Read by Council A Bold Idea - Remove almost all advantages of docked entities and replace their functions

[Benevolent27]

Alright, so I am going to make a bold suggestion here. Allow servers to be configured to take away the incentives to have docked entities and replace those options with better ones. I'm not referring to carrier ships or turrets. By this, I mean..
1. Allow a server to change the configuration file so that ION effect and other passives will NOT transfer to any docked entities. This is to help balance turrets and docked entities, like heat seeker spammers, which may utilize their own power systems. This will also discourage docked entities by making them weaken your main ship and also by making them easier to kill. Also, as it stands, the main ship can extend it's ION effect to docked entities, without any additional ion module cost? This isn't very realistic. If the player wants ION effect on the docked entity, then the docked entity should have it's own ION effect modules and energy cost.

2. Allow a change so that power supply computers/modules and shield supply computers/modules CANNOT hit any ship they are docked to (or any entities attached to that same ship). This is to make docked power/shield injectors useless, so that people do not use them, and so there will not be horrible terrible lag in combat.

3. Allow servers to configure turrets to ONLY share the shields of entities up to two deep into the chain (this is to retain the ability to have them set to odd angles, like at a 45 degree angle to the main ship).

4. Allow a setting to be switched on which would make turrets ALWAYS draw their power from their own power and then the MAIN SHIP, skipping past any entities they are docked to in between. This would make docked power cores useless and so they would be discouraged, and thus would reduce lag quite a bit.

BUT WHY?!
You might be asking why I suggest we allow server admins to implement such extreme changes. Well, I'll tell you why. Players create docked power and shield injectors, and place them deep inside of their ships. In order to make a capable warship that is a bit larger (think 100k or larger), these are 100% necessary. There is no other way to provide the power for adequate ION effect, thrusters, shield rechargers, larger weapons arrays, radarjamming, etc. The problem happens when they enter into combat and these interior docked injectors start having their rail dockers blown off. The entities rattle around inside the ship, creating massive lag with all the collision detection going on. It can be so bad that it kills the server (think of a 1m mass ship having 30 docked injectors blown off). Suffice it to say, this really kills the joy of combat. There is enough lag from missile spam, lots of surface area, possible bounding box issues, ect. We gotta stamp out lag. This is key to making combat fun and this would be a good place to start.

So, removing this sort of functionality would be a real bummer, right? I think these features of StarMade add legitimate fun to BUILDING the ship and in creating smart designs, but it KILLS the PVP, which is ultimately the whole point right? So I am suggesting these features be REPLACED by new ones that are even better. This will require a bit of a paradigm shift here, and I think it should also guide new features. When a new feature is implemented, the question of the lag it will create in actual combat needs to be seriously considered, and if the feature would produce crazy lag, just do not do it. Think of something else. Think of something better. Stop making features that require docked entities to take advantage of them.

For replacements, there need to be options that fulfill the same features but which are located on the same entity. And while we're at it, we can add some cool new features.


REPLACEMENTS:
1. Instead of docked power injectors, introduce more ways to produce power past the power cap by placing new kinds of blocks on the SAME ENTITY, but give different pros and cons to them. Some possibilities may include "Nuclear reactors," which allow you to go over the power cap, but they blow up when destroyed, like warheads. They also damage astronauts that get too close. Perhaps there could be a kind of hydrogen fuel cell, which automatically fills itself up, but must be activated by logic to release the stored energy to the main ship (then logic turned off to allow them to refill with a short pause when switching between modes). These will also supply power above and beyond the power cap, but not as much as nuclear reactors. However, they would not explode when destroyed and astronauts could safely walk near them.

2. Instead of docked shield injectors, there could be a new block called the "Shield Fission Reactor," which could be turned on and off through logic. They work like a shield-recharger when on, but use significantly less power. They will, however, overheat if on for too long and explode. And if they are on when destroyed, they will create rather large explosions, like a more powerful warhead. If off, no explosion is created.

BALANCE CHANGES:
With these new blocks, reduce the HP penalty a bit, because now there will be more fragility to these larger ships and that would need to be factored in.

Well, that's all I have for now. I know these may seem like kind of drastic changes, but I think it's a very necessary shift in thinking that needs to happen. Thank you for your time, and as always, thoughts and suggestions are welcome.

 

[jstenholt]

This sounds more like a mod than a real game suggestion. And not a particularly good one.

1. As a whole, I object to this because while docked generators and shield suppliers may need balancing, removing them entirely is a terrible solution. You don't mend a compound fracture by amputating your arm.

2. Same reasoning behind #1. Terrible solution that limits player freedom, even if it is server-based.

3. Sounds completely off topic and absolutely unnecessary. What reason is there to stop players from building turrets on a wedged surface? If somebody puts the effort in to make their ship look good by doing this, why punish them? Furthermore, it doesn't sound like you have considered the effect this would have on docked ships with turrets, as all of a sudden this suggestion means that any ship that is docked doesn't enjoy the docked protection the rest of the ship inherits from the dock.

4. If we follow the "logic" of the rest of your post, this entire suggestion is already unnecessary. Plus, turrets already draw from their own power before drawing from the mothership.

I think these features of StarMade add legitimate fun to BUILDING the ship and in creating smart designs, but it KILLS the PVP, which is ultimately the whole point right?

No. That is absolutely not the whole point. You have the dev's vision all wrong; everything schema has done has been about preserving this game's near-complete sandbox freedom. The big cat himself has stated many times that this game is first and foremost a sandbox. That's why every single update he puts out retains the functionality of previous updates.


And as for the two extra blocks you suggested, I really don't understand. Are these only for server that disable docked generators? Do they work in the normal game? If so, what purpose do they server other than increasing the learning curve?

I can only refer you to the many, many different threads that discuss adding different types of reactors and shielding, of which there are once again... many.

 

[Criss]

1. As a whole, I object to this because while docked generators and shield suppliers may need balancing, removing them entirely is a terrible solution. You don't mend a compound fracture by amputating your arm.

Actually the dev team has already investigated this and concluded that docked reactors should eventually go. They cause plenty of lag, and are an unintended barrier to pass in mastering the game's mechanics. I am fairly certain shield and power supply were intended for external transfer, not internal transfer, when they were put in the game.

To be completely honest, I think ship specialization would become more prominent if we did not replace docked reactors with anything once they were removed. Ships do not need every type of system. If the AI becomes good enough, then fleet ships can take the role of the various modules you would normally fit to your ship.

We have plans for a replacement, but it will likely require more discussion when we get closer to implementing anything.

 

[Ithirahad]

To be completely honest, I think ship specialization would become more prominent if we did not replace docked reactors with anything once they were removed. Ships do not need every type of system. If the AI becomes good enough, then fleet ships can take the role of the various modules you would normally fit to your ship.

This would make building large ships kind of dumb. You'd just spam blocks with no consideration for arrangement of systems... At least under the current system, with smaller ships you have to figure out an efficient reactor design and with larger ships you have to arrange your systems around docked reactors in a neat way.

Personally, I prefer the idea of having explosive generation modules that scale linearly, or if not, scale by group size and have a much higher soft cap.

 

[Nickizzy]

This would make building large ships kind of dumb

Isn't that sorta the point? Power softcap is how they put a limit on ship size. It was ment(in a way) to make building many small ships(or just a bunch of semilarge ships) more attractive to people to reduce the big-ship-wins idea. Docked reactors are people getting around this through the loophole that each entity in the docking chain has it's own cap.

 

[Ithirahad]

By "large" I don't mean NuclearDoughnut's kilometer-long GPU detonators, I just mean 400-500m capital vessels. Those are well over the size that can run efficiently (or even enjoyably) without docked reactors or their equivalent.

 

[Borr]

Well, from one side I like ship modularity docked modules can offer, from other, I understand that that kind of modules can cause a lot of lag issues. I think we should leave it be but when their attach point is destroyed they simply explode immediately (and maybe cause some damage to the ship?). In addition we could have special docker for modules to separate them from other docked entities, and shield/power supply systems, docked engines, wouldn't work without them when docked.

 

[StarWars1981]

It seems as if this discussion is already past its usefulness; we received a response telling us roughly what the devs have planned for this suggestion's content.
However, if docked reactors are removed, standard reactor modules HAVE to get more efficiency. They need more energy per block because my long, thing 250 meter ship can't run itself on its own power. While not maneuvering, it takes thirty seconds to charge power after firing a SMALL nuke, and LONGER if the cannon are running. And did I mention thrusters and shield gen are NOT taking power?
Perhaps give them a higher softcap by measuring the FILLED volume and then giving that a higher multiplier.

 

[Malacodor]

I don't understand why the power softcap was introduced at all, there are better mathematical solutions for diminishing returns on bigger ships' energy production. If the dimensional bonus grew logarithmical but uncapped we'd have a similar effect, but no need for docked reactors.

 

[jstenholt]

We have plans for a replacement, but it will likely require more discussion when we get closer to implementing anything.

Of course, I am very confident in your guys' ability to come up with a practical solution. But for now, I object very strongly to the outright removal of docked generators.

 

[Ithirahad]

Isn't that sorta the point? Power softcap is how they put a limit on ship size. It was ment(in a way) to make building many small ships(or just a bunch of semilarge ships) more attractive to people to reduce the big-ship-wins idea. Docked reactors are people getting around this through the loophole that each entity in the docking chain has it's own cap.

I don't mean dumb as in "you shouldn't do it," I mean dumb as in "mindless." You'd just spam blocks.

 

[Lecic]

1. Allow a server to change the configuration file so that ION effect and other passives will NOT transfer to any docked entities. This is to help balance turrets and docked entities, like heat seeker spammers, which may utilize their own power systems. This will also discourage docked entities by making them weaken your main ship and also by making them easier to kill. Also, as it stands, the main ship can extend it's ION effect to docked entities, without any additional power cost? This isn't very realistic. If the player wants ION effect on the docked entity, then the docked entity should have it's own ION effect modules and energy cost.

You do realize that docked entities increase the ship's mass and increase the amount of ion modules needed for full effect, right?

I'm all for allowing server owners to turn this off, but your logic for why is incredibly flawed.

3. Allow servers to configure turrets to ONLY share the shields of entities up to two deep into the chain (this is to retain the ability to have them set to odd angles, like at a 45 degree angle to the main ship).

I don't think you really thought this through. Again, let server owners do what they want- but you reasons for why are flawed.

4. Allow a setting to be switched on which would make turrets ALWAYS draw their power from their own power and then the MAIN SHIP, skipping past any entities they are docked to in between. This would make docked power cores useless and so they would be discouraged, and thus would reduce lag quite a bit.

Any turret that needs a docked power core is going to be incredibly inefficient anyway and would be better off having two smaller turrets. Why is this necessary? Only idiots use these instead of additional turrets.

BUT WHY?!
You might be asking why I suggest we allow server admins to implement such extreme changes. Well, I'll tell you why. Players create docked power and shield injectors, and place them deep inside of their ships. In order to make a capable warship that is a bit larger (think 100k or larger), these are 100% necessary. There is no other way to provide the power for adequate ION effect, thrusters, shield rechargers, larger weapons arrays, radarjamming, etc. The problem happens when they enter into combat and these interior docked injectors start having their rail dockers blown off. The entities rattle around inside the ship, creating massive lag with all the collision detection going on. It can be so bad that it kills the server (think of a 1m mass ship having 30 docked injectors blown off). Suffice it to say, this really kills the joy of combat. There is enough lag from missile spam, lots of surface area, possible bounding box issues, ect. We gotta stamp out lag. This is key to making combat fun and this would be a good place to start.

Combat is plenty of fun. It is the build up to combat and the aftermath of combat that aren't fun.

Let me let everyone here in on a little secret- if you have your reactor cavity full of open doors and close them once you dock the reactor, when the reactor dock gets shot off, it won't collide with the mothership at all! Great, I know. It's a leftover from the old docking system, where things wouldn't collide if they were overlapping when they undocked until they left eachother's bounding boxes.

Do I think docked reactors need to eventually go? Yes, of course. They should be replaced with a fuel mechanic. The issues of lag and such, however, are greatly overstated.

1. Instead of docked power injectors, introduce more ways to produce power past the power cap by placing new kinds of blocks on the SAME ENTITY, but give different pros and cons to them. Some possibilities may include "Nuclear reactors," which allow you to go over the power cap, but they blow up when destroyed, like warheads. They also damage astronauts that get too close. Perhaps there could be a kind of hydrogen fuel cell, which automatically fills itself up, but must be activated by logic to release the stored energy to the main ship (then logic turned off to allow them to refill with a short pause when switching between modes). These will also supply power above and beyond the power cap, but not as much as nuclear reactors. However, they would not explode when destroyed and astronauts could safely walk near them.

I would say that a fuel system using hydrogen would be the best choice of replacement.

2. Instead of docked shield injectors, there could be a new block called the "Shield Fission Reactor," which could be turned on and off through logic. They work like a shield-recharger when on, but use significantly less power. They will, however, overheat if on for too long and explode. And if they are on when destroyed, they will create rather large explosions, like a more powerful warhead. If off, no explosion is created.

Considering how the purpose of docked shield injectors is to bypass the 10 second shield outage, something I find to be INCREDIBLY OVERPOWERED, I would say we shouldn't be replacing this once it's removed.

To be completely honest, I think ship specialization would become more prominent if we did not replace docked reactors with anything once they were removed. Ships do not need every type of system. If the AI becomes good enough, then fleet ships can take the role of the various modules you would normally fit to your ship.

Ships DON'T need every type of system already. A specialized ship will kick a jack-of-all-trades ship's ass any day of the week already.

Removing docked reactors with no replacement is a shitty idea. As if drone spam isn't already overpowered enough? Christ.

Has anyone here ever played Reassembly? The unbeatable tactic for tournaments in the game is to just make absurdly large drone swarms. I would rather not have Starmade end up the same way.

 

[DrTarDIS]

Honestly, It's utterly retarded to put docked reactors, shield supplies, or dual-mode hybrids on the inside of your ship for the very laggy reasons you point out, but also because of the way beams "stick" in space while maneuvering causing they to sometimes "pass though" several layers of blocks.

IMHO docked reactors, rechargers, and even momentum-weapon "maneuvering entities" are best placed on the OUTSIDE of your ship allowing them to "fall off" easily if docks get damaged, as well as providing the largest possible cross-section for the beams to contact.
Interesting sub-benefits of this "ablative helpers" methodology is they provide better lock-on protection from outside the main hull, an additional layer of independent "overheating protection" for the all-important pilot seat.

Conclusion: convince the server admins ban INTERNAL docked reactors with a "delete on sight" penalty(with a few days grace period of server messages before policy implementation), And give the PvP a much richer flavor with the external ones. Targeting IMPORTANT SUB SYSTEMS like those docked units adds a very tactical-vs-strategic choice to combat, enriching the experience across the board.

**Snip, snip**

Considering how the purpose of docked shield injectors is to bypass the 10 second shield outage, something I find to be INCREDIBLY OVERPOWERED, I would say we shouldn't be replacing this once it's removed.

as bove: tactical decision to target those injectors(re:IMPORTANT SUBSYSTEMS) to REMOVE that advantage is quite viable, and in my honest opinion(IMHO) required for the game to maintain any level of depth to it's PvP gameplay.
Otherwise, like you say, "send in the drones" becomes the only viable option and leaves combat a single bland flavor.

 

[Lecic]

as bove: tactical decision to target those injectors(re:IMPORTANT SUBSYSTEMS) to REMOVE that advantage is quite viable, and in my honest opinion(IMHO) required for the game to maintain any level of depth to it's PvP gameplay.
Otherwise, like you say, "send in the drones" becomes the only viable option and leaves combat a single bland flavor.

How, exactly, are you supposed to know something is a docked reactor or shield gen and how are you supposed to target the dock?

 

[Criss]

Interesting. This is one of the larger issues the council pushed for, and they came up with a solution similar to what is suggested here.

My points still stand.

They cause plenty of lag, and are an unintended barrier to pass in mastering the game's mechanics.

 

[Dragleones]

This would make building large ships kind of dumb. You'd just spam blocks with no consideration for arrangement of systems... At least under the current system, with smaller ships you have to figure out an efficient reactor design and with larger ships you have to arrange your systems around docked reactors in a neat way.

Personally, I prefer the idea of having explosive generation modules that scale linearly, or if not, scale by group size and have a much higher soft cap.

I really love this idea.
Would keep ship design innovative since you really need to carefully think about how to lay them out in order to prevent your ship from blowing up.

I kinda dislike the current power growth in general. The curve blows through the roof and then hardly rises anymore.

Spoiler: Growth for a single group

With multiple groups the curve looks a bit different.
But if you would like to minmax you can build ~120m long tubes with about 30 power stripes and you would easily achieve the maximum amount of power using a minimum of space. (400e/sec per block, 3600 blocks, 1,5 million e/sec total)

If you put a bit more thought into your power layout you can easily achieve the same numbers on a much much shorter slightly bulkier vessel.
Most of the docked reactors you can find only provide a fraction (50-200 e/sec) of that while being much more expensive, vulnerable and a bit awkward to handle.
They never were a method to "get around" the power cap.


What does determine the overall capabilitys of a vessel the same way power does? Nothing
Drones are already a thing for quite a while. Now that we are approaching advanced fleet controls it might be time to reconsider the power formula.
A few optimized ships can absolutely shred a single vessels with a multiple of their combined mass.
And even then. Big vessels still can exploit this mechanic via their turrets.

The only thing it does is that the current formula heavily favours a distinct ship/turret size killing diversity in combat.


What if power would scale more similar to shield capacity (near linear, slightly diminishing exponential growth).

You could combine this with the idea proposed by Ithirahad
Or how about Lecic proposal of a fuel system.

It doesn't really matter how, but i strongly feel that we need to have something that fills the gap once docked generators are gone.
And the formula should be changed. The curve just shouldn't have a point of inflection.

 

[DrTarDIS]

How, exactly, are you supposed to know something is a docked reactor or shield gen and how are you supposed to target the dock?

How to know: have you ever looked top left after pressing "f" on an entity? You think shield recharge entity looks anything like a power supply entity on stats? Even barring the difference in systems HP you'd see, a power supply would have it's current power (visible to you, top left) fluxing in a cyclic manner, a shield supply likewise on shield levels, and a hybrid both. Perhapse I have too much faith in the observational and logic capacity of humans...

as for targeting the dock, I'd think it'd be more important to just cripple the supply system with damage after the main shields drop enough. For docked power supplies this can usually invert their function, causing massive DRAIN on the mother ship rather than intended supply. Alas, shield supply would need your standard "lucky shot" through the logic or computer to properly cripple.

---snip--
They never were a method to "get around" the power cap.
--snip--
The curve just shouldn't have a point of inflection.

1st snip: Uhm...ya they were/are; take your ship up to 2.4 million e/sec, after that add roughly 1.1 million e/sec per docked reactor for much less space than the equivalent 1.1 million on the main entity. Stacking optimized external reactors multiplies the linear growth mechanic you see arise after softcap on main entity by quite a large coefficient at the cost of design time, vulnerability, and mildly expensive secondary additions.
[DOUBLEPOST=1463796959,1463794822][/DOUBLEPOST]

My points still stand. (They cause plenty of lag, and are an unintended barrier to pass in mastering the game's mechanics.)

On "unintended barrier", allow me to showcase another "unintended barrier to mastery" that became the CORE of what makes another franchise so great: Skiing
Just because it's unintended, does not mean it's bad. Some of the best and most fun features of many games arise(much like great scientific discoveries) by complete accident and only require minor refinements to make a truly enjoyable experience.

On the lag? Don't tell me ~15 lines of code, mostly copy-pasted from the storage block, to allow c-v of a supply system to a docker(as output) isn't viable.

 

[Criss]

On "unintended barrier", allow me to showcase another "unintended barrier to mastery"

Yeah but it is kinda dumb. In order to have a great ship, or at least one that is powered enough to function and perform well, you need to dock another ship to it and that ship needs to supply power to the mothership, because you know, power cap doesn't go cross entity."

It's really the silliest way to solve the problem, and again, was never the intent.

On the lag? Don't tell me ~15 lines of code, mostly copy-pasted from the storage block, to allow c-v of a supply system to a docker(as output) isn't viable.

You are most likely vastly oversimplifying the problem here. Don't you think if we could copy paste 15 lines of borrowed code we wouldn't have fixed it by now?

 

[DrTarDIS]

Yeah but it is kinda dumb. In order to have a great ship, or at least one that is powered enough to function and perform well, you need to dock another ship to it and that ship needs to supply power to the mothership, because you know, power cap doesn't go cross entity."

It's really the silliest way to solve the problem, and again, was never the intent.


You are most likely vastly oversimplifying the problem here. Don't you think if we could copy paste 15 lines of borrowed code we wouldn't have fixed it by now?

Not trying to be rude but...just saying "dumb" in 2 different ways doesn't convey your meaning very well. It's a rather flawed rhetoric that might work at a political rally but is unproductive in discussion. I think you do have some concrete reasons but you need to refine your presentation of them to properly convey your meaning.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a point where if you build a ship big enough you NEED to bypass the diminishing returns of power to address the diminishing returns and increased cost introduced to the thrust mechanic.
Calling it a "problem" in of itself seems to indicate that the very diminishing returns mechanic in question is the SOURCE of the "problem" and needs to be tweaked to linear, or recognized as an evolution and delt with in kind.
As for vastly oversimplifying the problem, here's my thought process:
-Does the docking mechanic allow power to transfer one way already?(Boolean answer)
-Does the docking mechanic allow shields to transfer one way already? (Boolean answer)
-Does the docking mechanic allow discreet data to be transferred across entities already from cargo?(Boolean answer)
All three seem to indicate to me that the answer is indeed a quick copy-paste/goto that dumps the contents of one register on chip (transfered tick of power/shield beam) into another register on chip(power/shield curret value) with a couple of "if not full" loops that are indeed, likely found in the code of the storage block's current incarnation. and all of this without dealing with raycasting a beam in complex geometry(AFAICT the actual source of the "lag").
SO no ffence, BUt yeah I DO kinda think "you" would not have done it, simply because there are already 50 pots in the kitchen and the cook migh not realise he can boil potatoes and eggs in the same pot.

 

[Benevolent27]

You do realize that docked entities increase the ship's mass and increase the amount of ion modules needed for full effect, right?

I'm all for allowing server owners to turn this off, but your logic for why is incredibly flawed.

I'm not just saying this. I'm a bit perplex why you think this Lecic, since anyone who has used ION effect and have docked entities to their ship should know this. But since you are unaware, I will just show you.

Here's a quick test setup. There is 19.3% ion effect.

Now, let's dock a big cube to it.

After turning off the ion effect and turning it back on, lo and behold, it's still at 19.3%, as expected. This can also be verified in the G menu and DEL menu, so we know it isn't just a display bug. I have also thoroughly tested ION effect on both bases and ships, doing actual damage to them, so I know the percentage isn't simply being mis-reported, but actually does produce the damage mitigation to shields as stated.

Edit: I mispoke about it not taking any more power though, so I have edited my post to refer to ion module count, not power.

I don't think you really thought this through. Again, let server owners do what they want- but you reasons for why are flawed.

Well that's not really a useful criticism. Why do you think it is flawed? The reason I'd suggest server admins to allow shields to ONLY be shared down the entity line two entities is because it would set very real drawbacks on long entity chains and discourage their use. Don't get me wrong, if there was a way to have everything we have in the game currently without crippling lag, I'd not be recommending any of these changes. I like the existing system, but I have had some rather terrible experiences in PVP as a result of the problems I outline here. Again, I'm not just "making things up," as you seem to think. This is a response due to both my experiences and others. When framerate drops to 1 frame a second due to entities being blown off their docks, it really hindered the "fun" of the PVP experience. When dueling with a rather large entity that had 53 docked entities inside of it, it basically crashed the server I was on when it started taking damage and entities were popping off. You can't tell me this is "flawed reasoning," these are facts Lecic. If you have a specific criticism, please feel free to make it, but just saying that I haven't thought something through, when I clearly have, and saying my logic is flawed.. with absolutely no supporting evidence.. is just unhelpful.

Any turret that needs a docked power core is going to be incredibly inefficient anyway and would be better off having two smaller turrets. Why is this necessary? Only idiots use these instead of additional turrets.

I am not referring to a docked power injector, I am referring to a power core. This is where you just dock an entity which has, let's say 2m power/sec regen, then dock turrets to it. It directly uses the power from that docked entity. It is 100% efficient power transfer, minus some conservative use of that power so that the docked entity does not dip below 0 power. All of my serious ships have these systems on them and it is why my ships completely dominate other player's ships that do not use them. If you think it is a "bad" system, I welcome you to fight my shredder ship on a ship that does not use them.

Combat is plenty of fun. It is the build up to combat and the aftermath of combat that aren't fun.

Sure, it's fun, so long as you don't get crippling lag. I love flying my ships around and destroying my opponents. What is not fun is when some docked injector blows off and I'm sitting at 1FPS for 5 minutes, with no control over my ship, as my hotbar becomes unresponsive. But I do agree there needs to be more motivation to have PVP in the first place, like experience that is gained from engaging in battle.

Let me let everyone here in on a little secret- if you have your reactor cavity full of open doors and close them once you dock the reactor, when the reactor dock gets shot off, it won't collide with the mothership at all! Great, I know. It's a leftover from the old docking system, where things wouldn't collide if they were overlapping when they undocked until they left eachother's bounding boxes.

Do I think docked reactors need to eventually go? Yes, of course. They should be replaced with a fuel mechanic. The issues of lag and such, however, are greatly overstated.

Well, that's useful to know. I oftentimes do overlap for things like power injectors, to fit more blocks into my ship. Around 50 blocks back from the dock, you can simply place blocks down which overlap a docked entity. I have seen entities ghost through the main ship, so there may be something to this, however I can tell you that this trick does not always work. A bug I've been having recently, where entities undock for no apparent reason while I am offline, has been plaguing me. It seems like everytime I log in, some sort of docked entity (either docked to my base or docked to a ship) is undocked. Last time this hapened, a docked injector which had overlapping blocks like this did not ghost through the main ship. Instead it rattled around, creating massive lag for me as I tried to get it unstuck. And this was not the first, second, or third time even.. This has happened multiple times. Perhaps plex doors can be closed closer than 50 blocks behind the dock, and this could produce the ghosting effective more reliably. I will test this. Thank you for the suggestion.

As for fuel being the obvious choice to the docked power injector problem, I wouldn't say that. Though it is an option, it is not the only option or an obvious one.

[/quote]

I would say that a fuel system using hydrogen would be the best choice of replacement.

Well, one of my concepts is a hydrogen fuel cell. I'd like to see more variety in power systems though and different pros and cons to them. I'm a big fan of having multiple ways to do something. I really do like docked injectors and things of that nature, but I also think it's necessary to cut em out of the game due to the lag they cause.

Considering how the purpose of docked shield injectors is to bypass the 10 second shield outage, something I find to be INCREDIBLY OVERPOWERED, I would say we shouldn't be replacing this once it's removed.

I agree with you here, hence why my suggestion for a new block did not replace that functionality. It did, however introduce a new game mechanic to replace the loss of one. Another one of the benefits of docked shield injectors is that they draw power from the entity they are on, which is why I suggest the replacement help with power costs, but introduces a different risk.




----------------------------------------------------------------------



[DOUBLEPOST=1463802557,1463801267][/DOUBLEPOST]

This sounds more like a mod than a real game suggestion. And not a particularly good one.

1. As a whole, I object to this because while docked generators and shield suppliers may need balancing, removing them entirely is a terrible solution. You don't mend a compound fracture by amputating your arm.

2. Same reasoning behind #1. Terrible solution that limits player freedom, even if it is server-based.

3. Sounds completely off topic and absolutely unnecessary. What reason is there to stop players from building turrets on a wedged surface? If somebody puts the effort in to make their ship look good by doing this, why punish them? Furthermore, it doesn't sound like you have considered the effect this would have on docked ships with turrets, as all of a sudden this suggestion means that any ship that is docked doesn't enjoy the docked protection the rest of the ship inherits from the dock.

4. If we follow the "logic" of the rest of your post, this entire suggestion is already unnecessary. Plus, turrets already draw from their own power before drawing from the mothership.



No. That is absolutely not the whole point. You have the dev's vision all wrong; everything schema has done has been about preserving this game's near-complete sandbox freedom. The big cat himself has stated many times that this game is first and foremost a sandbox. That's why every single update he puts out retains the functionality of previous updates.


And as for the two extra blocks you suggested, I really don't understand. Are these only for server that disable docked generators? Do they work in the normal game? If so, what purpose do they server other than increasing the learning curve?

I can only refer you to the many, many different threads that discuss adding different types of reactors and shielding, of which there are once again... many.

1. I don't like the idea of removing these features either, but I like the negative effects they produce even less. I am not suggesting just taking away features, I am suggesting they be replaced with features that are on the same entity, rather than being separate entities. This isn't amputating a perfectly good arm arm, it's replacing a diseased arm with a strong, healthy arm.

2. Again, I really don't like the idea of implementing this either, but the cost of the current system is too high. It needs to be replaced with a better one.

3. I have no idea what you are referring to by not allowing players to build on a "wedged surface." Players could still dock turrets to an entity that is moved to a 45 degree angle to the main ship (or which rotates), while sharing the shields from the main ship. The difference here is that it would be impractical to have a long chain of entities which the turrets then dock to.

4. Well yeah, I know turrets draw from their own power reserves before the main ship. Doy. lol. Out of all of my suggestions to remove benefits for docked entities, this is the one I like the least, but I still think it's necessary to eliminate the major benefits of docked entities. I believe this is a necessary sacrifice. One of my ships, which is 900k has 48 docked power cores, which turrets then draw from. Though it is extremely effective, because I have 96 million energy a second to draw from, boy does it stink if the ship starts getting blown apart. My ship is capable of killing any server. lol. If you think I want to cripple my own ships, think again, but I am willing to make the sacrifice so that combat is more viable in StarMade.

As for me having the "dev's vision all wrong," you seem to think you can speak for them? I'm not suggesting we take away from the sandbox experience, I am suggesting we do it in a better way. Rather than increasing capabilities through docked entities, they should be increasing capabilities though blocks you place on the mothership, to get the collision lag under control. There is absolutely no reason why Shine would HAVE TO introduce new game mechanics through laggy means. I am also not suggesting features be taken away, but rather refined. Shine has done this repeatedly through changes in their weapons systems, combat mechanics, thruster mechanics, etc. Do not tell me the game must remain the same and ONLY have things added to it, as though that is the vision of Schine. It is clearly not.

About the new blocks I propose, they would be optional. I'm not the type of person who wants to force people to my way of thinking, but rather give options, so that those who agree can have a universe like the one I would want.



----------------------------------------------------------------------



[DOUBLEPOST=1463803131][/DOUBLEPOST]

Isn't that sorta the point? Power softcap is how they put a limit on ship size. It was ment(in a way) to make building many small ships(or just a bunch of semilarge ships) more attractive to people to reduce the big-ship-wins idea. Docked reactors are people getting around this through the loophole that each entity in the docking chain has it's own cap.

I agree with this. A lot of people complain about the lag in StarMade, but they aren't willing to accept the necessary changes to reduce this lag. They want it all and are unrealistic about it. For smaller ships.. combat really is a lot of fun. When you have 3m mass ship with 500 turrets on it, however.. combat ceases to be fun. I firmly believe that the methods used to get around the power cap are the root cause for this.. because I use them.. and I battle against people who use them.. and combat stops being fun pretty quick once those docked injectors start blowing off.



----------------------------------------------------------------------



[DOUBLEPOST=1463803585][/DOUBLEPOST]

Honestly, It's utterly retarded to put docked reactors, shield supplies, or dual-mode hybrids on the inside of your ship for the very laggy reasons you point out, but also because of the way beams "stick" in space while maneuvering causing they to sometimes "pass though" several layers of blocks.

IMHO docked reactors, rechargers, and even momentum-weapon "maneuvering entities" are best placed on the OUTSIDE of your ship allowing them to "fall off" easily if docks get damaged, as well as providing the largest possible cross-section for the beams to contact.
Interesting sub-benefits of this "ablative helpers" methodology is they provide better lock-on protection from outside the main hull, an additional layer of independent "overheating protection" for the all-important pilot seat.

Conclusion: convince the server admins ban INTERNAL docked reactors with a "delete on sight" penalty(with a few days grace period of server messages before policy implementation), And give the PvP a much richer flavor with the external ones. Targeting IMPORTANT SUB SYSTEMS like those docked units adds a very tactical-vs-strategic choice to combat, enriching the experience across the board.


as bove: tactical decision to target those injectors(re:IMPORTANT SUBSYSTEMS) to REMOVE that advantage is quite viable, and in my honest opinion(IMHO) required for the game to maintain any level of depth to it's PvP gameplay.
Otherwise, like you say, "send in the drones" becomes the only viable option and leaves combat a single bland flavor.

It's not retarded because these docked injectors are protected. All things being equal, a ship that has them docked on the outside WILL lose to a ship that has them docked in the inside, which is why it is what almost everyone does. I also disagree with your theory that beams are less effective when a power injector is inside of a ship. So long as there are a few blocks there.. it's fine. You do not need the whole width of a ship to absorb the beam.

For trying to convince server admins to ban ships that use internal docked reactors, trust me, I have. They can see the logic in it, but they don't want to force people to rebuild their ships either. This includes their own. Every serious ship builder on the server has interior docked power injectors. I suggest changes in the game mechanics, because even though the changes may be painful, I see them as necessary, and they should be phased into the game itself, with an adjustment period. For the "overheating protection," well sure, but on the other hand no. I use docked thruster plates to provide overheating protection on a mining ship of mine, but I do not want my docked injectors to fail, because then my ION effect and radarjamming goes down. I have found that keeping the power coming is more important than a little bit of overheating protection in most cases.