought the same software. They both were in the same type of business. One project went without a hitch. The other one failed.
Why? For the failed project the change was forced on the organisation from higher up. The successful project was implemented with the help of the people that actually had to work with the software.
What didn’t work?
What DID work?
- Stabilisers -
When the new power system was introduced it brought a whole set of new blocks.
I would categorise them in 3 groups.
Positive:
Chambers. They will make a whole new set of effects possible. Great we have new things to play with.
Neutral:
New power block. Produces power. Not to exciting just goes about it in a different way.
Conduits. They don’t really add or subtract anything from your build. They’re just a way on linking things. Again not to exciting. Could be a weak point on the ship and make it more exciting.
Negative:
Stabilisers. This blocks does not add anything of value to you ship. It only introduces a restriction. Both in power generation and ship size.
Why is only the Stabiliser seen as negative in this grouping?
Because people really don’t like restrictions if they had all the freedom before.
People will be forced to change their way without them having the feeling they have control over it.
The same type of reaction but in a lesser degree was seen when people were first introduced to mass enhancers. This is also a block that add no actual benefit to your ship. It just speeds up the turrets to where you were used to have them to be.
Why not the same negative feeling towards the power block? This block is very similar to the old one. Thus more familiar.
In my daily job I have a lot of experience dealing with people that get introduced to new software. Did a fair bit of implementation on site with customers as well. Those projects could take up a lot of time but I had a first row seat in watching how organisations and people react to introducing new systems. There are a number of things that I know that apply here.
- When people are comfortable with their old setup they will resist change. Because they are used to the old way of doing things.
- Information is key. When the new system is introduced people will resist more if no or inaccurate information is given.
- People don’t like to read (a lot). The way new information is presented matters.
- People are more willing to change if they initiate the change themselves or think they do.
A prime example I encountered was two different companies that both bought the same software. They both were in the same type of business. One project went without a hitch. The other one failed.
Why? For the failed project the change was forced on the organisation from higher up. The successful project was implemented with the help of the people that actually had to work with the software.
What didn’t work?
- Giving people a manual to read with all the information about the system.
- Giving an hour long lecture about the software. People will not retain the information.
- Only show the new software without regards to the old ways.
What DID work?
- Categorising the way people worked in the old system. What could they do? How did they do it?
- Start a project with the people like they would normally do in the old system but within the new system.
- Show people where things could be improved and make things easier or more efficient. This will lighten their workload. People really like that.
- Aftercare. Lots and lots of after care.
- Stabilisers -
When the new power system was introduced it brought a whole set of new blocks.
I would categorise them in 3 groups.
Positive:
Chambers. They will make a whole new set of effects possible. Great we have new things to play with.
Neutral:
New power block. Produces power. Not to exciting just goes about it in a different way.
Conduits. They don’t really add or subtract anything from your build. They’re just a way on linking things. Again not to exciting. Could be a weak point on the ship and make it more exciting.
Negative:
Stabilisers. This blocks does not add anything of value to you ship. It only introduces a restriction. Both in power generation and ship size.
Why is only the Stabiliser seen as negative in this grouping?
Because people really don’t like restrictions if they had all the freedom before.
People will be forced to change their way without them having the feeling they have control over it.
The same type of reaction but in a lesser degree was seen when people were first introduced to mass enhancers. This is also a block that add no actual benefit to your ship. It just speeds up the turrets to where you were used to have them to be.
Why not the same negative feeling towards the power block? This block is very similar to the old one. Thus more familiar.
This might not be a solution to the problems but hopefully shed some light on why people react the way they do.
Individuals will always have variations of these opinions or feelings. This is just what I have noticed in general.
Conclusion:
There will most likely not be a ‘one system fits all’ scenario. There will always be people that want things differently. However if a new system manages to accomplish a majority of the main goals that are set you are on the right track.
jontyfreack
Pipe-God-Emperor of starmade
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2013
- Messages
- 603
- Reaction score
- 773
On the subject of stabilisers:
If they have to exist they should only have to exist on the larger ships (at around 200m long+ because then chances are you will have room for stabilisers) and have a smaller distance required from the reactor. I am personally fine with how the distance required for stabilisers increases, but I feel it should start much MUCH later, because a small fighter isn't going to have room for a 10m gap between the reactor and stabilisers, however something around the size of a #SWAGSAD(200m long ship) would have enough room for a 10m gap between the reactor and stabilisers.
Basically if stabilisers have to stay, have them only be needed much later. And that would even give some more immersion into the whole ship building thing because a bigger ship will need a more complicated reactor than a small ship.
And if the stabilisers are going to add something worthwhile to a ship, make reactors explosive and make stabilisers make the reactors less explosive, so people will want to destroy the stabilisers first before destroying the reactor.
And better looking explosions would be nice at some point in the near-ish future to go with this/the next weapons update because if reactors explode, I/we want to see some glorious looking boom.
If they have to exist they should only have to exist on the larger ships (at around 200m long+ because then chances are you will have room for stabilisers) and have a smaller distance required from the reactor. I am personally fine with how the distance required for stabilisers increases, but I feel it should start much MUCH later, because a small fighter isn't going to have room for a 10m gap between the reactor and stabilisers, however something around the size of a #SWAGSAD(200m long ship) would have enough room for a 10m gap between the reactor and stabilisers.
Basically if stabilisers have to stay, have them only be needed much later. And that would even give some more immersion into the whole ship building thing because a bigger ship will need a more complicated reactor than a small ship.
And if the stabilisers are going to add something worthwhile to a ship, make reactors explosive and make stabilisers make the reactors less explosive, so people will want to destroy the stabilisers first before destroying the reactor.
And better looking explosions would be nice at some point in the near-ish future to go with this/the next weapons update because if reactors explode, I/we want to see some glorious looking boom.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2013
- Messages
- 425
- Reaction score
- 273
I've actually seen some people who are just "Why do you keep changing it after all these years??!!!".
For my own position, I'd like to note that I was not satisfied with the old system either.
I agree with the stated goals of the system, to prevent filling ships with systems; I just don't think that what's currently there accomplishes it at all, since it's mostly based on having to fill one side of your ship with systems to offset systems filling up the other side.
I tried it out a little and ended up running out of money to build a 30m long ship with (jump drives are sooooo expensive), and was also not too happy having to put stabilizers in the saucer section of a Star Trekesque ship. If I had managed to finish it, I'm sure I could've scaled the reactor down a bit, but it just feels so wrong to put something to help out a system as far from the system as possible.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2013
- Messages
- 34
- Reaction score
- 12
Please make modules explode, shields only apply to armor/doors, and make armor much lighter to stop players from complaining about airtight ships. This is not what the dev's wanted and this is the only fix I can think of that is simple, effective, and does not involve a 6 paragraph post to explain.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2013
- Messages
- 895
- Reaction score
- 165
No authoritative answer, but going from previously deprecated blocks they'll probably have their crafting recipes removed, and will no longer be available from shops. Entities will have to choose one system or the other, but will probably remain functional with the old system, at least for a while.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2014
- Messages
- 338
- Reaction score
- 148
Inner ship remotes don't seem to work in 200.134 dev build. Replaced the old ones and still got nothing. First look, I like whats going on so far but have only rebuilt a fighter on it, will have to try a larger vessel. Took a few minutes to sort out what was going on with chambers and shields but caught on fairly quickly since this is the first of the dev builds I have tried out.
Edit: missiles don't fire in the direction the cpu and blocks are facing, weapon convergence is F'ed, and orientation preview in build menu is scrambled.
Edit: missiles don't fire in the direction the cpu and blocks are facing, weapon convergence is F'ed, and orientation preview in build menu is scrambled.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 27
- Reaction score
- 7
It's been several days since I've been trying to understand how this new energy system works and get to something functional, but the results are far from conclusive.
I know that this version is still in the development phase, but I revise my enthusiasm downward as the complexity is such that I feel like an idiot devoid of any sense of logic.
Already I'm really surprised by the screenshots above, my GUI does not display the same thing in this menu.
How to spend more time trying to run a system like this is incomprehensible not at all intuitive and we are light years from what was announced at the beginning of the project, something simple to understand and easy to take in hand even for beginners.
If I had not spent so much time on StarMade, it is obvious that I would have gone my way and would not linger longer on a game as strange as difficult to understand.
After many hours testing different combinations, how come I can not install shields? A simple operation yet another time ...
Given the thinness of the official tutorials already present in the game that explain absolutely nothing but only present a summary approach of some features of the game, if new ones are implemented for this future version, I'm afraid that such a policy is not favorable to the future of StarMade, my (our?) big regret ...
I know that this version is still in the development phase, but I revise my enthusiasm downward as the complexity is such that I feel like an idiot devoid of any sense of logic.
Already I'm really surprised by the screenshots above, my GUI does not display the same thing in this menu.
How to spend more time trying to run a system like this is incomprehensible not at all intuitive and we are light years from what was announced at the beginning of the project, something simple to understand and easy to take in hand even for beginners.
If I had not spent so much time on StarMade, it is obvious that I would have gone my way and would not linger longer on a game as strange as difficult to understand.
After many hours testing different combinations, how come I can not install shields? A simple operation yet another time ...
Given the thinness of the official tutorials already present in the game that explain absolutely nothing but only present a summary approach of some features of the game, if new ones are implemented for this future version, I'm afraid that such a policy is not favorable to the future of StarMade, my (our?) big regret ...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2013
- Messages
- 435
- Reaction score
- 1,615
Those are not screenshots but photoshopped to where I wish it to be. Easier to manage and understand.
JumpSuit
Lost-Legacy Director
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2015
- Messages
- 343
- Reaction score
- 93
Would highly recommend reporting to the actual bug tracker here: http://www.phab.starma.de
The Devs can respond better on there.
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2017
- Messages
- 39
- Reaction score
- 10
Well, I'm not able test new power system yet, so I watched some stuff from youtubers about it and I have some questions.
Which mechanics prevent me from building one long ship-weapon with reactor on one side and the stabilizers on the another? Putting one weapon chamber and using it like knife to cut holes in star systems? It will not manuever well, it will also not be well protected but as a planet cracker and eventually sector defense drone is quite simply. And if I understand well, reactor and stabilizer don't need to be conected at all?
Do will reactor blow up after hit?
So I have few suggestions:
- make reactor and stabilizer blocks extremly heavy (maiority or big part of ship's weight), so long ship will not turn at all
- for stabilizers working they should be conected with reactor. Breaking the connection will leads to effectivity loss. It could add some fun and backbone of the ship, which should be protected as well.
- Increase stabilizer effectivity, depending on X,Y,Z values of stabilizer group. Groups should be connected via much more lighter conduits which counts in these X, Y, Z values as well. This will add some creativity to ship construction and will make ribs of the ship as well I liked the old sum of X,Y and Z.
So ship to be effective and keep it's turning ability needs to use as few reactor and stabilizer blocks as close as center its possible. To increase effectivity and decrease number of stabilizer blocks you need to make ship more 3D like and you will need also protect vulnerable connections with hull.
I think it could solve the problem with deadly shpaghetti (single big reactor, distant stabilizer and big gun), flying spaghetti monster (now U need to protect vulnerable connections). It leads to old good cubes of doom, but the stabilizing is located on the edges of cube and also needs extra protection.
Which mechanics prevent me from building one long ship-weapon with reactor on one side and the stabilizers on the another? Putting one weapon chamber and using it like knife to cut holes in star systems? It will not manuever well, it will also not be well protected but as a planet cracker and eventually sector defense drone is quite simply. And if I understand well, reactor and stabilizer don't need to be conected at all?
Do will reactor blow up after hit?
So I have few suggestions:
- make reactor and stabilizer blocks extremly heavy (maiority or big part of ship's weight), so long ship will not turn at all
- for stabilizers working they should be conected with reactor. Breaking the connection will leads to effectivity loss. It could add some fun and backbone of the ship, which should be protected as well.
- Increase stabilizer effectivity, depending on X,Y,Z values of stabilizer group. Groups should be connected via much more lighter conduits which counts in these X, Y, Z values as well. This will add some creativity to ship construction and will make ribs of the ship as well
I liked the old sum of X,Y and Z. So ship to be effective and keep it's turning ability needs to use as few reactor and stabilizer blocks as close as center its possible. To increase effectivity and decrease number of stabilizer blocks you need to make ship more 3D like and you will need also protect vulnerable connections with hull.
I think it could solve the problem with deadly shpaghetti (single big reactor, distant stabilizer and big gun), flying spaghetti monster (now U need to protect vulnerable connections). It leads to old good cubes of doom, but the stabilizing is located on the edges of cube and also needs extra protection.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2013
- Messages
- 626
- Reaction score
- 486
Not asking for responses, merely reporting. And as thee are so many things to report that are coming and going so fast and phab is so time consuming to use for that many things to report i do it here when i even bother....
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2013
- Messages
- 435
- Reaction score
- 1,615
You know how I said I posted the last of the interface picture ideas? I lied:
From top to bottom:
From top to bottom:
- Made the distinction between tabs more obvious. It’s hardly visible in the original version.
- Step one. Selecting the reactor. Removed all unneeded cluttered info. Made the buttons clearer.
- Added some tweaks to the chamber info boxes. Also added some more examples.
- Bottom part of the page displays additional chamber and reactor info. Ultimately not the most important part but when needed available.
- Added tech point counter. Made it very obvious this is important. These are the points you have to dispense.