A Solution To Flying Spaghetti Monsters

[Az14el]

"Forced Design" in the right direction should be pretty healthy really, so long as it's away from highly unrealistic/unfeasible designs of any extreme & leaning toward more traditional sci fi and/or realistically practical designs, they're more intuitive & probably more satisfying for most people to build/fly/see

 

[Panpiper]

The question would be then, is "forced design" a bad or a good thing? and if it depends, when is it an acceptable thing to have and when is it not?
And what makes these suggestions different to not be considered a bad thing?

I am 'forced' to build power reactors if I want power. Exactly 'how' I build the reactor is up to me (in theory, ideally). I am 'forced' to build thrusters if I want to move, etc., etc.. It does not strike me as unreasonable to be 'forced' to build a power distribution network, as long as I have plenty of leeway as to 'how' I build the network.

To address computational load, I think a lot of things could be ignored during combat, including power distribution, and should be checked only at certain specific points, such as a verification/activation point activated by the player when they are finished building, so their ship can actually move. Yes, this would reduce some of the potentially interesting effects of damage taking out critical systems, but not all such systems would need to be excluded, just the ones that require too much processing power to track. Taking out a computer would still take out it's system. (Taking out a docking system should simply render inert everything above the docking point, no more free floating.)

I build ball turrets for instance. I build them in such a way that they literally cannot ever collide with anything on the ship. It is an entirely unnecessary load on the server for it to be collision checking my turrets. I would like to see that "verification/activation point" pre-check things like turrets to see if they can collide. If they cannot, they get flagged as 'never check'. If they can collide, perhaps there is a way to define a free movement range that does not involve collision checking. Yes, they may wind up clipping through something external to the ship. I am more than willing to live with that if it significantly reduces server strain.

 

[Dire Venom]

Thank you Lancake for adding to the disscusion.
That's quite a good point you brung up, when is forced building benifical, and when is it not (according to parts of the community).
I agree with Panpipers pharse;

I am 'forced' to build power reactors if I want power. Exactly 'how' I build the reactor is up to me (in theory, ideally). I am 'forced' to build thrusters if I want to move, etc., etc.. It does not strike me as unreasonable to be 'forced' to build a power distribution network, as long as I have plenty of leeway as to 'how' I build the network.

Having constrained parts of building, but still having the freedom to resonably work around them within reason.
I think players don't like being told what they can't do as such, such as you cannot place (x) block within (x) meters unless there is a clear reason why. Going the placing (x) block like will grant increased effciencey (like old power capacitators) etc seems more likely to elicit a postive response.

In all it seems to be how it is presented, weather it is foccused on benifits or just limitations, and how it makes sense/is percived by the player (etc this mechinc only serves to limit my creativity without reason, instead of this allows me to try new options now that they are viable).

With conduits, I feel that they are 'soft' limitations as such, and ships can easily be designed around them without limiting the overall ship too much (while also making sense to the player). Not being able to place a block within (x) or it is useless is much more of a hard limitation I feel.

If there were more reactor types/options to chose from when building that were all viable I doubt there would be many issues with the new Reactor Design.

Thank you once again Lancake!

 

[Ithirahad]

I've got a question about something I've read before, and what I'm seeing being suggested here.
Some dislike "forced design" yet for me that is always been "encouraging you to build this way" and also, being part of the game mechanic itself. Every rule you add to a game, is forcing one design over the other. Sure, there's always the choice where usually the most efficient one (the forced design) is also the most vulnerable to weapon damage.

While I think that's completely acceptable, others did not seem to agree with me as forced design is being brought up multiple times as a bad thing.
The question would be then, is "forced design" a bad or a good thing? and if it depends, when is it an acceptable thing to have and when is it not?
And what makes these suggestions different to not be considered a bad thing? Both OP's suggestion and the one Dire Venom mentioned, forces you to build conduits or else you get nothing. You need to create these weak points as without them, the ship would simply not work at all. There's no encouragement here, you're truly forced.
Both suggestions would also eliminate floating (functional) parts of a ship, as it would either result in a physical connection going from one part to the other which is an easy to see/target weak-point. Or it would require you to make giant/thick conduits to get your AoE power far enough which would be extremely inefficient.

The problem is really what kind of design is being forced. Current stabilizer mechanics, even with conduits, force long designs over chunkier ones, which just makes everyone's ships boring long things and reduces the potential for creativity in ship hull design for no logical reason. This, on the other hand, just forces ships to be, well, ships with things connected, which makes sense and shouldn't be much of a hindrance for creativity unless you're building weird floating things that, while cool, don't necessarily need to work if their exclusion leads to a more interesting and... generally decent power system overall. A crew system forces you to build an interior on your ship to accommodate them, which, again, makes sense and creates more opportunities for creative design at the same time. That's fine too.

Also, I've never seen a ship design* that would have too much trouble running conduits, or that couldn't be modified to do so without any real aesthetic impact.

*except maybe mine for turrets specifically, but if weapons are actually getting smaller I have some alternative turret designs that might work without floating... besides, I don't see any particular reason why docked things should be included in the AoE system. If someone made turrets floating far away, those would be very easy to destroy with lock-on missiles.

 

[Edymnion]

The question would be then, is "forced design" a bad or a good thing? and if it depends, when is it an acceptable thing to have and when is it not?

I think people are confusing "its a little more effective in extreme cases" with "this is now mandatory".

The system uses numbers that are calculable, which means no matter what you do there's going to be some configuration which is "the best". As long as the difference between "the best" and "good enough for most people" isn't that huge, I don't think its a problem.

---

Side story that might help illuminate my stance:
I used to play a lot of D&D back in 3e and 3.5e, and there was a LOT of supplemental material available in all the different books. There was a sizable number of people who fell into the "Well if I don't have access to all 37 of these different books, I just can't make the character I want to make" trap. It got to the point where there were more than a few DMs that would run "Core Only" games specifically to limit the number of mechanical options available.

I always found that anyone who could make a good character could make a good character in Core Only because they understood that they were making a character concept and then getting the mechanics to be as close to the concept as they could. The players who could "only" build their character if they had all of the options were usually the ones that weren't playing a character but a build, or were using all of the default flavor text for things and mashing them together while calling it an original character.

Core Only games made playing the actual game easier and honestly more fun because there were less variables to contend with as both a playre and a DM, which meant we could focus more on the story and the roleplaying aspect, while encouraging players to actually use the tools they had in more creative ways.

---

I think thats what we're seeing here. The people pushing things to the utmost extreme are akin to the D&D Min-Max players. The ones who don't actually care about the game, they just want to make the most overpowered thing they can so that they can "win".

For me, if the "limitations" of "forced design" only really show up at the far tail end of min-max style gameplay, then they aren't really that big of an issue. The number of people who will actually play the game at that level are FAR less than the number of people that will play the game at a "normal" level.

People will find a way to break anything you do, so catering everything around a super minority of hardcore players is not a great idea. I've seen more than one game that tried that and ended up with a game so far beyond what the average player could do that they basically shot themselves in the foot (Wildstar springs instantly to mind).

Make the game understandable and playable to the "average" player, they're the ones who are going to be paying your bills. If that limits the hardcore fringe a bit, so be it.

 

[Non]

The ones who don't actually care about the game, they just want to make the most overpowered thing they can so that they can "win".

That is offensive.

 

[Jojomo]

The problem is really what kind of design is being forced. Current stabilizer mechanics, even with conduits, force long designs over chunkier ones, which just makes everyone's ships boring long things and reduces the potential for creativity in ship hull design for no logical reason. more opportunities for creative design at the same time.

They don't force anything, you can still put your stabilisers close to your reactor, you'll just reduce your power efficiency.

 

[jorgekorke]

Ahhh, here we go again discussing complex methods to get rid of forced design choices with the power system....

Problems with the current power system

According to our own experience and player experiences shared on the forums, we have identified the following problems.

1. Forced design choices
2. Lack of complexity
3. Too many blocks involved (number, not types)
4. Focused on regen

Some of these overlap a bit though.

Forced design choices

StarMade has a great build system with endless options when it comes to decorating your structures or creating complex interiors, yet making a ship functional with all our systems can take a while and is usually a less creative process.

It’s not only the power system that suffers from it, but every other functional system that follows its design principles. Currently, most ships have a non functional ‘skin’ and everything else is filled to the brim with systems.

Filling your entire ship with systems is the most optimal way to make a ship. Making any interior or extra decoration creates weaknesses on your ship. It also favours one ship shape over another, in order to fill it with as many systems as possible; Doom cubes.

More systems and power means a better ship, and there is no incentive or mechanic that would ever make a pretty ship with interior as good as one filled with systems.

Ahhhhhh..... Do you remember?

 

[Dire Venom]

Ahhh, here we go again discussing complex methods to get rid of forced design choices with the power system....



Ahhhhhh..... Do you remember?

According to our own experience and player experiences shared on the forums, we have identified the following problems.

1. Forced design choices
2. Lack of complexity
3. Too many blocks involved (number, not types)
4. Focused on regn

Tbh I thougth it was talking about the new power system lol
1.Forced design choices - Quite prevalent in the new power design.
2.Pretty much the same as before tbh.
3.Easily adjusted block output. Seems similar to before.
4.If anything the new systems is ENTIRELY FOCUSSED on regen XD

If these were the 'problems' then why have none of them been fixed, and instead made worse O_O...

 

[Ithirahad]

By 'focused on regen' in that case I assume they really meant 'puts alpha weapons (and any other potential ship system that might use power in quick bursts) at a disadvantage.' They certainly did fix that. :P

Other than that, yes.

 

[GDPR 302420]

I think thats what we're seeing here. The people pushing things to the utmost extreme are akin to the D&D Min-Max players. The ones who don't actually care about the game, they just want to make the most overpowered thing they can so that they can "win".

If we didnt care about the game we would not be proposing solutions to the "Min-maxxing" in the first place.

Go take your "grr pvp grr" splurge elsewhere, we are discussing means of getting rid of the very "Min-maxxing" that you cleary despise in every form.

 

[Zekester81]

I'd like to see systems needing a connection to power, that would be cool, and I don't care in any way how it was done.

I also suddenly feel the need to create a ship inspired by our slightly demented and mentally challenged lord and savior, the FSM. May you be touched by his noodley appendage, RAmen.

 

[Jojomo]

1.Forced design choices - Quite prevalent in the new power design.

What's forced? You can put stabilisers where you like, efficiency just goes up or down accordingly.

It's a system that trades off length/size (stabilisers at high efficiency) against weight (stabilisers at low efficiency) for the same given power output. It's an excellent design choice/compromise to have to make.

 

[Dire Venom]

What's forced? You can put stabilisers where you like, efficiency just goes up or down accordingly.

It's a system that trades off length/size (stabilisers at high efficiency) against weight (stabilisers at low efficiency) for the same given power output. It's an excellent design choice/compromise to have to make.

True, you can still place them where ever.
However I still feel it is forced, as no one is going to place stabilizors in low effciencey zones when trying to build a remotly compedative ship. There is no reason anyone would ever do that except to shoot themselves in the foot. You just have to build around it.

It simply means I would need to place other blocks (such as shield capacitators) in the low effeciencey regions instead.
Overall, same blocks count just different block positions.
Then why couldn't I swap the two around? It just seems so arbitrary. I could certiantly build around it, but then (other than changing the shape of my ship a bit) it makes no difference to the ships performance if the restriction was removed and I placed the stabilizors there.

What is the low effeciencey Zones seeking to achieve? How do they balance the game? Make it more varible? Enjoyable? What is their purpose??

If it doesn't affect my ship at all if the stabilizors are allowed in the low effciencey zones or not, then why even have that restirction? It feels like it accomplishes nothing in-game other than I have to place (x) block at the front or back. I could easily do that but why? Why does it matter where these blocks are placed in my ship?

 

[Panpiper]

Some sort of system that rewards clumping may work, like a 5-10% bonus in block effectiveness for every identical block placed on a block face. That will encourage square or chunky rectangles for systems. Ship shape could be more or less accommodated by judicious arrangement of those resulting blocks. 10% might be too large, giving too much incentive to stay with nothing but cubed systems. But 5% might be insufficient to deter strings.

I have an improvement to this suggestion that would make the resulting clumps a lot less blocky. Any system block gets a bonus to it's effect for each facing upon which it has an identical block attached or a hull block. This would allow blocks to be at full efficiency when placed between walls, floors, corridors, etc.. Developer's call whether armor would count the same.

 

[jorgekorke]

True, you can still place them where ever.
However I still feel it is forced, as no one is going to place stabilizors in low effciencey zones when trying to build a remotly compedative ship. There is no reason anyone would ever do that except to shoot themselves in the foot. You just have to build around it.

It simply means I would need to place other blocks (such as shield capacitators) in the low effeciencey regions instead.
Overall, same blocks count just different block positions.
Then why couldn't I swap the two around? It just seems so arbitrary. I could certiantly build around it, but then (other than changing the shape of my ship a bit) it makes no difference to the ships performance if the restriction was removed and I placed the stabilizors there.

What is the low effeciencey Zones seeking to achieve? How do they balance the game? Make it more varible? Enjoyable? What is their purpose??

If it doesn't affect my ship at all if the stabilizors are allowed in the low effciencey zones or not, then why even have that restirction? It feels like it accomplishes nothing in-game other than I have to place (x) block at the front or back. I could easily do that but why? Why does it matter where these blocks are placed in my ship?

It makes even more bizarre when you realize the old system didn't had the problem. Unless you wanted to do a ship with several fragmented parts like the Protoss Void Ray, having disconnected pieces of the ship, but that's it.

 

[Dire Venom]

I have an improvement to this suggestion that would make the resulting clumps a lot less blocky. Any system block gets a bonus to it's effect for each facing upon which it has an identical block attached or a hull block. This would allow blocks to be at full efficiency when placed between walls, floors, corridors, etc.. Developer's call whether armor would count the same.

Intersting idea. I guess then wrapping systems in armour might be more common:?
Currently I think shield blocks etc would be placed together or against the hull anyway in most designs already.

 

[Jojomo]

True, you can still place them where ever.
However I still feel it is forced, as no one is going to place stabilizors in low effciencey zones when trying to build a remotly compedative ship. There is no reason anyone would ever do that except to shoot themselves in the foot. You just have to build around it.

Think about how often you made a power 1.0 ship with perfect power efficiency though - rarely or never.
It seems strange to me that suddenly people will only consider perfect efficiency, even when they didn't require it before.

Do all ships that have won the Blood and Steel dueling tournaments have perfect power efficiency? I haven't checked but I'm guessing not.

With power 1.0 you'd just get to an efficiency where you'd say "I have enough power and I can live with the mass and dimensions of my ship". So I'd disagree with you on this point.

 

[Dire Venom]

Think about how often you made a power 1.0 ship with perfect efficiency though - rarely or never.
It seems strange to me that suddenly people will only consider perfect efficiency, even when they didn't require it before.

Do all ships that have won the Blood and Steel dueling tournaments have perfect power efficiency? I haven't checked but I'm guessing not.

With power 1.0 you'd just get to an efficiency where you'd say "I have enough power and I can live with the mass and dimensions of my ship". So I'd disagree with you on this point.

I'm a bit confused by what you mean regarding power effciencey with 1.0?
After 2 mill/sec you didn't need to try and get more effeciencey out of your reactors layout, unless you were using a host of docked entities, and previously docked reactors, both of which were likely unhealthy for the game.

It is easy to build around the new power system, but I don't see the point of it.
I'm not a masterbuilder, so maybe you could please clarify:?
Thanks!

 

[Jojomo]

I'm a bit confused by what you mean regarding power effciencey with 1.0?
After 2 mill/sec you didn't need to try and get more effeciencey out of your reactors layout as they were capped at (x) per block, unless you were using a host of docked entities, and previously docked reactors, both of which were likely unhealthy for the game.

It is easy to build around the new power system, but I don't see the point of it.
I'm not a masterbuilder, so maybe you could please clarify:?
Thanks!

I mean minimum number of blocks for the power you were producing (just like power 2.0 - you can keep adding blocks until you get the power output you want, regardless of efficiency)
There's some good info here: Power Systems - StarMade Wiki

Most power 1.0 ships don't have perfect efficiency, not even high performance PvP ships (caveat: I am making an assumption on that last bit, haven't actually checked, anyone who knows offhand please inform the rest of us)