[14th of April] Schine Q&A Answers

[dwwojcik]

Well this is a bit embarrassing, turns out our argument started out with a misunderstanding. You said "How are we going to design ships when you're deciding exactly what the outcome of all ships should be.", I thought you meant "How are we going to design ships when you're still deciding exactly what the outcome of all ships should be", as in- finish the damn systems already. I took offense to that because hey it's Schine's game, they're done when they say they're done, being rude about it isn't going to make it go faster.

It's great how we can both agree that there are currently no options for competitive builders, why aren't you complaining about that? Would you prefer if all ship stats and weapon setups were simply relegated to a submenu and all you do in build mode is cosmetic?

I kinda would. Minmaxing ship systems is never really something that appealed to me about Starmade. Trust me, I totally get why it appeals to others, considering for the first 5 years of Starmade that's basically all there was to the game. But personally, I'm more interested in making ships look cool, as long as they work well enough. (Not that I'm any good at it)

It's not like that's what's happening though. As far as I can tell from DukeofRealm's explanation, all they're doing is using community built ships to develop a baseline for balancing the new weapons around the meta they want. That's infinitely better than just shooting in the dark and hoping you'll hit...

What was it then? I was still refining my builds before 2.0 hit and as far as i know so were all the other competitive builders. 2.0 got figured out in an afternoon.

Hell if I know. But a meta is a meta, regardless of how 'solved' the game is.

The 'This is an alpha game' is an excuse this game has been in alpha since early 2010. Crazy how we 'playtesters' have little opinion then eh? I consider all of the StarMade Community 'Players'. This is a full release game ultimately. that has been in the 'Alpha' for what??? 6-7 years give or take. I mean come on people...

I want to play the finished version of Starmade as much as anyone. But I don't want what we have now to just be called finished- I'd rather have a good game eventually than a bad game now.

 

[Raisinbat]

I kinda would. Minmaxing ship systems is never really something that appealed to me about Starmade. Trust me, I totally get why it appeals to others, considering for the first 5 years of Starmade that's basically all there was to the game. But personally, I'm more interested in making ships look cool, as long as they work well enough. (Not that I'm any good at it)

It's not like that's what's happening though. As far as I can tell from DukeofRealm's explanation, all they're doing is using community built ships to develop a baseline for balancing the new weapons around the meta they want. That's infinitely better than just shooting in the dark and hoping you'll hit...

And you absolutely SHOULD be able to do that, given you're at least moderately competent. In 1.99 there's a fairly wide gap between ships that are simply competent and modular high end pvp boats, but a standard, competently built ship can absolutely challenge high end pvp ships; i've lost to them a couple of times, although it usually takes pilot error for that to happen, you're rarely in a state where your ships are twice as powerful or more. If the standard ship is slightly larger or worse, if there's two of them, the high end ship is at a definite disadvantage.

The only thing you need to respect to get a competent ship is mass distribution; a ship with ~20% of its mass in thrust, shields, weapons, support and armor (power supply included) is going to be perfectly capable of fighting against the pvp ships, but the cosmetic and RP ships that schine are basing their game around aren't competent at all, frequently having 60% armor or more because their interiors and entire exterior are covered in heavy armor so those 20% armor turn into 60% of your mass.

2.0 eliminated mass distribution as a mechanic and that's destroyed the basis of mechanical ship building. For us, its like taking the ball out of soccer, or an fps without shooting.

Hell if I know. But a meta is a meta, regardless of how 'solved' the game is.

Can you please explain to me what you think meta is? I have no idea why people complain about it.

I want to play the finished version of Starmade as much as anyone. But I don't want what we have now to just be called finished- I'd rather have a good game eventually than a bad game now.

Using alpha as an excuse for what we have has the opposite effect though, especially when rampant positivity rules the forums. If you look at the 2.0 suggestion thread nearly everyone in that thread was clapping their hands and and cheering the devs on for their great idea, and now most of them have vanished, so all they did was tell schine they wanted an update that they really didn't. Obviously schine are the ones responsible for what they end up doing, but if you're seeing the majority of people cheering your decisions on its easy to assume its a good idea.

Myself and a few others (I don't remember who they were sorry) called out 2.0 when it was first announced for what it was; stabilizers being forced empty space, islands and chandelier designs becoming the norm which led to integrity and umbilical cords, as well as the departure from mass distribution, but it was burried in an avalanche of happy-pill addicts praising the devs for their bold new vision. Maybe if there was less defending on the forums, the valid criticisms would have more credibility from the devs perspective and we could've avoided this whole mess.

 

[Valiant70]

Welp, found some new info for this. New Planet Speculation Thread

The only thing you need to respect to get a competent ship is mass distribution; a ship with ~20% of its mass in thrust, shields, weapons, support and armor (power supply included) is going to be perfectly capable of fighting against the pvp ships, but the cosmetic and RP ships that schine are basing their game around aren't competent at all, frequently having 60% armor or more because their interiors and entire exterior are covered in heavy armor so those 20% armor turn into 60% of your mass.

This leaves me wondering if the ideal mass distribution is the main thing that hurts RP builds. Wouldn't it be better to say "about half of your mass needs to be armor to work well. You can make it look however you want though." (It's also important to remember the difference between a 'sane' or functional RP build and one that gives no thought to function. Only sane RP builds can reasonably be considered for balancing.)

 

[Hidden Porpoise]

The problem with Starmade is ultimately that it's just throwing numbers at eachother. This hasn't changed, it's just swapped some tables.

 

[Scypio]

This leaves me wondering if the ideal mass distribution is the main thing that hurts RP builds.

This never hurted anyone, unless the ones that claimed their ships to be strong because they killed easily isanths and then got destroyed by the first one having a bigger gun than his pew pew. Something like 90% of the player base of starmade are just casual that build whatever they want and have no understanding of what they do in details.
Because they have no reasons to push themselves forward, because the NPC's are so casual and small that you just build a small cruiser and rekt anything that the game can throw at you. Unless you confront someone that got something better than you in multiplayer, wich isn't that hard to find when you're a noob. And anyway the natural reaction for everyone is to whine that your small turret is useless/your ship made out of 60% of hull and as fast as a snail got rekt without picking a fight. Do the experience yourself if you want, most of the ppl will get angry that the thing they put so much effort into is useless and so few will try to understand why and make it better.

Anyway, Schine decided for us that the game should be casual for anyone and everyone should build the same systems from each other so the game is balanced. Because if you fight the same ship as the opponent then there is no problem in balance, right ? So everyone will be happy, pvp players will have their balance and casual players will still kill their npc's by hundreds and feel powerful.

 

[dwwojcik]

Can you please explain to me what you think meta is? I have no idea why people complain about it.

Most Effective Tactic Available? Spaghetti ships would be an extreme example of this. I know most serious pvpers didn't use them because they liked having self respect, but from what I understand nothing came close to being able to kill them.

Using alpha as an excuse for what we have has the opposite effect though, especially when rampant positivity rules the forums. If you look at the 2.0 suggestion thread nearly everyone in that thread was clapping their hands and and cheering the devs on for their great idea, and now most of them have vanished, so all they did was tell schine they wanted an update that they really didn't. Obviously schine are the ones responsible for what they end up doing, but if you're seeing the majority of people cheering your decisions on its easy to assume its a good idea.

Myself and a few others (I don't remember who they were sorry) called out 2.0 when it was first announced for what it was; stabilizers being forced empty space, islands and chandelier designs becoming the norm which led to integrity and umbilical cords, as well as the departure from mass distribution, but it was burried in an avalanche of happy-pill addicts praising the devs for their bold new vision. Maybe if there was less defending on the forums, the valid criticisms would have more credibility from the devs perspective and we could've avoided this whole mess.

It's hard to agree to disagree sometimes.

 

[Nosajimiki]

This leaves me wondering if the ideal mass distribution is the main thing that hurts RP builds. Wouldn't it be better to say "about half of your mass needs to be armor to work well. You can make it look however you want though." (It's also important to remember the difference between a 'sane' or functional RP build and one that gives no thought to function. Only sane RP builds can reasonably be considered for balancing.)

Sane RP builds are not 50% armor though. Most of my old RP builds with any modicum of thought put into design were 10-20% armor tops and still very detailed with reasonable interiors. The thing is that the Dock is polluted with the bottom eschillon of RP ships that are so bad that the builders feel no need for Op Spec. Trying to match them literally defies sanity.

If you think back to early 2017 and before, there were tons of factions that used pretty RP ships that could have 3-1 stomped anything on the dock. Nidhogs, Rockhoppers, Intruders, Molochs, etc. were not crazy modular ships, but they were way stronger than what the noobs of their respective eras were making. No matter what changes you make to the game, a person who is willing to figure out the math and how damage propagates will always win the tech war vs a person who simply does not know and does not care to know.

Instead of the dock, Schine should to be asking PvP players in private for ship samples for testing since that would give him a much better idea of what he is contending with when someone actually builds a sane ship. The people who use his combat system are the PvPers; so, if you don't balance for them, then combat will never be ballenced.

 

[Valiant70]

Sane RP builds are not 50% armor though. Most of my old RP builds with any modicum of thought put into design were 10-20% armor tops and still very detailed with reasonable interiors. The thing is that the Dock is polluted with the bottom eschillon of RP ships that are so bad that the builders feel no need for Op Spec. Trying to match them literally defies sanity.

The numbers themselves aren't what I'm concerned about. I'm simply wondering if a higher ideal ratio of armor to other systems would improve our ability to create low-impact decorations. At this point it's hard to say for sure, since we haven't seen the impact of the new armor mechanics on ship design. With the old mechanics, I think it's likely, but that doesn't matter anymore.

 

[Nosajimiki]

The numbers themselves aren't what I'm concerned about. I'm simply wondering if a higher ideal ratio of armor to other systems would improve our ability to create low-impact decorations. At this point it's hard to say for sure, since we haven't seen the impact of the new armor mechanics on ship design. With the old mechanics, I think it's likely, but that doesn't matter anymore.

Not really, because higher armor mass is still not better armor (per say). A person who lays out their armor well in the new system can multiply their survivability. Laying out out vital systems behind less vital systems multiplies survivability. Weapon Layout can multiply your ability to bypass certain armor configurations, a balanced power system can power much more firepower than an ad hoc power system. Systems first design can promote better integrity than shell first. Just knowing ideal proportions from poking the system enough makes a huge difference. You don't necessarily need to balance to the best-of-the-best ships, but you do need to look at the better performing ships to understand your own meta no matter what you intend it to be.

 

[Deathstroke]

Starmade is, pretty fundamentally, a game about BUILDING SHIPS. When an update hits that removes shipbuilding from the shipbuilding game that everyone hates maybe you fucked up, just a little bit?

I do have to admit that that is very true. Unfortunately for us, the truth is as such. I've been here since 2012 and I can tell you that the main core gameplay mechanics are mostly gone. Not that nothing has improved, but the new features seem buggy and in my opinion pointless (fleets). If I remeber correctly, this game has been in alpha for 6 years. So please correct important aspects such as weapons, thrust and PLANETS!!.

Anyway Cheers

Deathstroke

 

[Valiant70]

I do have to admit that that is very true. Unfortunately for us, the truth is as such. I've been here since 2012 and I can tell you that the main core gameplay mechanics are mostly gone. Not that nothing has improved, but the new features seem buggy and in my opinion pointless (fleets). If I remeber correctly, this game has been in alpha for 6 years. So please correct important aspects such as weapons, thrust and PLANETS!!.

Anyway Cheers

Deathstroke

A lot of people continue to call for fleets and AI, and I can see why, but I'm still concerned that the large-scale strategy will end up consuming the game's soul. There's not a lot of point in designing your own ships if you don't interact with them and use them yourself. The current AI is really only suitable for small fighters. Maybe that's all AI should be.

 

[JumpSuit]

A lot of people continue to call for fleets and AI, and I can see why, but I'm still concerned that the large-scale strategy will end up consuming the game's soul. There's not a lot of point in designing your own ships if you don't interact with them and use them yourself. The current AI is really only suitable for small fighters. Maybe that's all AI should be.

To put my small 2 cents worth: A.I. shouldn't be considered only for small fighters. That is just pointless then.

 

[Valiant70]

To put my small 2 cents worth: A.I. shouldn't be considered only for small fighters. That is just pointless then.

Not really. You use them for fighter wings and support craft. Players should fly the real ships.

 

[JinM]

Not really. You use them for fighter wings and support craft. Players should fly the real ships.

I think there is not purpose in the pvp meta as such, the devs don't seem to have an overall pvp meta concept besides "make it balanced and varying in usage". I think it's supposed to be like in Minecraft: Do whatever you want with the gameplay mechanics. The balancing happens from player feedback.

 

[Valiant70]

I think there is not purpose in the pvp meta as such, the devs don't seem to have an overall pvp meta concept besides "make it balanced and varying in usage". I think it's supposed to be like in Minecraft: Do whatever you want with the gameplay mechanics. The balancing happens from player feedback.

What I'm saying is, I'm not sure it's good for the game in the long run to have AI capable of operating completely independently with no players present. After a certain point, AI becomes so advanced that players are just about out of the picture. With a game that's centered around building things, it's not good for the endgame to eliminate interaction with most of the stuff you build. A balance has to be struck. Where that balance is remains up for debate, but needs to be somewhere. IMO fleets should act more like wingmen to player-manned ships so that they are player interactive at their core rather than independent at their core like they are now. The idea of fleets is good, but the current (half-)execution will end up being bad for the heart and soul of the game.

 

[JinM]

IMO fleets should act more like wingmen t.

They allways will be only wingmen, because Starmade offers too much special abilities, where no AI can compute it with the current processing power.

Don't be worried. You are worried about big ship battles where 90% of the mass is controlled by AI, and only a controlling flagship is from the player. (To be honest for me this sounds really cool. ) But I doubt it will happen. AI will be dumb for the next 2 or 3 years, so this wont be pvp efficient.

And after that the players can decide mutually on what type of combat (fleet, fighter vs fighter, capital vs capital) they want. That you only have one type of combat...Yes it can happen.

But it could easily be countered, by having ressources that matter. So if you spend 90% into dumb AI controlled ships, and the enemy player just counters such fleet coz he naturally IS smarter, you loose a lot of money. You understand where I am going here? There are many workarounds, besides pvp mechanics in itself, to counter your fear.

 

[MacThule]

Starmade offers too much special abilities, where no AI can compute it with the current processing power.

Not long though. You saw they wrote an AI that can beat even world-class pro players at DoTA? That game has tons of special abilities to calculate as well, and very complex team and interplay dynamics (reading behavior, effective prediction of location and tactics, etc).

Not that I'm worried, mind. I doubt Starmade will be implementing any kind of super-AI as a part of the normal game. Your comment reminded me of the advance though.

 

[Nosajimiki]

DoTA also has predefined units... This means that your AI learning sample is staying consistent. Training an AI to read variant enemy strategies through thousands of samples of trial and error is actually not that hard as long as there are a limited number of taggable units. Training an AI to be able to read an enemy ship's capabilities, strengths, and weaknesses based just on its demeanor and guess what its military doctrine will be is still doable, but harder. Training an AI to understand how to use whatever ship you put it in today is a very hard challenge without adding some complex AI handlers because what it learns from one ship will not apply to another.

 

[CockADoodleDoo]

Do we ask questions for next QnA here?

Will turret AI be refined for weapons that don't gimbal? Right now they won't hit the target reliably because the AI seems to be written for gimballing weapons. Ex. B/B, C/B

Will there be any chambers/mechanics in game to reduce recoil? Right now it seems a little excessive and makes cannons borderline impossible to use reliably.

 

[Valiant70]

They allways will be only wingmen, because Starmade offers too much special abilities, where no AI can compute it with the current processing power.

Dumb as they may be, they're capable of operating independently. Fleets don't follow a manned ship around, but rather act on their own with or without the owner present. Some operations require at least one player present, but that doesn't necessarily mean the player who owns the fleet. This is not acting like wingmen. This is independent action.