Balancing Starmade [Systems]

    Joined
    Dec 14, 2014
    Messages
    251
    Reaction score
    255
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Silver 1
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    You guys are the epitome of your own posts...
    on display in this thread.
     
    Joined
    Dec 14, 2014
    Messages
    251
    Reaction score
    255
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Silver 1
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    "Thrusters got changed (again)."...

    Edited:
    The changes did not seem to make into v0.202.16...

    Those are some serious changes... from the current dev release.
     
    Last edited:

    Ckeeze

    innovator
    Joined
    Jul 6, 2017
    Messages
    80
    Reaction score
    97
    "Thrusters got changed (again)."...

    Unfortunately the changes, (v0.202.16) are so minimal; it does not warrant going further into details...
    Thrusters still roll-over +- 15,000 to 20,000 mass, and go -negative.
    Again you don't understand what and why.
    The relation between TWR and max speed was changed in order to give every ship overall more acceleration, the goal was to do this while not changing the curve of max speed/mass.
    You are not meant to reach maximum twr above 20k mass that's the entire point of thrust nerf!
     
    Joined
    Dec 14, 2014
    Messages
    251
    Reaction score
    255
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Silver 1
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    again, you do not understand the thread concept.
    I understand "what" and "why".
    Hostile explanations do not change my position on the topic.
    When will you understand that? (rhetorical).
     

    Ckeeze

    innovator
    Joined
    Jul 6, 2017
    Messages
    80
    Reaction score
    97
    again, you do not understand the thread concept.
    I understand "what" and "why".
    Hostile explanations do not change my position on the topic.
    When will you understand that? (rhetorical).
    Again your thread concept is stupid, you want to spread misinformation and half truths about QF without getting challanged, ayen't happening buddy!
    If you think you should be able to go at max speed with a 100k ship then you DON'T understand what and why.
    If explanations do not change your opinion you are just a stuck up bitch... adults change their opinions based on new information and facts that gets presented to them THAT'S HOW HEALTHY HUMANS WORK
    When will you understand you are not entitled to a factually wrong opinion?

    It doesn't matter if you are a PVP player or a Roleplayer or a bloody server admin we play the same bloody game and you should understand it's balance, it's direction, and it's features before you demand change

    You won't get test ships because there is no point asking for something that you could do yourself in 5 minutes. Test ships are basic rectangle shapes filled withdifferent system combinations done in 5 minutes in game (+ the calculations for system configurations). The test ships that look decent are just hulls used in the same way. I can't even begin to understand why on earth can't just slap 10k blocks down in a rectangle shape and test whatever you want to test yourself, and if you need good looking test ships you can just get any hulls and fill them however you like to test whatever. If you want data about tests WE already did, then you don't need the ship itself just specs and the results in screenshots. (wich keptic did multiple times)
     
    • Like
    Reactions: cogi234 and Keptick

    Dr. Whammy

    Executive Constructologist of the United Star Axis
    Joined
    Jul 22, 2014
    Messages
    1,720
    Reaction score
    1,531
    • Thinking Positive
    • Top Forum Contributor
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    Ok. I'll take a stab at this...

    Because of the constantly changing configs inherent of Quickfire; asking for "facts" is inappropriate. It should be noted that today's facts can easily be changed by one of the QF configurators. So instead, I'll offer my observations and the information provided to me via the QF documentation, change logs and by those QF members I've been in contact with. This information will be mostly "factual" in terms of its accuracy during the time of this writing. As time passes, this information will become out of date. When that happens, your best bet is to join the QF thread or hop on discord.


    What players new to Quickfire should know (in a nutshell):

    1) Few if any vanilla builds will work in Quick fire. Some of my stations (my artificial planet for example) work ok but all ships are broken. Prepare to rebuild everything that moves or shoots.

    2) Weapon combos have been changed with an emphasis on risk/reward balance. Want more damage? ...you need to get up close and personal. Want to snipe at a distance? ...you lose DPS and fire rate. Looking to bring down shields? ...you're going to suck at cutting through armor. Want to spam swarm missiles? ...you'd better have enough missile storage blocks. Strategy, fleets and mission-specific weapons variation will be required to win fights. There will supposedly be no more META death beam = insta-win shenanigans.

    3) Missiles completely bypass the damage reduction caused by armor. Even a small fighter can (eventually ...if you don't kill it) punch a hole in a target with its shields down if armed with missiles. That should make carrier groups and drone warfare (Shout out to Keptick 😎) a viable combat strategy. Beware the M/M Bomb combo; its arming time has been cut in half. Don't blow yourself up. ...unless you're on the other team; in which case, please do.

    4) From an energy cost standpoint, shield rechargers require more power to regenerate/maintain shields than weapons consume for the amount of DPS need to defeat that shield. In other words; shield tanking is a lot less likely to keep you safe from a ship the same size/mass as you.

    5) Armor now comes in three flavors; High HP/low resistance (anti missile) Low HP/high resistance (anti cannon/anti beam) and a hybrid. All armor has been reduced in mass so as to allow for legit armor tanking and to remove penalties for being creative with hull design. As mentioned above; system blocks are where the bulk of your mass will be.

    6) Thrust follows a "curve" that favors small designs and renders larger ships slow and unwieldy. The curve starts to be noticeable in the 5,000 mass range and scales more noticeably; the larger you build until it requires a large amount of your power to achieve a decent (for size) top speed and turn rate. This is a known concern and is currently still being worked on.


    My unbiased opinions on the above points:

    1) Regarding broken builds: We were warned of the aformentioned changes so I have no criticism other than "Kinda sux... Gotta deal with it if you want to play StarMade..."

    2) Regarding the new weapons: I have mixed feelings on the new weapons but I do see the logic behind incentivizing close combat via more DPS. You want the kill? ...Go put your ass in the fire and get the kill.

    3) Regarding Missiles: I love missiles... 😉

    4) Regarding shield power costs: I think I see the logic behind this. No more invincibility against similar mass opponents via excessive shield tanking. If so, I agree with their intent; as that crap was rather annoying. The others will correct me if I'm wrong.

    5) Regarding armor: Personally, I think this is a real game changer; as it forces you to put some thought into your builds. TMR is simple to anticipate but what kind of threat are you expecting to encounter? With regard to defense, there may be no true META since when you counter one threat, you become vulnerable to another.

    6) Regarding thrust power costs: The curve is a bit too sharp. I typically build fighters (100-400 mass) so TMR isn't much of a problem at first but as I build light fleet craft (4000-8000 mass), I find that it takes a lot of power to make them not handle like a block of concrete. Turning especially, is punishingly slow; even when I adjust the thrust/rotation settings. When I dared venture into larger builds (as small as 12,000 mass) the experience was so unpleasant that I quickly abandoned the build and went back to playing with fighters.

    In any case, I appreciate the work the team is doing to keep this game alive. I sincerely hope they succeed in their efforts to achieve a true balance and that Schine adopts their finished config as the new standard.
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Sep 18, 2014
    Messages
    625
    Reaction score
    457
    Because of the constantly changing configs inherent of Quickfire; asking for "facts" is inappropriate. It should be noted that today's facts can easily be changed by one of the QF configurators.
    I'll answer to that. I'd like to talk about turning speed since this setting is the vanilla setting (except for the z axis that has been tuned to feel like the others axis due to a bug). But that is something that should be done in the appropriate thread, which is our thread.
    Anyway, back on what i was going to say. The sentence can be misunderstood (i know that wasn't your intention at all), so i'd like to clarify it. QF main moto is to change stuff easily and see if it works. If it doesn't then we can always revert back, thanks to the Git we are using for the configs. We will soon have something as clean as a release branch and a dev branch with two servers running each.
    So we don't change for the sake of changing but we change if something needs to be (like someone coming up with a problem and explaining why this something is a problem. If you can explain, we are adults, we can listen and understand you). Or even if we need to try out something.
    I just want to say that we do not change for the sake of changing but we change because an issue has been discovered. Sometimes it may sound trivial, sometimes it isn't. The problem with starmade is that the community is small and everyone has his own idea of what "should be" in the game. This whole thread is the proof of that. Tsonak does not agree with the configs and makes it known to everyone. But tsonak is only one person here and isn't the community as a whole. We are trying to get something that should make happy most of the community and i think we did an okay job at that. All of that means that yes, something that has been said on a version of a config can be wrong on another version of the config. Which is why you should try to keep yourself up to date with ourselves (if the configs interest you at all). Using the Git history system can be a good way to do it. And i will see if i can provide something for the discord on the automated side with a channel dedicated to recent changes.
    But again we are people, we can be wrong. So if you want to prove us so, you can do it with argumentation. If you refuse to do so or listen to our counter-arguments, calling us out is not going to push things forward. The important thing is not who is right. The important thing is to go forward.
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Dec 14, 2014
    Messages
    251
    Reaction score
    255
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Silver 1
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    Mature posting... is so very refreshing...

    Ok. I'll take a stab at this...

    Because of the constantly changing configs inherent of Quickfire; asking for "facts" is inappropriate. It should be noted that today's facts can easily be changed by one of the QF configurators. So instead, I'll offer my observations and the information provided to me via the QF documentation, change logs and by those QF members I've been in contact with. This information will be mostly "factual" in terms of its accuracy during the time of this writing. As time passes, this information will become out of date. When that happens, your best bet is to join the QF thread or hop on discord.


    What players new to Quickfire should know (in a nutshell):

    1) Few if any vanilla builds will work in Quick fire. Some of my stations (my artificial planet for example) work ok but all ships are broken. Prepare to rebuild everything that moves or shoots.

    2) Weapon combos have been changed with an emphasis on risk/reward balance. Want more damage? ...you need to get up close and personal. Want to snipe at a distance? ...you lose DPS and fire rate. Looking to bring down shields? ...you're going to suck at cutting through armor. Want to spam swarm missiles? ...you'd better have enough missile storage blocks. Strategy, fleets and mission-specific weapons variation will be required to win fights. There will supposedly be no more META death beam = insta-win shenanigans.

    3) Missiles completely bypass the damage reduction caused by armor. Even a small fighter can (eventually ...if you don't kill it) punch a hole in a target with its shields down if armed with missiles. That should make carrier groups and drone warfare (Shout out to Keptick 😎) a viable combat strategy. Beware the M/M Bomb combo; its arming time has been cut in half. Don't blow yourself up. ...unless you're on the other team; in which case, please do.

    4) From an energy cost standpoint, shield rechargers require more power to regenerate/maintain shields than weapons consume for the amount of DPS need to defeat that shield. In other words; shield tanking is a lot less likely to keep you safe from a ship the same size/mass as you.

    5) Armor now comes in three flavors; High HP/low resistance (anti missile) Low HP/high resistance (anti cannon/anti beam) and a hybrid. All armor has been reduced in mass so as to allow for legit armor tanking and to remove penalties for being creative with hull design. As mentioned above; system blocks are where the bulk of your mass will be.

    6) Thrust follows a "curve" that favors small designs and renders larger ships slow and unwieldy. The curve starts to be noticeable in the 5,000 mass range and scales more noticeably; the larger you build until it requires a large amount of your power to achieve a decent (for size) top speed and turn rate. This is a known concern and is currently still being worked on.


    My unbiased opinions on the above points:

    1) Regarding broken builds: We were warned of the aformentioned changes so I have no criticism other than "Kinda sux... Gotta deal with it if you want to play StarMade..."

    2) Regarding the new weapons: I have mixed feelings on the new weapons but I do see the logic behind incentivizing close combat via more DPS. You want the kill? ...Go put your ass in the fire and get the kill.

    3) Regarding Missiles: I love missiles... 😉

    4) Regarding shield power costs: I think I see the logic behind this. No more invincibility against similar mass opponents via excessive shield tanking. If so, I agree with their intent; as that crap was rather annoying. The others will correct me if I'm wrong.

    5) Regarding armor: Personally, I think this is a real game changer; as it forces you to put some thought into your builds. TMR is simple to anticipate but what kind of threat are you expecting to encounter? With regard to defense, there may be no true META since when you counter one threat, you become vulnerable to another.

    6) Regarding thrust power costs: The curve is a bit too sharp. I typically build fighters (100-400 mass) so TMR isn't much of a problem at first but as I build light fleet craft (4000-8000 mass), I find that it takes a lot of power to make them not handle like a block of concrete. Turning especially, is punishingly slow; even when I adjust the thrust/rotation settings. When I dared venture into larger builds (as small as 12,000 mass) the experience was so unpleasant that I quickly abandoned the build and went back to playing with fighters.

    In any case, I appreciate the work the team is doing to keep this game alive. I sincerely hope they succeed in their efforts to achieve a true balance and that Schine adopts their finished config as the new standard.

    "inappropriate", may be; just a little harsh... regardless of how often the config changes, the thread's progression would reflect the changes.

    The thread was supposed to be for idle chit-chat regarding actual builds to the new specs, and not clutter the official-feedback-thread.
    It may have been helpfull, but unfortunatley it has been turned into a rage fest... which was, (to be expected) predictable, here.
    I made the thread anyway... mostly because I think an independant thread is a good idea.
    I am not here to "complain", accusations like that are the reason I have distanced myself.
    The only thing I have done in this thread so far is share facts about thrusters, v0.202.6 - v0.202.13, (and attempt to moderate a little).

    Thank you for your very informative post!
    This is exactly the kind of posting we are looking for!
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Dec 14, 2014
    Messages
    251
    Reaction score
    255
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Silver 1
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    I'll answer to that. I'd like to talk about turning speed since this setting is the vanilla setting (except for the z axis that has been tuned to feel like the others axis due to a bug). But that is something that should be done in the appropriate thread, which is our thread.
    Anyway, back on what i was going to say. The sentence can be misunderstood (i know that wasn't your intention at all), so i'd like to clarify it. QF main moto is to change stuff easily and see if it works. If it doesn't then we can always revert back, thanks to the Git we are using for the configs. We will soon have something as clean as a release branch and a dev branch with two servers running each.
    So we don't change for the sake of changing but we change if something needs to be (like someone coming up with a problem and explaining why this something is a problem. If you can explain, we are adults, we can listen and understand you). Or even if we need to try out something.
    I just want to say that we do not change for the sake of changing but we change because an issue has been discovered. Sometimes it may sound trivial, sometimes it isn't. The problem with starmade is that the community is small and everyone has his own idea of what "should be" in the game. This whole thread is the proof of that. Tsonak does not agree with the configs and makes it known to everyone. But tsonak is only one person here and isn't the community as a whole. We are trying to get something that should make happy most of the community and i think we did an okay job at that. All of that means that yes, something that has been said on a version of a config can be wrong on another version of the config. Which is why you should try to keep yourself up to date with ourselves (if the configs interest you at all). Using the Git history system can be a good way to do it. And i will see if i can provide something for the discord on the automated side with a channel dedicated to recent changes.
    But again we are people, we can be wrong. So if you want to prove us so, you can do it with argumentation. If you refuse to do so or listen to our counter-arguments, calling us out is not going to push things forward. The important thing is not who is right. The important thing is to go forward.

    "Tsonak does not agree with the configs", - I am not against the "configs" as a whole... (apparently very hard to understand).
    I do however have my own opinion regarding power-consumption, and see no reason to keep it secret...

    However, thrusters were the Topic here, they were totally broken...

    Did nobody notice or was it just not brought up in the official feedback-thread?
    ... because if that is the case; this thread is working already.

    Anyway...
    Seems like thrusters are mostly fixed now, the block-count + power-consumption should be enough to prevent max-speed for large ships.
    The new roll-over threshold seems to be around 500,000 mass now and superfluous.
    The new top speed TWR 5.0 is some serious WoW.
    ... still testing...

    go forward we will...
     
    Last edited:

    Dr. Whammy

    Executive Constructologist of the United Star Axis
    Joined
    Jul 22, 2014
    Messages
    1,720
    Reaction score
    1,531
    • Thinking Positive
    • Top Forum Contributor
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    Mature posting... is so very refreshing...




    "inappropriate", may be; just a little harsh... regardless of how often the config changes, the thread's progression would reflect the changes.

    The thread was supposed to be for idle chit-chat regarding actual builds to the new specs, and not clutter the official-feedback-thread.
    It may have been helpfull, but unfortunatley it has been turned into a rage fest... which was, (to be expected) predictable, here.
    I made the thread anyway... mostly because I think an independant thread is a good idea.
    I am not here to "complain", accusations like that are the reason I have distanced myself.
    The only thing I have done in this thread so far is share facts about thrusters, v0.202.6 - v0.202.13, (and attempt to moderate a little).

    Thank you for your very informative post!
    This is exactly the kind of posting we are looking for!
    I'm glad I could offer you (and hopefully others) a more constructive path for this discussion. I feel that if we are going to discuss QuickFire, we should remain constructive and leave personal bias out of the discussion as much as possible. After all, this team is doing us all the favor of keeping the game alive after most of the player-base bailed.

    If I were to offer a recommendation regarding the constructive progression of this thread, it would be this...

    If you want to discuss your observations/findings regarding a build/config combo, your build methods, future plans etc., then make that the clear focus of this conversation. Argument for the sake of argument or to take "pot shots" at someone you disagree with (or to "return fire") is a waste of everyone's time.

    The bottom line: Some of the changes in the configs you will like, while others you will not. The important thing is to understand what those changes are and the logic behind why they were made. ...and then talk about them. Personally, I would like to see you guys share some of your ideas and QF-compliant builds like we are doing in Keptick's drone R&D thread.

    Regarding thrusters specifically: Accelerations seems less sluggish and turning is a little better (at least at my build scale). However the aforementioned "curve still" punishes the big boys; especially with regard to power consumption and turn radius. "Speed tanking" is a definite possibility now (hopefully counter-able via well placed turrets). For now I recommend that you stay tuned; as they aren't finished tweaking thrust yet.


    Regarding demanding "facts" in a discussion like this being "inappropriate"...

    The reason I say this is because literally everything about QF is subject to change at any time. My statement was not meant dismissively or disrespectfully, please don't take it as such. Nevertheless, one fact remains; If you want the most up to date info on config settings, then Discord and the Github repository are your best sources for this.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Tsnonak and Keptick
    Joined
    Dec 14, 2014
    Messages
    251
    Reaction score
    255
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Silver 1
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    Regarding demanding "facts" in a discussion like this being "inappropriate"...

    The reason I say this is because literally everything about QF is subject to change at any time. My statement was not meant dismissively or disrespectfully, please don't take it as such.
    No problem, I did not take it as such.
     
    Joined
    Dec 14, 2014
    Messages
    251
    Reaction score
    255
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Silver 1
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    In light of the recent v0.202.86 - QuickFire Config release; resurrection has been initiated.

    This is a neutral place to share builds / experiences / Infos / opinions about the release... not to argue about it!
    I implor posters to respect that.

    This also serves as:

    • an AID to move foreward with DEVELOPEMENT.
    • a source of information to players on what these changes actaully mean ingame.


    v0.202.86 MISSILE TESTS:

    Missile damage to Armor-types


    Test performed on 25 layers, left to right: advanced, standard, basic:
    DEVBUILD_20286_BASICISOP.jpg
    Tests are consistent: standard is better than advanced against missiles, (independant of layer count or mixing armor types: "Control-Test").

    Is this intuitive and easy for new players or does this seem strange to anyone, or is it just me?



    QF-Armor layering

    The following has been copied directly from QF-Notes...
    A thin layer of basic armor on the external hull to help mitigate the explosion of missiles
    A few layers of standard armor to soak up the first damage dealt by cannons and beams
    A LOT of layers of advanced armor behind the outer plating to stack up that armor rating


    We are being told to wrap our space-stuff in basic armor.
    Is this intuitive and easy for new players or does this seem strange to anyone, or is it just me?

    Maybe it depends on our personal definition of "basic" armor...

    basic as in: the bottom-line stuff...
    or
    basic as in: standard armor for ship exteriors...

    the latter seems to be the case.



    Effects...

    Test performed on 25 layers with all three effects... Heat, Kinetic, EM.
    Missile was the weapon of choice:
    adv. standard, basic
    QF-MISSILE-EFFECTS_H_K_EM.jpg
    Tests display no sign of improved resist against any of the types.
    This also applies to Cannon.



    Thruster-Rollover is still prevalent:
    View attachment 55774

    Share your thoughts on the subjects or add more!
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: Dadau
    Joined
    Jul 5, 2013
    Messages
    166
    Reaction score
    107
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 6
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    Missile damage to Armor-types
    Test performed on 25 layers, left to right: advanced, standard, basic:
    View attachment 55879

    Missiles are "working as intended"...
    standard armor is better than advanced
    advanced armor is intended to be the innermost layers
    basic armor on the external hull against missiles

    the following has been copied directly from QF-Notes...

    A thin layer of basic armor on the external hull to help mitigate the explosion of missiles
    A few layers of standard armor to soak up the first damage dealt by cannons and beams
    A LOT of layers of advanced armor behind the outer plating to stack up that armor rating


    This is sounding like we are being told to wrap our space-stuff in basic armor.
    Does this seem strange to anyone else, (or is it just me)?
    Share your thoughts on the subject!
    Well I don't find it that strange. One has great HP --> missile ; another one has high armor rating --> effective thick armor to stop C and B ; the other is a compromize between the 2.
    Maybe the names can be changed, but anyway "advanced armor" never meant "absolutely better in all situations".
    I kinda like the way they seek to balance each armor to avoid one armor meta.


    More on layering armor...

    4 layers standard on 4 layers advanced / 8 layers standard / 4 layers standard on 4 layers basic
    no diffences could be observed:
    View attachment 55875 View attachment 55876
    The layering concept does not seem to be working "as intended".
    Two things :
    • You always use a 4-blocks thick standard layer in the front, and the missile does make a 2-blocks deep crater - it doesn't even get through your first layer and you always use the same front layer, so you get same results.
    • Idk if you know it but armor rating doesn't apply to missiles iirc.

    EDIT : Layering as used in QF isn't the same as armor thickness. Layering is using different armor blocks "layers" on top of the others. For example 1st layer of 3 basics / 2nd layer 5 standard / 3rd layer 15 advanced.
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: cogi234 and Tsnonak
    Joined
    Dec 14, 2014
    Messages
    251
    Reaction score
    255
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Silver 1
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    Well I don't find it that strange. One has great HP --> missile ; another one has high armor rating --> effective thick armor to stop C and B ; the other is a compromize between the 2.
    Maybe the names can be changed, but anyway "advanced armor" never meant "absolutely better in all situations".
    I kinda like the way they seek to balance each armor to avoid one armor meta.

    Two things :
    • You always use a 4-blocks thick standard layer in the front, and the missile does make a 3-blocks deep crater - it doesn't even get through your first layer and you always use the same front layer, so you get same results.
    • Idk if you know it but armor rating doesn't apply to missiles iirc.
    I like this: "I don't find it that strange", so maybe a little at least :^D

    Yes armor rating apparently does not apply to missiles, there is no code like beam or cannon at this time.
    Basic armor has no armor-rating, (only included as control test).

    Tests are consistent: standard is better than advanced against missiles, independant of layer count or mixing armor types.

    That is what I was attempting to point out... and find strange.
    Seems I overkillt it and need to re-word it above, thanks for noticing!
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Jul 5, 2013
    Messages
    166
    Reaction score
    107
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 6
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    I like this: "I don't find it that strange", so maybe a little at least :^D

    Yes armor rating apparently does not apply to missiles, there is no code like beam or cannon at this time.
    Basic armor has no armor-rating, (only included as control test).

    Tests are consistent: standard is better than advanced against missiles, independant of layer count or mixing armor types.

    That is what I was attempting to point out... and find strange.
    Seems I overkillt it and need to re-word it above, thanks for noticing!
    Again I don't find it strange, if you get out of the previous armor system logic.

    Before it was basic < standard < advanced.

    Now each has a different function. That's where you're confused : QF bring a whole new armor system.
    You could even rename them Basic Armor, Adaptive Armor (standard, adaptive because they can be used as a HP filler and a smaller armor rating) and Cumulative Armor (advanced).
     
    • Like
    Reactions: cogi234 and Tsnonak

    klawxx

    Product Manager - Roden Shipyards
    Joined
    Jan 5, 2016
    Messages
    341
    Reaction score
    595
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    • Community Content - Silver 1
    • Likeable
    Hey,

    if QF team could in some way rename armor by their use like "adv armor" became "Thick Underlayer Armor" and "basic hull" became "external revestment", it would make a lot more sense, but im sure they can't change block names in the files they have access to.

    I somewhat understand what Tsnonak is going for. lets say that "Basic hull is intuitively used for interior panels and walls" since they where (BEFORE) supposed to be the thinner, inexpensive, layer available to build... What QF did was give specific purpose to blocks that where otherwise being just used as decoration since armor where more cosmetic than anything.

    I admit that my "not native" english is not great, but I hope that, maybe, I was able to tie your view points and bring peace to the negotiation table...

    Cheers,
    - Klawxx

    PS:
    LOL now I see that people post almost the same I was going for while I was slowly typing this reply ...
     

    Zerefette

    <|°_°|>
    Joined
    Jan 12, 2015
    Messages
    172
    Reaction score
    70
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    I too want to contribute with development, armor is very intuitive if you know how to read and thrusters need a massive nerf above 18k mass.
     
    Joined
    Sep 18, 2014
    Messages
    625
    Reaction score
    457
    if QF team could in some way rename armor by their use like "adv armor" became "Thick Underlayer Armor" and "basic hull" became "external revestment", it would make a lot more sense, but im sure they can't change block names in the files they have access to.
    Thing is : we cannot choose to change the description and name of blocks like that. We need to change the translation database to change it for every other language too and well in the end it's not our responsability. Yes we're gonna ask. But we cannot change it like we do for some config stuffs. ;)
     
    Joined
    Dec 14, 2014
    Messages
    251
    Reaction score
    255
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Silver 1
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    Latest weapon-test results:

    Following tests performed on 32 layers of armor to Qf-recommendations (QF-Notes from above).
    A thin layer of basic armor on the external hull to help mitigate the explosion of missiles
    A few layers of standard armor to soak up the first damage dealt by cannons and beams
    A LOT of layers of advanced armor behind the outer plating to stack up that armor rating


    5 layers basic (against missiles).
    10 layers standard.
    17 layers advanced.
    QF-Centurion_DamageTest_INTRO.jpg

    Ship used: Centurian Class Sniper Dreadnaught

    Comparison of test weapons: top Centurian cannon, bottom missile (slightly smaller*)
    QF-Centurion-MissileComparison.jpg

    Cannon
    damage: 4,645,425.5
    power: 4,984,100

    Missile
    damage: 4,904,973
    power: 4,964,800

    Results: Profile
    QF-Centurion_DamageTestProfile.jpg
    From top:
    QF-Centurion_DamageTestProfile_TOP.jpg

    This results are quite clear, results are consistent.



    let me just slip this in here too...
    beam+cannon+effect

    16000 main w/ 100% secandary/effect:
    QF BEAM+CANNON.jpg
    focus burns all the way through in same time
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Dec 14, 2014
    Messages
    251
    Reaction score
    255
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Silver 1
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    I too want to contribute with development, armor is very intuitive if you know how to read and thrusters need a massive nerf above 18k mass.
    thank you for your most useful post (y)

    I can't imagine where StarMade could be without you.
     
    Last edited: