A possible solution for the Astrotechno beams: Structural Integrity

[BraveSteelDragon]

Picking up from this sudden realization:




An idea out of nowhere:





Make Hardened hull work in similar way to shields, having them generate a "Structural integrity" value for the ship which works like shield but does not regenerate, and once it's gone blocks start getting damage.

It could be regeneraed with astrotechnicians, making those beams finally useful.

OMG, why i didn't think of it earlier? this need it's own thread...







Let's have some brainstorming about it...



Problem:

- As of yet, Astrotechno beams are VERY rarely used, due to their ineffectiveness into actually being able to restore a ship's structure.

- They only work on actually present blocks.



Past suggestions:

- A suggestion was to turn them into block placing beams. Unfeasible due to possible exploits.

- Another one was to "memorize" the ship's original shape and composition, so that the beam could restore. Unfeasible due to the performance hit this would cause.



This suggestion:

Given that blocks themselves aren't really that effective, people keep complaining that either the AMCs should be nerfed OR the hull blocks should be buffed. The idea of having a "structural integrity" value for the ship is a compromise between the fact that smaller ships sometimes don't have enough shields, and the problem that HUGE AMC arrays are.

Practical speak:

On the ship you'd have Shields and Structural Integrity.

By themselves, shields wil absorb the first damage, and would work as they already do nowaday. Once the shields are gone, instead of damaging the blocks directly, the hits damage the structural integrity, which would work like a "secondary shielding", but without autonomous regeneration and power consumption. Once the structural integrity is gone, the blocks start taking damage directly like they do now after the shields are gone.



Pros:

+ This would allow smaller ships to take some hits from much bigger ships without being instantly wiped out from the universe.

+ Would make astrotechno beams finally useful, as structural integrity doesn't regenerate by itself.

+ Small drones would be more practical as they wouldn't need shield blocks as the basic defense system anymore.



Cons:

- Extra memory usage due to the added value and the need to recalculate the total capacity every time a block is added/removed/destroyed/salvaged much like shields or power tanks.

- To earn extra structural integrity people would start making even bigger ships.

- The lag! When too many entities are being damaged, this would cause the server to recalculate for ALL of them. It already lags only with shields, imagine with this aswell.

- Unless a proper formula is found, huge ships would be invulnerable when coupled with a good astrotechno beam.

- What to do with non-hull blocks?

 

[Sven_The_Slayer]

I really don\'t think a repair to schematic system would have any impact on performance, if each ship \"remembers\" it\'s schematic the only impact might be the size of the ships file on disk but the loaded blocks in memory would be the same.

There seems to be a trend towards not having invincible huge ships and I imagine this would really spread the power gap between small ships and large ships. Large ships would get more benefit than small ships because they have more hull. Structural integrity never made much sense to me either, like a ship is going to magically stay together after the shields are gone as long as you keep \"diverting power to structural integrity.\" Honestly it seems more like a secondary shield than anything structural.

I would rather see a buff to hull blocks themselves (already suggested) and/or varying Core based on size of ship (already suggested)... oh and a repair to schematic function being through Astro Technobeam and some kind of automated shipyard

 

[Imperial_Gold]

If a server can handle hundreds of blueprints there is no reason why tech beams cant rely on a schematic system. Blueprints are very, very small files. Most of us who agree with the repair schematic idea agree that some form of shipyard is necessary. When you want some repairs, go to the shipyard and load the blueprint. So now the game doesn\'t constantly have to know the layout of every ship.

 

[Angus and Alexis]

+1 with sven\'s idea of making tech beams regenerate the schematic.

 

[BraveSteelDragon]

Structural integrity never made much sense to me either, like a ship is going to magically stay together after the shields are gone as long as you keep \"diverting power to structural integrity.\"


I don\'t think i\'ve made mention of energy keep up a \"integrity field\"....


I really don\'t think a repair to schematic system would have any impact on performance, if each ship \"remembers\" it\'s schematic the only impact might be the size of the ships file on disk but the loaded blocks in memory would be the same.


A ship like the Isanth-VI weights between 80 and 92 KB. Multiply that for everytime a mob or a player loads a identhical ship.

In order for that system to work it\'d have to remember EXACTLY which blueprint was the ship spawned from. AND it\'d have to memorize a log of ALL the changes after that (manual removal/addition of blocks). Meaning that for each entity starting with (e.g.) the Isanth-VI BP, it\'d have to log the original BP + log the modifications made to it.

 

[Sven_The_Slayer]

I don\'t think i\'ve made mention of energy keep up a \"integrity field\"....


I didn\'t specifically say you did, I just have this image in my head of the enterprise \"loosing structural integrity\" and using auxiliary power to keep the ship from ripping apart.

Anyway... I\'m not quite sure you follow the repair from schematic idea

Current system:
1) Build ship
2) Save Blueprint
3) Get in fight
4) Scrap busted ship
5) Buy new ship from catalog

Proposed system:
1) Build ship
2) Save Blueprint
3) Get in fight
4) Repair busted ship using saved blueprint

The game doesn\'t have to keep track of anything more than it does already, and even if it did how hard do you think is is for the game to remember \"EXACTLY which blueprint was the ship spawned from\". Sure there are \"ghost block\" suggestions where the game would have to keep track of more but it really doesn\'t have to be that complex. Even if the game did automatically keep track it wouldn\'t have to note every single change only the state the ship is in when something is changed, and that wouldn\'t take any more power to do then the game already keeping track of the ships you build. At most it will double the file size for each ship but it won\'t need to load the schematic into ram unless repairs are being made. Alternatively AI ships could be excluded from the system all together cutting down on needing more space.

My vote is just for the manual option, forgot to save your ship after making changes? Tough! it\'s the same as if you forgot now. There could be a option in the structure tab to \"save current ship as repair blue print\" and \"load catalog item as repair blueprint\" Of course you could also spawn a core, set a blueprint and build a complete ship using the technobeam, and I\'m sure a lot of people would love that idea, not to mention the much loved idea of shipyards... hell that could be the only way to get ships from the catalog but the technobeam would have to have some changes too.

?

 

[BeefBacon]

Make Technobeams increase shield regen. Useful in a fight involving multiple ships where a single large ship could have its shields maintained by other smaller ships.

 

[Tomino_sama]

lol





.....another minmatarr pilot wants to structure tank in Starmade. You might as well name the Structure Guage, \"Duck Tape Thickness\"

When you wear out the Ducktape the ship falls into pieces. Cool Idea Bro ;D

 

[Zero_Sen]

While Sven has a point of servers being able to handle hundreds of blueprints, There is a singluar flaw to that.

The sheer act of saving blueprints, especially on larger ships, uses up a lot of processing power and can actually lag out a server just with the act of saving a ship.

The concept of repair blueprints so that lazy people who don\'t want to remember how they built something to repair big gaping holes can just make a repair drone to fill in items that have been destroyed and no longer exist to be repaired, can save their precious mega death ship, is flat out retarded.

Yes a Sever can handle hundreds of blueprints, but the concpet of \"Repair\" Blueprints changes that number from hundreds to thousands based on server population. If Tomino has no objections, I\'ll use some numbers from Mushroom Fleet as examples.

Blueprint database before a Server wipe: 950-970 Blueprints

If there were a Repair blueprint function and everyone saved 10 of them based on different stages of building to cover the chances of pirate attacks, that would be over 9500 blueprints. While the idea is a novel concept, it is severely impractical in the fact that it generates more latency from the act of saving and searching databases to recall which one it needs,

Short Version: You cannot repair what has been destroyed. This is a universal law. Astrotechnician Beams are REPAIR beams that do exactly that, Repair. They are capable of restoring the condition of blocks that habe been damaged, which is exactly what they were designed to do.

If There were to be a utility beam that could build ships, who is to say someone couldn\'t find a way to load one of these rapair blueprints and use it on a slightly damaged core to build someone else\'s ship from the core outward with no effort?

Moral of the Story: Stop being Lazy S.O.B.s and fix the holes in your ships yourselves or buy a new copy of it.

 

[-Moose-]

I think we are getting away from the suggestion. Firstly there\'s no reason why both idea\'s cannot co-exist even if they are made into seperate repair beams.


Back on topic, I find myself liking this idea for a number of reasons.



Firstly, it makes Astrobeams important, if not essential in the game. This increases the variety of ships, I want to staple something other than AMC\'s, Missiles, or Salvage cannons to my ship without feeling like I\'m wasting space.



Secondly, it deepens the strategy of the game. A fleet with a support ship might be able to turn the tide of battle against a fleet with bigger ships or with more numbers. Fights will become more than just bringing the biggest boots or bringing the most ships but rather to what ships you bring.



Thirdly, it rewards teamwork which starmade doesn\'t do much besides having the luxury of outnumbering your enemy.



I think the proper formula must be found though. Larger ships should recover integrity slower. They should also recieve less integrity overall the larger their mass is. This will prevent nigh invincible ships. Finally, these bonuses should only apply if a shot hits a hull or hardened hull. Hull integrity should not protect non-hull blocks.



------


If There were to be a utility beam that could build ships, who is to say someone couldn\'t find a way to load one of these rapair blueprints and use it on a slightly damaged core to build someone else\'s ship from the core outward with no effort?


It is a good point, there is a risk of someone finding a wreck of a ship and rebuilding without even knowing what the ships was. An idea which I do not like very much.

 

[Sven_The_Slayer]

Honestly I don\'t see the point in having a second shield system, regardless of what you call it it\'s a shield, it\'s a blanket protection that negates all damage damage taken from your ship until it\'s \"depleted\" Regardless of how it\'s recovered it\'s still a shield and we already have shields.

It\'s also almost amusing that people think a repair system using an already in place blueprint system would be a performance hit but adding more calculations to combat and for every single hull blocked placed in a ship will have not impact at all.

 

[Sven_The_Slayer]

There is so many things wrong with this post...


The concept of repair blueprints so that lazy people who don\'t want to remember how they built something to repair big gaping holes can just make a repair drone to fill in items that have been destroyed and no longer exist to be repaired, can save their precious mega death ship, is flat out retarded.


How is manually being able to repair your ship from a blueprint lazy? Currently people are more likely to scrap a ship and buy a new one then bother repairing it. Not all ships are flying boxes and some of them are very difficult to repair... I\'ve even seen people refuse to use wedges because \"it\'s hard to repair\". You can use build mode to \"fill in items that have been destroyed and no longer exist\" but this makes repairing more convenient in the end, how is that different?! both will consume blocks.


Yes a Sever can handle hundreds of blueprints, but the concpet of \"Repair\" Blueprints changes that number from hundreds to thousands based on server population. If Tomino has no objections, I\'ll use some numbers from Mushroom Fleet as examples.

Blueprint database before a Server wipe: 950-970 Blueprints

If there were a Repair blueprint function and everyone saved 10 of them based on different stages of building to cover the chances of pirate attacks, that would be over 9500 blueprints. While the idea is a novel concept, it is severely impractical in the fact that it generates more latency from the act of saving and searching databases to recall which one it needs,


Where are you getting 10?! If the system uses the current blueprint system there will be NO CHANGE to the number of available blueprints, you assign a blue print to a ship and repair it. If you are already not using 10 backup copies of your ship then having a repair to blueprint option will not force you to do so. I assume most people save a copy of their ship before going into battle and if you didn\'t well it\'s not like you\'d be able to buy a new one in that situation so once again NO CHANGE.

If the game automatically keeps track of blueprints for each ship then there will also only be a single blueprint for each ship, at most this will double the size of ships on the hard drive but I doubt that. Sments take up a fraction of space as regular blueprints so I doubt it will be full double size. Having an automatic system also has lots of other issues like when exactly to determine when a ship is complete. I lean toward the manual system myself.


Short Version: You cannot repair what has been destroyed. This is a universal law. Astrotechnician Beams are REPAIR beams that do exactly that, Repair. They are capable of restoring the condition of blocks that habe been damaged, which is exactly what they were designed to do.


Adding blocks back to your ship is a form of repair, in the same way you would repair your ship manually using build mode. I\'m not suggesting free blocks as it would obviously have to consume blocks from your inventory or the ships.


If There were to be a utility beam that could build ships, who is to say someone couldn\'t find a way to load one of these rapair blueprints and use it on a slightly damaged core to build someone else\'s ship from the core outward with no effort?


That would be sweet. A lot of people hate the idea of being able to poof ships into existence just by being able to toss down a lot of cash. You wouldn\'t have access to any blueprints you don\'t already have access too so there would be no chance getting ships you shouldn\'t have access too. If blueprints are saved along side of each ship then they could also be destroyed when the ship is overheating. IF a feature like this was added then it would even make sense to include a server option where admins can choose if a blueprint is lost or stored in the core when a ship is defeated. It would add a depth of espionage to faction wars, I know some of them LOVE to keep their ships a secret


Moral of the Story: Stop being Lazy S.O.B.s and fix the holes in your ships yourselves or buy a new copy of it.


Stop being a lazy S.O.B. or be a MORE lazy S.O.B. by poofing a new ship into existence?!?!

 

[AmeriChris]

This has been sugested but I think that they are great idea.

Dock with the repair dock like any other docking system and pay to have all the destroyed blocks replaced. A tax will be put on the price but it will be low by default and changeable in the server files. It will not replace or repair so repair beams will still be useful.

I also think that the hull damage reduction should apply to sheilds because amcs just burn through hull. This will make them more important.

 

[Imperial_Gold]

I was about to say all of what you said. Thanks for doing it for me. One thing to add on though.


The concept of repair blueprints so that lazy people who don\'t want to remember how they built something to repair big gaping holes can just make a repair drone to fill in items that have been destroyed and no longer exist to be repaired, can save their precious mega death ship, is flat out retarded.


Who wants to remember exactly how you built a ship from memory? What if you have built multiple ships (which everyone has)? How are you going to remember how to rebuild those? You have to know every dimension, every block, and how the hull is detailed. If you mess up, the whole ship becomes messed up and useless. Why make this a thing?

 

[Saria]

Currently the in-game healthbar is 100% useless and kind of confusing while you\'re flying a ship, so it\'d be kind of cool if your ship had a functional healthbar and didn\'t have to worry about core drilling the instant your shields go down.