You guys are the epitome of your own posts...
on display in this thread.
on display in this thread.
Again you don't understand what and why."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 your thread concept is stupid, you want to spread misinformation and half truths about QF without getting challanged, ayen't happening buddy!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).
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.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.
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 As time passes, this information will become out of date.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.
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.
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.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!
No problem, I did not take it as such.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.
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.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!
Two things :
I like this: "I don't find it that strange", so maybe a little at leastWell 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.
Again I don't find it strange, if you get out of the previous armor system logic.I like this: "I don't find it that strange", so maybe a little at least
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!
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.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.