Change power all you like, it wont help us.

[Keptick]

Breaking news! Unless the "power heat" system makes a lot of changes that problem is going to be there but this time with:

- shields
- weapons
- pasive and active efects

You only are going to delete that stuff from energy blocks with the new energy system.

No. Less system blocks would mean less calculations required to do a status update when a block is destroyed = less lag.

From the power proposal post it looked like they'd like to change all the systems, not just power. I agree that if it's just power that gets changed the performance increase wouldn't be that worth it.

The problem with what you're suggesting is that if it were to be implemented the game couldn't check to see if blocks are destroyed, so ships wouldn't lose blocks in combat. They'd just be static models with an HP pool, which is pretty lame imo.

 

[Az14el]

If you have enough combat experience you know that the stuff i am going to afirm is correct and no a nonsense, if you need i put videos or some related stuff only said it.

Combat experience is precisely why I simply cannot take what you're saying seriously

 

[Az14el]

You know what that means? let me put that in less words: at the currect power mechanics you can have really SMOOTH combat at ships that do not gets over 100k mass, can get that point?

Or have you drowned in battles that are ridden by abusing the current mechanics of the game?

Are you serious? So you're saying 'correct' power mechanics can have smooth combat, but my problem is that i make abusive use of it? If my use of it is abusive then for what purpose? Because im generating more power for my weapons & defences this way. The "Correct" way IS the abusive way if you want to be competetive and thats the problem here. If the 'abusive' way is both more efficient and more laggy then its not sustainable, you have literally 0 argument other than "well i guess they shouldnt try so hard", no, really, are you fucking serious? Rhetorical question. Because anybody who's "abused" the system knows that you can crash any server with standard combat use of an under 100k mass ship, which again is a fucking problem.

 

[Deserea]

Because anybody who's "abused" the system knows that you can crash any server with standard combat use of an under 100k mass ship, which again is a fucking problem.

you can crash a server with a 30k mass vessel fight... ive done it twice ;-; I dont know if it would happen now due to the missile change...butbefore.. Eesh..

 

[Az14el]

you can crash a server with a 30k mass vessel fight... ive done it twice ;-; I dont know if it would happen now due to the missile change...butbefore.. Eesh..

During last blood & steel we managed to crash the fresh server with 12k mass competetive ships, docked hulls, docked guns, insane amounts of moving parts and turrets, good times :/

 

[Deserea]

During last blood & steel we managed to crash the fresh server with 12k mass competetive ships, docked hulls, docked guns, insane amounts of moving parts and turrets, good times :/

Our little skirmish ended up...doing nothing, our missiles kept killing the game so we couldn't end up fighting xD That does sound terrible though, i never watched the latest blood and steel

 

[Az14el]

Curiusly i do not need new mechanics to be "competitive" i abuse from docked stuff too at certain mass. As you said if something is doing some unbalanced stuff the best way to fight it is doing the same.

Clearly I also am talking about current mechanics because i have no reference point other than the current mechanics, i am neither a schine employee nor a time traveler.

You admit that "if something is doing some unbalanced stuff the best way to fight it is doing the same.", would you believe that "unbalanced" can mean strong? and that strong ships are what people intend to build for combat? and then others will build to also be strong so as to beat the other strong ship? do you understand that competition drives more and more powerful builds? I hope so because that's simple stuff.

Do you also understand that not everybody shares your personal building ethic? and that they may not follow it and instead decide to "abuse" the CURRENT MECHANICS (As they are the only mechanics they have to work with, they also are neither schine employees or time travellers to the best of my knowledge)? And finally do you understand that the current mechanics reward the use of efficient power generation on individual entities more than mass power generation on a single entity?

If any of these answers is no then I really can't help you any more than i have already tried to.

 

[kulbolen]

arkudo, its simple. you attacked his method of building power as a way to devalue his experience at the game when it had nothing to do with your argument about block removal and on the fly calculations in combat. if you remove the games ability to make calculations as damage occurs, part of the downside of losing a computer in combat will be negated, because the system wont know you lost a computer. unless of course youre using a ...system to detect that you lost a computer... oh wait...

also your argument against "strategic damage" is anecdotal at best, and speculation at worst. there are many scenarios that are easy to replicate and prove that show combat damage during a fight can definitely alter the fight itself, whether its a pc or a powerline, or breaking up eapon modules into too many groups to have the power to fire.

also, i use regular old stagnant boring straight nontwisted powerlines. weve fought each other a few times and you had a significant mass advantage. you died without ever breaking a block on my ship...

 

[Az14el]

I know too that jumping trough a window if that have more than 20 fts is a poor option to do. I can play with logical fallacies too.

What logical fallacy am i using in that reference?

Spoiler: Apparently this contains logical fallacy

"You admit that "if something is doing some unbalanced stuff the best way to fight it is doing the same.", would you believe that "unbalanced" can mean strong? and that strong ships are what people intend to build for combat? and then others will build to also be strong so as to beat the other strong ship? do you understand that competition drives more and more powerful builds? I hope so because that's simple stuff."

 

[Az14el]

An appeal to consequences would be valid if those weren't ACTUALLY the consequences. People DO build heavily modular ships, they ARE generally superior, and onto the actual issue at hand, they ARE more taxing on server hardware. If you put in a feature into a game thats stronger/faster/more efficent than another at the same job, thats the feature thats going to become the meta, even if the meta is unhealthy for the server, it's still more efficient on a player-by-player basis, it's still the Meta. I have never once said that its acceptable, i have been saying over and over AND OVER again that its the core problem, you telling them to "Please Stop" is not a fix, if anything its an ego problem that you think they should, why should they not build a strong ship? even if you don't want to do it for perfectly good reasons (to be restrained and have limitations regarding laggy builds), it will still be done for good reasons (to be competetive). Again thats the god damn problem.

 

[kulbolen]

i think hes arguing that the definition of unbalanced can be contextual and not concrete, not that its ok because everyone does it. it could be that what you consider unbalanced is an opinion that not everyone shares. but im not good w debate. or something.

 

[JinM]

Comparing to other scifi universes as well. Most ships are mostly interior (possibly movie magic) and actually very little systems. I welcome this change, it might mean I can finally build small viable turrets that can take out something decently sized.

I hope too, that one day we can have some smaller turrets. It's just wrong that they have to be that big or nummerous to make sense when you attack a simmilar sized ship.

 

[Az14el]

"Balance" is definitely not what im concerned with here, we have the same blocks to build with so it's balanced, calling it unbalanced would be like picking the same character as your opponent in a fighting game and complaining that it was a bad match up for you because the other character was "OP". Can't fix knowledge without bashing our heads in with a rock (thats an idea though, I'd like to be completely clueless again).

Performance (and to an extent, exploits) is my only concern with the current power system.

"Imbalance" would be reserved for a system that devalued my effort & knowledge to give random designless garbage systems a buff. *nods suggestively*

 

[Az14el]

Sorry was a Hasty generalization fallacy.

Except its not a generalization, it's the meta

As a hastily generalized reply to everything you just said, god no.

 

[Matt_Bradock]

The best way to improve performance is simply imposing a hard cap on maximum block count per entity, and number of docked entities connectable to it on the docking chain, on survival servers.
Any of you saying that'd limit creativity and artistic freedom: No. It would only limit the number of lag machines and overcompensating monstrosities on said servers, and end the "Mine's bigger" e-cockfight. Those who want to have their oversized or 1:1 sized replica Star Destroyers, Battlestars, UNSC warships and whatever they desire, could still have them. On local, or build servers. By all means, go ahead, build them, show off etc.
But if you can't simply build bigger, oh look! You'll have to learn to build efficient, and be creative or just smart about placing your systems and interior rooms. And finally, battles would be decided by building and piloting skill instead of who's got the bigger di... I mean ship.
Some of the most popular PvP survival servers did that. It works.

And yes, I am strongly biased against huge-ass ships. What a surprise, huh... I find combat much more entertaining if the vessels involved are more than glorified huge, sluggish turret platforms that take 2 full minutes to do a 180 degree turn.

 

[Az14el]

<snip>

Starmadedock ships? Seriously?
okay, because there actually ARE a few ships on starmadedock that are legitimately strong for their size thanks to community organised pvp tournaments, sure lets post some of the ships used in last years blood & steel competition that their engineers have been nice enough to release for us.

Victor; THI - Morax Class Experimental Corvette V1D3
Entire docked hull, docked static weapons, many turrets

Runner up & finalist; RAI Arbalest
Entire docked hull, docked static weapons

Runner up & own entry; Elucidator Ion Frigate
Many turrets, docked chaff systems

This was a highly competetive tournament using 12k mass frigates which generated enough lag on a fresh universe & server hardware that had run one of the most popular starmade survival servers for years, to crash it through combat lag, with only a single sector & its surrounds loaded.

 

[Deserea]

The best way to improve performance is simply imposing a hard cap on maximum block count per entity, and number of docked entities connectable to it on the docking chain, on survival servers.
Any of you saying that'd limit creativity and artistic freedom: No. It would only limit the number of lag machines and overcompensating monstrosities on said servers, and end the "Mine's bigger" e-cockfight. Those who want to have their oversized or 1:1 sized replica Star Destroyers, Battlestars, UNSC warships and whatever they desire, could still have them. On local, or build servers. By all means, go ahead, build them, show off etc.
But if you can't simply build bigger, oh look! You'll have to learn to build efficient, and be creative or just smart about placing your systems and interior rooms. And finally, battles would be decided by building and piloting skill instead of who's got the bigger di... I mean ship.
Some of the most popular PvP survival servers did that. It works.

And yes, I am strongly biased against huge-ass ships. What a surprise, huh... I find combat much more entertaining if the vessels involved are more than glorified huge, sluggish turret platforms that take 2 full minutes to do a 180 degree turn.

To be fair, most of the UNSC warships shouldnt cause to much lag...they dont have many turrets to begin with, at least if they are being true to the source material. The ones that terrify me are the W40k replicas ;-;

Battles are still decided by building and piloting skill *now* arent they? i mean, ive seen several posts around and a few people on my server talking about defeating larger vessels by just being more optimized and more skilled at piloting.

 

[Az14el]

The best way to improve performance is simply imposing a hard cap on maximum block count per entity, and number of docked entities connectable to it on the docking chain, on survival servers.

Agreed, on a server by server basis, putting in limitations is smart & really the best you can do. But this still results in the problem of different servers having vastly different limitations, and making designs on one server not work on another.

 

[Az14el]

no

 

[kulbolen]

why is it that every other post from you includes the line "most probably you are one of those guys"