Search results

Someone could have been just experimenting on the server and left configs changed. There were more radical changes made to see how things will work. Release/dev version doesn't pull the configs from the QF GitHub constantly only when some changes were solidified.

Can't help in this case. Quickfire config is 5 regen, 1 upkeep, 250 cap. You can check in Discord yourself. As for the ship and assumptions - we need to assume at least something. We can't just say "everything works" because it won't. Frankly the 5k reactor at 7k mass is in no way a super PVP...

That's interesting to say the least. No. I didn't account for that. Though there may be a discrepancy in size/mass between how we build ships. My calculator assumes around 5k reactor blocks for a 7k mass ship. As for stats there is a "Configs" channel on Quickfire discord with all the latest...

Most significant issues can't be changed through configs as they are either bugs or hardcoded.

It's sitting at 250 cap per block for at least half a year now. I really would like to see what changes were that made the cap lower and if maybe there is some bug. Same goes for power draw from rechargers. 25 for thrust, 50 for recharger, 100 for weapons per block. If for any reason your power...

I didn't participate in the last round of shield changes but pre-last change they were pretty strong as long as you cared about building them at proper size. Right now looking into confings you can have 5 regen and 1250 cap for 100 power vs DPS of ~17 for same 100 power. Less if we take...

Yes. We cut the mass of the reactor blocks that were making 60-70% of the ship mass before that and spread it to other systems. It made ships with more than 100% power draw a little less attractive. Though didn't stop NotManhattan from doing it.

I'm pretty sure that was the goal of the thrust curve. If thrust curve starts to actually curve only at 40k than all the ships of lower mass than that can as well not exist. Bar for people who only start playing on the server. Basically the size at which you can reach top speed or close to top...

Thing is most of those don't exist in Starmade. And you can build existing systems in any shape or form you desire.

And you still can. But big and wide are different things. Armour and minimizing cross-section presenting to the enemy depends on being thin and somewhat long. Unless there are other practical reasons to build a wide ship it won't be very good. Wrong. In our universe the main characteristics of...

Total system weight for a more or less balanced ship - the one that uses 1/3 of energy on thrusters, shields and weapons - is the same as before the change. Mass was just redistributed from reactors to other systems to prevent things with power priority juggling giving too many benefits. Before...

Okay, I say it another way - armour can be made as cheap or costly as needed depending how the Universe update works. Until then we don't care what are the recipes and costs for any of the blocks. Because right now they are cheap and thinking about what may happen next is worthless because we...

There are two things Schema mentioned that may change how things will work - shields, which he mentioned he wants to take another stab at and crew. Both should be very much okay with pretty dense ships. Especially crew since it will add proper interior spaces useful for the ship. Addressing and...

There are 2 interlinked problems with allowing big ships to reach close to top speed. 1 - Priority juggling that allows to actually have more top speed than you think is possible for the given reactor. And it is especially bad for kiters that don't need great acceleration while firing their...

The only way to address exploits we are talking about is to do another system redesign from ground up. Yes, I agree that the result will be ships mostly filled in with systems besides some 5-10 meter gap on the outer part of the ship that will be there to stop missiles. I don't see this as a...

It absolutely needs to be complex. Or players will just work around it. As happened with stabilisers and multiple output penalty previously. We moved mass from reactors to systems. Filling all the gaps will lead to severe increase in mass and drop in thrust. If the gap is minor yeah, it's more...

I think that if one of the ships uses 20-30% more resources and mass it understandably will have more power even though it thrusters won't be as effective. That is absolutely normal. And it always will be like this unless you add extremely complex system design where layout and configuration...

The fact that thread you are dragging out was made in hope of Schine making changes that are not possible to do through a simple config edit. And QF, for the most part, was just config edits. There were 2 changes made by Schema - adding new armour formula that uses all the checks and values from...

Please do not use only parts of the conversation I had out of context. If you actually read it you know that I was in favour of scrapping stabilisers outright. We did not agree on this in QF discord but overall I consider stabs staying a minor point.

The missile hit is completely okay in Dev build and working as intended.