[14th of April] Schine Q&A Answers

[MacThule]

Experienced PvPers have plenty of experience with all of these play styles.

I'm aware they have broad experience. Perhaps you've noticed that also they seem to have extreme difficulty tapping that experience to realize when the combat mechanics being implemented aren't actually trying to achieve the goals they are thrashing them for not achieving though. It's hard to ignore months of screaming "vet" (self-described, frequently and loudly, almost as if to capitalize on people's respect for actual veterans of real life service) complaints over how changes to mechanics "break" the game and "prove" how "stupid" the devs are because it makes combat inviable right now in the moment - makes me wonder if any of them actually own cars and if so if they ever actually do work on them, because I always assumed people understood that in order to fix something, you almost always have to render it inoperable for a period of time. I can't forget that row. It was absurd in the extreme and deeply undermined my assessment of the objectivity and perspective of "tha vets."

You are also too fixed on this idea of Empire building as being 100% AI driven or maybe you think that this game will never have a proper player base again.

I'm not particularly caught up on trying to automate at all, but in reading the endgame doc and roadmap and looking at the whole scope of features that is my assessment of the direction they are taking. I was actually far more interested in something a bit more personal when I started playing this game, but I enjoy RTS too so I can appreciate if that is way they are leaning (though I don't know if Schine can achieve the kind of grand strategy potential they seem to want). I'm not fixed on AI driving at all, though I would like to see the tedium of resource management relieved with the tools already in-game to manage NPC resources so players can focus on design, building, exploring, and fighting (and RPing).


The player base isn't even an issue - they've never attempted to market the game before but have the resources to do so. No point in doing it now though - the reduced player base is a blessing. Because people are self-absorbed and hate change, so non-professional testers are very likely to get super caught up in their own desires for the game, and their attachment to initial mechanics and even mechanics that are obviously just stubs for later expansion. Then they call the development of these stubs and early systems "ruining" and scream to the heavens about abuse and disrespect and stupidity. Less is more at this point I think, because there are deep, extensive changes happening.

As an advisor on the board of a local marketing trust I have no concerns whatever about the player base - that's entirely a concern of "tha vets" who raged on and on and on about how the player base was "dyingOMG!1" When Schine has the game at point they feel will stay relatively stable and not have drastic changes for at least a few years, they have only to snap their fingers and drop a couple of grand to see 50,000 new players drop in to check out the game (making back whatever they spend and then). We live in a supply-side economy, and people are well-conditioned and groomed; marketing makes the world go 'round. Player base is easy to bring in (though whether the game can hold them is another question, but Schine appears to be banking on the new systems and galaxy update being more likely to do that than their first-effort systems and galaxy were, which seems at least reasonably possible).

I just respond to Schine's cues. I enjoy tinkering with the new systems. They're very nice in some ways, really, now that I've gotten over expecting them to replicate the old systems or do something specific that was being discussed by players in forum. I'm keen for the galaxy update as well, since experimenting with the in-game economy is one of my favorite things, I expect a whole new system to explore.

Within 1 week of the first weapons dev build, guys like me, Napthir, Nastral, and Comr4de were already finding tons of exploits because we intuitively knew what things to check for; so, why waste time on ideas when you have players that can exploit them with the very first thing they try? It's simple, if Schine was like, "I think X mechanic should do Y", then I could say "If you do Y, make sure I can't do Z or X can just be circumvented." That would be a litteral 5 minute conversation that could save 10-100 hours of development time.

This is how I read your initial proposal. It would be a good idea to have a development proposal review forum. I think the fear would be that since we can be sure that some players would negatively assess every single proposal, it could undermine confidence and morale within the design team. Either they have to sort through a dozen pages of shit talk to pick out a few useful posts, or they limit feedback to a few individuals who are very good at up-selling themselves and create a closed feedback panel composed of a selected elite that may or may not even be as wise as they pretend (certainly none so 'elite' as to actually be professionals, with skills of a level that sensible companies would pay them for their advice). Also, I've seen Schine state an intent regarding a mechanic, then get hit with dozens of pages of comments from people who (for one reason or other) failed to even comprehend the intent as communicated and start arguing (very, very passionately) against things that aren't even intended. Concerns aside though, it would be nice if there were a good way they could consult the community before investing in implementation... somehow. I think that is one part of what the council was meant to accomplish.

 

[Nosajimiki]

I'm aware they have broad experience. Perhaps you've noticed that also they seem to have extreme difficulty tapping that experience to realize when the combat mechanics being implemented aren't actually trying to achieve the goals they are thrashing them for not achieving though. It's hard to ignore months of screaming "vet" (self-described, frequently and loudly, almost as if to capitalize on people's respect for actual veterans of real life service) complaints over how changes to mechanics "break" the game and "prove" how "stupid" the devs are because it makes combat inviable right now in the moment - makes me wonder if any of them actually own cars and if so if they ever actually do work on them, because I always assumed people understood that in order to fix something, you almost always have to render it inoperable for a period of time. I can't forget that row. It was absurd in the extreme and deeply undermined my assessment of the objectivity and perspective of "tha vets."



I'm not particularly caught up on trying to automate at all, but in reading the endgame doc and roadmap and looking at the whole scope of features that is my assessment of the direction they are taking. I was actually far more interested in something a bit more personal when I started playing this game, but I enjoy RTS too so I can appreciate if that is way they are leaning (though I don't know if Schine can achieve the kind of grand strategy potential they seem to want). I'm not fixed on AI driving at all, though I would like to see the tedium of resource management relieved with the tools already in-game to manage NPC resources so players can focus on design, building, exploring, and fighting (and RPing).


The player base isn't even an issue - they've never attempted to market the game before but have the resources to do so. No point in doing it now though - the reduced player base is a blessing. Because people are self-absorbed and hate change, so non-professional testers are very likely to get super caught up in their own desires for the game, and their attachment to initial mechanics and even mechanics that are obviously just stubs for later expansion. Then they call the development of these stubs and early systems "ruining" and scream to the heavens about abuse and disrespect and stupidity. Less is more at this point I think, because there are deep, extensive changes happening.

As an advisor on the board of a local marketing trust I have no concerns whatever about the player base - that's entirely a concern of "tha vets" who raged on and on and on about how the player base was "dyingOMG!1" When Schine has the game at point they feel will stay relatively stable and not have drastic changes for at least a few years, they have only to snap their fingers and drop a couple of grand to see 50,000 new players drop in to check out the game (making back whatever they spend and then). We live in a supply-side economy, and people are well-conditioned and groomed; marketing makes the world go 'round. Player base is easy to bring in (though whether the game can hold them is another question, but Schine appears to be banking on the new systems and galaxy update being more likely to do that than their first-effort systems and galaxy were, which seems at least reasonably possible).

I just respond to Schine's cues. I enjoy tinkering with the new systems. They're very nice in some ways, really, now that I've gotten over expecting them to replicate the old systems or do something specific that was being discussed by players in forum. I'm keen for the galaxy update as well, since experimenting with the in-game economy is one of my favorite things, I expect a whole new system to explore.



This is how I read your initial proposal. It would be a good idea to have a development proposal review forum. I think the fear would be that since we can be sure that some players would negatively assess every single proposal, it could undermine confidence and morale within the design team. Either they have to sort through a dozen pages of shit talk to pick out a few useful posts, or they limit feedback to a few individuals who are very good at up-selling themselves and create a closed feedback panel composed of a selected elite that may or may not even be as wise as they pretend (certainly none so 'elite' as to actually be professionals, with skills of a level that sensible companies would pay them for their advice). Also, I've seen Schine state an intent regarding a mechanic, then get hit with dozens of pages of comments from people who (for one reason or other) failed to even comprehend the intent as communicated and start arguing (very, very passionately) against things that aren't even intended. Concerns aside though, it would be nice if there were a good way they could consult the community before investing in implementation... somehow. I think that is one part of what the council was meant to accomplish.

Here-in lies the real concern: Most of the community does not know what they are talking about and half the players that do are so opt to rant, insult, and troll in general, that they still don't qualify as proper game testers. This I agree with, but cutting yourself off 100% is just as bad as opening yourself up 100%. IMO, the council needs to be reformed, but it's function needs to be revised because the game is in a different state of development than it was before. Schine has all the suggestions he needs to finish his game, but he would be prudent to have help think-tanking those ideas with the people who would otherwise seek to break them.

Think of it like this: about 5% of the player base is really good at finding exploits that can ruin the game for the other 95% of players. Right now that is probably somewhere in the 5-10 people range. If marketing brings in 50,000 new players, that will lead to thousands of people poking and prodding for exploits. Things like docked armor and spaghetti that used to stay hidden from general knowledge for months will spread like fire, and while a few dozen or so people can be held in check with an honor system regarding egregious exploits, out of a few thousand, my bet is that things will get out of hand really quickly. So, if Schine does not start addressing exploits in his new mechanics very seriously and really considering how his fixes affect playability, this game is going to get slammed in reviews and social media for them and it will struggle maintain that growth.

[EDIT]: Also, auto-mechanics and programming are two different things. With a car you are constrained to one physical object. In programing, you have version controllers, branch controllers, and sandboxes so that you can work on something without breaking it first. In fact, that is the whole point of dev builds. Schema had a sandbox, players tested it, and most people hated it. Most people who did not hate it at first eventually changed their minds and hated it latter once they tried really using it. It utterly failed the hallway test which again, going to how larger development firms work, would have been enough to scrap this power system all together before it ever saw the light of day.

In contrast, the new weapons system in dev build IS being positively received despite bugs, because its core inception is not bad. This to me actually reinforces the argument that the backlash with p.2 was in fact because of it's bad overall design and not because of some pre-release bugs or people being afraid of change.

 

[God mode]

I'm aware they have broad experience. Perhaps you've noticed that also they seem to have extreme difficulty tapping that experience to realize when the combat mechanics being implemented aren't actually trying to achieve the goals they are thrashing them for not achieving though. It's hard to ignore months of screaming "vet" (self-described, frequently and loudly, almost as if to capitalize on people's respect for actual veterans of real life service) complaints over how changes to mechanics "break" the game and "prove" how "stupid" the devs are because it makes combat inviable right now in the moment - makes me wonder if any of them actually own cars and if so if they ever actually do work on them, because I always assumed people understood that in order to fix something, you almost always have to render it inoperable for a period of time. I can't forget that row. It was absurd in the extreme and deeply undermined my assessment of the objectivity and perspective of "tha vets."

Which mechanics?

Integrity? Integrity was specifically implemented to discourage spaghetti ships. Spaghetti ships are still viable, while normal ships are punished.

Stabilizers? Stabilizers were supposed to encourage empty space within ships. Instead, it's easy to completely fill your ship with system blocks while remaining power stable. Stabilizers are functionally useless at this point, and if stabilization distance were increased as it should be to effect its goal, the system would still heavily favor a certain ship design and systems layout.

Chambers? Chambers were an attempt to encourage ship specialization, to help fulfill the complexity need for reactors, and to allow players to customize their own power systems. We got a skill tree. Building and customizing chamber systems is nothing more than following the instructions.

The power system as a whole? The new power system was supposed to allow for more design choices, to increase reactor complexity, and to make engineering of large reactors more interesting. We're now constrained to a single optimal reactor layout, regardless of ship size or role, and it can hardly be considered complex. There is no engineering or creativity involved. Reactor design is as thoughtless as ever.

In the previous iteration of power, we had to actually spend effort designing a power system, had to balance power regen vs power capacity based on the needs of the ship, and had to consider potential damage from aux reactors on larger ships. All of that complexity is gone. One of the stated design goals for power 2.0 was to decrease the focus on regen. I find this quite hilarious, because now we ONLY have regen.

You don't fix something by replacing it with something which totally fails its clearly stated design goals while simultaneously making the game as a whole significantly worse. This is not at all about resistance to change, it's about objectively poor replacements for mechanics that did indeed need to be replaced.

The development of weapons 3.0 is noticeably improved, so Schine appears to have learned something.

 

[linwe talion]

I rofled so much because of rimmer's "stairs. please."
I would add
"CHAIRS, FOR GOD'S BLOODY SAKE!"

 

[MacThule]

We're now constrained to a single optimal reactor layout

Ah, this again!

It's been a while. This is patently false, by the way. The new reactors are as morphically flexible now as the old reactors were.

I mean, you're apparently somewhat new... so maybe you didn't have a lot of experience with the old reactors, but you could build a single, super-long, X-axis reactor line before as well to optimize power output and minimize ship profile. It was possible to seize a tiny combat edge like that then, and is possible now, but it was not required now any more than it was before.

it's about objectively poor replacements

Saying an opinion is objective does not make it so. It's possible that this word does not mean what you think it means.

You give a lot of very strong opinions - "there is no creativity involved,' 'Building and customizing chamber systems is nothing more than following the instructions,' 'it can hardly be considered complex' - but none of this is actually verifiable. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but if your belief isn't actually verifiable it's meaningless. Sound and fury.

But feel free to ask a server admin running an active server under the new systems to post here - for example - about how they are having problems with a pervasive spaghetti ship meta ruining the game. You believe such ships have made integrity a failure, I'm sure you should have no problem finding admins having this problem. That would at least warrant serious consideration, and I'm sure Schine would be very interested in having a good look at those logs.

The development of weapons 3.0 is noticeably improved, so Schine appears to have learned something.

That's very patronizing of you.

I'm sure they owe it all to you and yours and arrived here utterly despite themselves, hapless and clueless...

No.

The reason weapons are improving is exactly because the devs have steadfastly ignored extremist, reactionary responses to the first stages of their massive re-boot project and held firm to their overall plan for the new systems, making only absolutely necessary changes until the whole thing is implemented.

Now that enough of the new systems are in place and being balanced you are finally beginning to see why the rest of us weren't really freaking out about it in the first place.

So you call it "learning" - yes, but it is you finally learning more about their plan, not them learning about yours.
[doublepost=1526681453,1526680749][/doublepost]

In programing, you have version controllers, branch controllers, and sandboxes so that you can work on something without breaking it first

100% agreed. This is why my primary criticism the entire time has been that they didn't split the development in some form or other.

All the specific details some individuals lost it over - reactors, stabilizers, streams, etc - never seemed like an issue because obviously it's all tentative. The real mistake was not setting up a playable v.1 and keeping all the new development in the dev pre-release build until it was actually playable (even if still very buggy). It became obvious very early that they should have kept the majority of the "testers" playing on the old version until they were ready to roll out 2.0 altogether.

 

[God mode]

Ah, this again!

It's been a while. This is patently false, by the way.

There is absolutely a layout which is significantly better than others, and it's more than a slight edge. Other designs work because stabilizers have been nerfed to the point of irrelevance, which will presumably be fixed in the future.

The new reactors are as morphically flexible now as the old reactors were.

I mean, you're apparently somewhat new... so maybe you didn't have a lot of experience with the old reactors, but you could build a single, super-long, X-axis reactor line before as well to optimize power output and minimize ship profile. It was possible to seize a tiny combat edge like that then, and is possible now, but it was not required now any more than it was before.

You could also change that single power line into a cross shape and have just as much power. You cannot do something similar in the current power system and retain as much efficiency, so it's not as flexible.

I have been here since 2013.

Saying an opinion is objective does not make it so. It's possible that this word does not mean what you think it means.

You give a lot of very strong opinions - "there is no creativity involved,' 'Building and customizing chamber systems is nothing more than following the instructions,' 'it can hardly be considered complex' - but none of this is actually verifiable. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but if your belief isn't actually verifiable it's meaningless. Sound and fury.

If the replacements fail to achieve their purpose and have noticeable drawbacks, they are objectively bad. Everything anyone says can be considered an opinion if you disagree with it, but some things are simply true, and what I said can be verified by anyone. There is a single optimal reactor layout, and it is not complex nor does it require creativity.

But feel free to ask a server admin running an active server under the new systems to post here - for example - about how they are having problems with a pervasive spaghetti ship meta ruining the game. You believe such ships have made integrity a failure, I'm sure you should have no problem finding admins having this problem. That would at least warrant serious consideration, and I'm sure Schine would be very interested in having a good look at those logs.

Active servers? We still have those?

Spaghetti is more difficult and less effective but it's still possible. It won't be after weapons 3.0 is released so it's a non-issue, but not due to integrity.

That's very patronizing of you.

I'm sure they owe it all to you and yours and arrived here utterly despite themselves, hapless and clueless...

No.

I am glad Schine has improved so that they can then improve the game.

The reason weapons are improving is exactly because the devs have steadfastly ignored extremist, reactionary responses to the first stages of their massive re-boot project and held firm to their overall plan for the new systems, making only absolutely necessary changes until the whole thing is implemented.

The weapons update is good because it was sufficiently well thought out, well designed, and has so far been implemented reasonably, not because Schine ignored harsh criticism of the power update. That makes no sense. These things are unrelated except in insignificant ways.

Now that enough of the new systems are in place and being balanced you are finally beginning to see why the rest of us weren't really freaking out about it in the first place.

No, I'm not. That's why I wrote a post explaining why the power update is still pretty terrible.

 

[Nosajimiki]

Ah, this again!

It's been a while. This is patently false, by the way. The new reactors are as morphically flexible now as the old reactors were.

I mean, you're apparently somewhat new... so maybe you didn't have a lot of experience with the old reactors, but you could build a single, super-long, X-axis reactor line before as well to optimize power output and minimize ship profile. It was possible to seize a tiny combat edge like that then, and is possible now, but it was not required now any more than it was before.

You could also change that single power line into a cross shape and have just as much power. You cannot do something similar in the current power system and retain as much efficiency, so it's not as flexible.

It was even more complex with this the smaller you went. Ships on small enough of a scale and SPTs were a great example of optional complexity making better designs. A ship that was not a long stick could use less hull; so, by using a bunch of interlacing, you could fit a LOT of power into a very small package which made designing things like bombers and recon ships really fun because they needed tons of power and had to fit in a hanger. A lot of the outcry about power why we needed power 2.0 was because big power was less complex than little power which a lot of people saw as a titan-made catitlist. A lot of the original ideas for power 2.0 was to make power systems very simple and manageable on small scale, and more complex as you get bigger. P2 just made everything exactly the same complexity.

If the replacements fail to achieve their purpose and have noticeable drawbacks, they are objectively bad. Everything anyone says can be considered an opinion if you disagree with it, but some things are simply true, and what I said can be verified by anyone. There is a single optimal reactor layout, and it is not complex nor does it require creativity.

Creativity is subjective, but what is not is that Schine defined goals for the update that objectively failed. The system is not more performant, does not make the game easier to get started for new users, does not encourage specialization, etc. The game can is 10x less performant than it used to be, new players are quitting faster because they are discouraged by integrity and stabilizers, and RP and Chamber weight make 80% of chambers useless because it is too hard to just get some basic functionality crammed into a ship to even attempt at specializing... so yes, it did objectively fail because the outcome was opposite of the goals

But feel free to ask a server admin running an active server under the new systems to post here - for example - about how they are having problems with a pervasive spaghetti ship meta ruining the game. You believe such ships have made integrity a failure, I'm sure you should have no problem finding admins having this problem. That would at least warrant serious consideration, and I'm sure Schine would be very interested in having a good look at those logs.

This is one of those issues that is more containable at small scale. The fewer players there are, the more stable things like an honor system become. What does not seem like a big deal now will become a big deal when the game is released for the same reason docked armor and shield injectors were a big deal. It only takes 1 or 2 people breaking the code of honor before other people start to do the same to protect themselves. Before you know it, 1/3 players will be fighting with spaghetti ships because so many other people are using them that anything else becomes an unacceptable risk.

There is absolutely a layout which is significantly better than others, and it's more than a slight edge. Other designs work because stabilizers have been nerfed to the point of irrelevance, which will presumably be fixed in the future.

This was true of Power 1.0 as well, but it was less obvious. I think the real problem is that power 1.0 ship could be laid out however and still be mostly functional. Power 2.0 ships that used to be slightly less good are now non-functional to the point that people can't even refit their old hulls in to useful new ships. Factions that preferred chunkier ships like KDI, Vaygr, and Lux have basically nothing they can carry over.

... The real mistake was not setting up a playable v.1 and keeping all the new development in the dev pre-release build until it was actually playable (even if still very buggy). It became obvious very early that they should have kept the majority of the "testers" playing on the old version until they were ready to roll out 2.0 altogether.

Haha, this could not be more true. A handful of people were very vocal about power 2.0 dev builds, but no one was pissed off about it until it was released.

Spaghetti is more difficult and less effective but it's still possible. It won't be after weapons 3.0 is released so it's a non-issue, but not due to integrity.

Yes, integrity will be obsolete for its intended purpose. It was an interesting experiment, but should definitely be removed for performance sake.

The weapons update is good because it was sufficiently well thought out, well designed, and has so far been implemented reasonably, not because Schine ignored harsh criticism of the power update. That makes no sense. These things are unrelated except in insignificant ways.

Agreed

No, I'm not. That's why I wrote a post explaining why the power update is still pretty terrible.

Yeah, people are getting tired of complaining about it, but it's still a bad system. All the niceness of weapons 3.0 could have happened just fine on power 1.0.

 

[JinM]

It only takes 1 or 2 people breaking the code of honor before other people start to do the same to protect themselves. Before you know it, 1/3 players will be fighting with spaghetti ships because so many other people are using them that anything else becomes an unacceptable risk.

I didn't read your whole post, though I am sure you made some valid points.

I just want to argue on this one point about spagetti, that if spagetti will ever be so annoying, it will be considered exploiting (or call it however you feel like, for example forbidden meta) from server owners and they will just straight up ban people who us it.

And no, up to this point, I didn't encounter one fight chat while I was on servers, where spagetti even got mentioned. Up to this point I never recognised even one dude fighting with spagetti on a server, and in my perception spagetti is just a hypothetical construct I have heard from in forums, but never witnessed it in reality.

Even though I think it's totally valid to point it out that it is dangerous for meta. I just don't think it's really an important point when it comes to the pro or cons of our pvp meta.

 

[Zoolimar]

Even though I think it's totally valid to point it out that it is dangerous for meta. I just don't think it's really an important point when it comes to the pro or cons of our pvp meta.

It's like saying that you don't think nuclear weapons are dangerous because you never have seen them used.

 

[MacThule]

It's like saying that you don't think nuclear weapons are dangerous because you never have seen them used.

It's not even vaguely similar - you've ignored his point entirely and read only the support for his premise. That he hasn't seen the problem on a server.

Have you seen spaghetti cause a problem for players on an MP server? Has anyone? Ever?

No.

Because there is no problem.

His point was clearly that spaghetti is a moot issue because it's an obvious exploit and any player caught using a sketti ship on an MP server will probably be banned after a single warning. Any player affect will general chat something along the lines of "hey, I just got raped in sector x, y, z by someone flying... a cloud of dust? what's up with that?" An admin will track down the offender, say "dude - not cool. no spaghetti ships allowed. /destroy_entity. make me do it again and you're banned."

So it's really not important to the pros and cons of systems for our PvP balance, unless youreally, really want it to pretend it is (i.e. ignoring basic realities that make sketti not an actual problem in order to kick up a fuss about something that could, maybe theoretically be a problem in no real application ever) and hump your confirmation bias super raw over the issue.

Maybe you've seen a lot of problems with it on the MP servers. Maybe I'm wrong and it's a total plague on the community servers in the release. Doubt it though. There hasn't been a single ServAd whose complained about such an issue.

Because there is no spaghetti problem. Just a theory.

 

[Nosajimiki]

I just want to argue on this one point about spagetti, that if spagetti will ever be so annoying, it will be considered exploiting (or call it however you feel like, for example forbidden meta) from server owners and they will just straight up ban people who us it.

And no, up to this point, I didn't encounter one fight chat while I was on servers, where spagetti even got mentioned. Up to this point I never recognised even one dude fighting with spagetti on a server, and in my perception spagetti is just a hypothetical construct I have heard from in forums, but never witnessed it in reality.

Even though I think it's totally valid to point it out that it is dangerous for meta. I just don't think it's really an important point when it comes to the pro or cons of our pvp meta.

This is not something like docked armor or shield injectors where a ship either is or is not. It is a spectrum mechanic where any rule regarding it gets very fuzzy. On LvD, we tried doing several competitions where "no spaghetti" was a rule, and every one ended in people arguing about what is or is not a speg ship while people tried to bend the rules.

In survival, Big Dude had his giant 3km wide halo ship that he deployed several times. Trinova deployed Fair-and-Balanced in several fights. Veilith's 65k was mostly empty space wrapped in a lightweight docked hull which he deployed in many battles. BDoW "tested" his crystalline entity in a few live battles. Non and Nastral both made heavy use of low density building. Many people used skinny stick ships to evade large amounts of damage. Disruptors create spaghetti like targeting issues. It's all a gradient, and there is no man-made rule that can effectively define what is or is not "spaghetti", and if there was, so many rulings would come down to judgement calls that admins trying to enforce those rules would just spend all their time filtering complaints about it. This is why it is so important to weight against in the game mechanics.

As for the likeliness for you to encounter this, it is more post-release future populations you need to consider than current populations. The higher server populations get, the more likely it is for one person to say "screw it", and field a spaghetti ship. Then other people will need to field their own spaghetti ships to counter it. The problem just escalates over time.

It's like saying that you don't think nuclear weapons are dangerous because you never have seen them used.

^Perfect analogy. Most people don't want a Nuclear war, but that does not mean there are not world leaders out there who are crazy enough to do it. This is why Nuclear Proliferation is so important to control, because once that powder keg gets sparked... it does not take long to spread.
[doublepost=1526932752,1526932567][/doublepost]

It's not even vaguely similar - you've ignored his point entirely and read only the support for his premise. That he hasn't seen the problem on a server.

Have you seen spaghetti cause a problem for players on an MP server? Has anyone? Ever?

No.

Because there is no problem.

His point was clearly that spaghetti is a moot issue because it's an obvious exploit and any player caught using a sketti ship on an MP server will probably be banned after a single warning. Any player affect will general chat something along the lines of "hey, I just got raped in sector x, y, z by someone flying... a cloud of dust? what's up with that?" An admin will track down the offender, say "dude - not cool. no spaghetti ships allowed. /destroy_entity. make me do it again and you're banned."

So it's really not important to the pros and cons of systems for our PvP balance, unless youreally, really want it to pretend it is (i.e. ignoring basic realities that make sketti not an actual problem in order to kick up a fuss about something that could, maybe theoretically be a problem in no real application ever) and hump your confirmation bias super raw over the issue.

Maybe you've seen a lot of problems with it on the MP servers. Maybe I'm wrong and it's a total plague on the community servers in the release. Doubt it though. There hasn't been a single ServAd whose complained about such an issue.

Because there is no spaghetti problem. Just a theory.

Yes. 2 that were 100% absolutely 1 block wide spaghetti, 4 that were spaghetti made of stands 3-6 blocks thick and countless other ships on the spectrum.

[edit] BTW, you say you never saw it, but how much actual PvP have you seen since the meta become common knowledge?

 

[MacThule]

The problem just escalates over time.

Assuming catastrophically incompetent admins, perhaps. Theoretically.

In fact it's never happened though and probably never will.
[doublepost=1526933544,1526933449][/doublepost]

BTW, you say you never saw it, but how much actual PvP have you seen since the meta become common knowledge?

Oh I've seen spaghetti.

I never said what you're reading me as having said.

I said I've never seen it become a problem for a multiplayer server.

Have you?

 

[JinM]

The problem just escalates over time.

(...)
[edit] BTW, you say you never saw it, but how much actual PvP have you seen since the meta become common knowledge?

Hey I have in my memories several messages from Schine developers where they said that this or that was done to prevent being OP etc. I think Schema does care about balanced gameplay. So if this Spagetti problem ever becomes a real annoyance I am pretty sure he will find a solution against it. Remember how fast he fixed exploits when Vagyr exploits usages got revealed? He did and will react to important meta stuff when it comes to a real and often usable annoyance.

To your edit question: I didn't say I saw PVP I said I read no chatter where people complained about spagetti abuse during or after fights. And I have quite some online time on servers. Not hardcore times but above 300 hours in the last 6 months, so that should be enough.

Most complaints on server where I were online was more about: "Everyone hugs their station, it's boring come out and fight me!", or: "I am just new to the game, why did you shoot me at my own station and killed my first own built ship!" - Such stuff I remember quite well.

Anyway it's important to be worried, and I am not really a hardcore pvper enough to judge you in any way about your viewpoint on spagetti. I just see it not as complicated as you do.

 

[Nosajimiki]

yes, LvD had escalating issues with low density building as a whole when the power release killed PvP and most of that playerbase left.
Flying Debris went on spaghetti killing sprees once on LvD and once on Freaks.
Big Dude deployed his halo ship many times.
Competitions got screwed by them several times when Fellow Starmadian, Other Starmadian, Non, etc fielded spegs.
Some players pushed low density so far that their ships caused client side crashes 50% of the time just looking at them.

While purely "speg" ships were rare, the trend at the end of power 1.0 was that everyone in the PvP community was pushing that envelope to get away with as spegified as they thought they could not be judged for.

 

[MacThule]

yes, LvD had escalating issues with low density building as a whole when the power release killed PvP and most of that playerbase left.
Flying Debris went on spaghetti killing sprees once on LvD and once on Freaks.
Big Dude deployed his halo ship many times.
Competitions got screwed by them several times when Fellow Starmadian, Other Starmadian, Non, etc fielded spegs.
Some players pushed low density so far that their ships caused client side crashes 50% of the time just looking at them.

While purely "speg" ships were rare, the trend at the end of power 1.0 was that everyone in the PvP community was pushing that envelope to get away with as spegified as they thought they could not be judged for.

So pushing low density, became an issue briefly on one server. Once, a while back. Not even actual spaghetti, just people pushing the low density envelope. Sounds like it kinda-sorta qualifies as one acute incident. I assume that NaStral was able to handle it? I also assume that it hasn't happened again since?

And individuals have exploited it to harrass on a few others. Of course. I assume none of those ventures precipitated a collapse of the server's meta into pure spaghetti.

I'm not saying that spaghetti is great, or that it wouldn't be a problem if it actually were a meta or even ever could be. I'm saying that it's not actually an issue and could not be an issue as things stand now except on a completely un-moderated MP server.

 

[JinM]

a completely un-moderated MP server.

On the other hand most pvp servers are unmoderated right now.

But that's more an issue from the admin side. A sandbox game with competetive part needs its competition moderated. Can't even blame the exploiting players here when the admins are just afk. If not the spagetti gets abused, something else is.
[doublepost=1526941126,1526940900][/doublepost]

While purely "speg" ships were rare, the trend at the end of power 1.0 was that (everyone) the tryhards that can't win otherwise in the PvP community was pushing that envelope to get away with as spegified as they thought they could not be judged for.

fixed it for you

 

[MacThule]

On the other hand most pvp servers are unmoderated right now.

Good point. So "in theory" they must be absolutely swamped with spaghetti at this point, since one thing inevitably leads to another and it spirals out of control so easily.

 

[NaStral]

Relying too heavily on admins results in burnout and disengagement. The community shouldn’t even think about admin intervention for anything. I’m honestly sick of dev mistakes rolling down hill to the servers and then players expecting us to clean up the mess. Nope, not happening. You play it as is and make your bug reports in phabricator and raise major issues on the forums and discord.

The spaghetti thing was stupid and the only reason why it was dragged up time and time again was because certain people were mad and wanted attention. It was never a disruptive thing on LvD. Even really meta minded players cared about personal aesthetics enough to not go that far.

 

[JinM]

he spaghetti thing was stupid and the only reason why it was dragged up time and time again was because certain people were mad and wanted attention. It was never a disruptive thing on LvD. Even really meta minded players cared about personal aesthetics enough to not go that far.

*Insert "Thank you!"-meme.*

 

[Agame3]

You... you haven't forgotten this is an alpha, have you? You're a playtester not a player.

I play a game for fun. I'm not a tester. I accept the low quality of the product because of its very low price. Maybe its quality will grow during development maybe not, I'll just wait and see. Who signed a contract with Schine can say he works for the development of StarMade, as whatever he was employed to do, voluntarily or for a salary. Who signed nothing but downloaded the game should not try to impersonate a Schine employee. A game tester is an employee. A player is a customer.