1. We've removed some functionality from SMD in preparation for a migration to new forum software.

    CS: Quickfire Initiative: Rebalancing StarMade

    Discussion in 'Web/Community News' started by DukeofRealms, Aug 12, 2019.

    1. Thadius Faran

      Thadius Faran #1 Top Forum Poster & Raiben Jackpot Winner

      Joined:
      Oct 13, 2013
      Messages:
      5,100
      I don't even know what you're trying to reference anymore. The section I quoted was separate and did not have a comma in it.
       
    2. StormWing0

      StormWing0 Leads the Storm

      Joined:
      Jun 26, 2015
      Messages:
      2,122
      The Rock, Paper, Scissors thing with Cannon, Beam, Missile VS Armor, Shields, Systems; works fine until you start adding new weapons with no relation to the others such as Mines, Pulse, Flamethrower, Electrical Arcs, Hacking, etc.
       
    3. Nauvran

      Nauvran Cake Build Server Official Button Presser

      Joined:
      Jun 30, 2013
      Messages:
      2,177
      we already have mines and I already listed a lot of reasons why it would be a terrible idea.
      Anyone suggesting that system, without putting a severe limit to how much each type of weapon is better or worse, can go fuck themselves
       
    4. Valiant70

      Valiant70 That crazy cyborg

      Joined:
      Oct 27, 2013
      Messages:
      2,189
      There isn't any problem with having a R/P/S mechanic. The problem comes when it trumps all other factors. As others have suggested, 15% seems like a good sweet spot for making the bonuses meaningful but not overwhelming. Following R/P/S should not turn the tide of battle 100% of the time. It's a factor that can indeed keep things moving, but at the same time this isn't RuneScape.

      To put it another way, having R/P/S turned against you should put you in a bad position, but not an unwinnable one.
      --- Updated post (merge), Aug 18, 2019, Original Post Date: Aug 18, 2019 ---
      Stabilizers do nothing for their intended purpose, but there is one thing they do well: Keeping ships from being nothing more than a mass of block-blobs. To keep this function, the distances could easily be reduced to... perhaps a couple of times the width of a spherical reactor. Maybe a little less than that. Combine that with the BY_ANGLE mechanics, and you should have something that isn't a detriment to the game.

      The result I expect is that some shape is added to ships, but that reactors no longer dictate the shape of the entire ship. Builders can then bunch 2-6 stabilizers around their reactor, or place them throughout the ship. Some builders will enjoy this.
       
      • Like Like x 1
    5. Nauvran

      Nauvran Cake Build Server Official Button Presser

      Joined:
      Jun 30, 2013
      Messages:
      2,177
      That was literally my suggestion with the 15%
       
    6. Nosajimiki

      Joined:
      Sep 14, 2017
      Messages:
      669
      Ive notied removing rp is great for adding design freedom. Chamber mass keeps me picking and choosing my features, but leveling a chamber is meaningless now. The game really needs chambers to be 2-3 times smaller, but you need to add another chamber for every level for no RP to really work.

      Also, comments about distanceless stabs and system cramming are not well thought out. Bricks may be more ballenced than they were, thanks to new armor, but still suffer just as many shortcomings as before. Stab distance just makes RP building far more restrictive.
       
      • Like Like x 2
    7. The Quickfire Initiative

      Joined:
      May 29, 2019
      Messages:
      7
      The Quickfire Initiative is now running the latest dev builds with beam armor mechanic changes. Please update your clients to the DEV branch to use our configs and join the test server.
       
    8. Edymnion

      Edymnion Carebear Extraordinaire!

      Joined:
      Mar 18, 2015
      Messages:
      2,707
      Glad to see that we're able to expand into some user input again. Looking forwards to what comes out of it!
       
    9. Dr. Whammy

      Dr. Whammy Executive Constructologist of the United Star Axis

      Joined:
      Jul 22, 2014
      Messages:
      1,549
      I originally thought the "Quickfire Initiative" was an in-game player created faction. Then I read for a while and found out what it really is... (Face palms)

      Just when I had all but lost hope, here you all are; Schine and the community back at it again. This literally brought a tear to my eye. I'm sorry for ever doubting you.

      I can't wait to try out some of the new dev. configs.
       
      • Like Like x 1
    10. DeepspaceMechanic

      Joined:
      Mar 10, 2016
      Messages:
      420
      I finally got to doing some tests with these configs (in devbuild 0.202.2). I'm sharing my trivial results and impressions for those who didn't bother to experiment even this little.

      So the smallest possible stabilizer-free reactor is now a 10-block reactor (previously it was 40). Above that you'll need exactly one stabilizer block for every reactor block, regardless of placement, to be able to use 100% of the reactor's power output. All in all, I like the current absence of both the distance-based penalty and the facing-based bonus system of stabilizers, even though it will take some time to get used to the heightened level of uselessness of stabilizers. (Yes, it would be nice to turn the power system into something more elegant with changes that go beyond just configs, but we all know at this point to be careful about what we wish for, and that the game probably wouldn't survive another power overhaul, right?)

      Love the changes to the chamber system. Required chamber size 10% of reactor size; chamber size step ups at 100 block reactor size increments; less RC requirements, so more active chambers possible at once. Wonderful!

      Regarding thrust, in the more comprehensive version of the QF changelog it says that "It is also an effort to make speed caps feel more intuitive: with our baseline speed cap and thrust settings, 1.0 TWR = 100 m/s speed, and 3.0 TWR = 300 m/s speed".

      Don't know if these should be taken as approximations, but anyways, here are my findings (tested with a very small and a somewhat larger ship):

      1.0 TMR = 108.8 m/s
      2.0 TMR = 184.1 m/s
      3.0 TMR = 262.5 m/s

      3.0 TMR + Top speed chamber Level-1 (adds 10% of the chamberless top speed to the previous value) = 288.8 m/s
      3.0 TMR + Top speed chamber Level-2 (adds 10% of the chamberless top speed to the previous value) = 315 m/s
      3.0 TMR + Top speed chamber Level-3 (adds 15% of the chamberless top speed to the previous value) = 354.4 m/s


      Still have to experiment with shields and weapons.
       
      #30 DeepspaceMechanic, Sep 9, 2019
      Last edited: Sep 9, 2019
      • Like Like x 6
    11. EricBlank

      Joined:
      Jul 1, 2013
      Messages:
      484
      Haven't gotten to touch the new configs yet (cell phone data cannot download new versions of the game or configs yay rural living).
      I did love the linear reactor chamber levels and chamber size growth. In my experience it made planning and comparing things easier than the exponential formula, I can do the math in my head, and I like that.
      Biggest gripe I think some chambers needed more work. Jump inhibitors use too much power; in the last config version it was impossible to have a functional jump inhibitor ship with the highest level chambers because it uses more power than the reactor is capable of providing, leaving no room for thrusters, weapons or shields of any sort. At lvl 5 or so it left 40% power leftover after the inhibitor? Its a huge power draw at any stage, but the higher levels were free in terms of RC cost. On the flipside of that, its possible to build a permacloaked craft with maxed out chambers that has more than enough power left over to be a capable combat craft in it's own right. In fact I combined maxed out cloaking with maxed out scanning, made a perfect scout ship that still had power left over for decent weapons and shields to make a fighter that can handle ships around it's own size. So definitely gotta go through and make sure all the chamber combinations are working correctly, aren't too overpowered, etc.

      I would also suggest going over how ship scanning and stealth work together; last I knew it was mandatory to have a stealth drive in pvp to prevent the enemy from being able to see your reactor and target it, which was hurting other viable alternatives. QF made the stealth drive super cheap in rc cost, but you'd still have to have it. If you made it it's own specialty scanner chamber, pvp meta would just adjust to demand that chamber + stealth drive to counter. I don't like removing a mechanic, but it is a pain in the ass and I can't think what to do about this aspect of pvp meta.

      Only other thing was the high alpha weapons are surprisingly low-alpha. Like that strategy is totally unavailable as of the last QF config. Tbh I feel it should be available, and work needs to be done to allow it to be balanced and have it's own counters and drawbacks.

      Oh, and the thread totally devolved into a bunch of nitpicking, arguing, even some name-calling by several parties. In fact this thread did too this last page. Nobody wants to voice their opinion or ideas if it's going to be nitpicked or just flat out lost amongst the aruments, we're losing good minds and a large portion of the community to exactly to this kind of behavior, guys, try to be cool for a change and consider the merits of other people's ideas, not just how it differs from yours.
       
      #31 EricBlank, Sep 9, 2019
      Last edited: Sep 9, 2019
      • Like Like x 5
    12. Scypio

      Joined:
      Sep 18, 2014
      Messages:
      565
      Be sure to change the server.cfg (this one doesn't get overwritten everytime because it would mess up your world's files) and clean up your cache manually (just to be sure).

      As said several times this is not a good game design to have alpha weapons. I said we (i) are open to talk about it and we also explained our opinion in our thread and why it was done this way. Because "alpha weapons doesn't feel like alpha" is not something helpful at all. What do you qualify as alpha ? What type of weapon ? And so on.
       
      #32 Scypio, Sep 11, 2019
      Last edited: Sep 11, 2019
    13. DeepspaceMechanic

      Joined:
      Mar 10, 2016
      Messages:
      420
      I replaced the contents of my testing install's server.cfg with the server config found at the Quickfire Github repository, and cleaned the cache.

      New thrust test results (tested with tiny ship):

      1.0 TMR = 123.3 m/s
      2.0 TMR = 208.6 m/s
      3.0 TMR = 297.5 m/s

      3.0 TMR + Top speed chamber Level-1 = 327.2 m/s
      3.0 TMR + Top speed chamber Level-2 = 357 m/s
      3.0 TMR + Top speed chamber Level-3 = 401.6 m/s
       
      #33 DeepspaceMechanic, Sep 12, 2019 at 6:17 AM
      Last edited: Sep 12, 2019 at 6:27 AM
    14. Scypio

      Joined:
      Sep 18, 2014
      Messages:
      565
      Sounds better, isn't ? With a bigger ship that you can really pin point the correct moment where you get round tmr you should get better numbers.
      However yes, your point stands. 3.0 will never be equal to 300m/s exactly. Because of how the game is made in term of configs. To put it simply everything (config wise) is relative to 2.5 tmr so we have to work from that. And even knowing this there was some rounding stuff that made me become crazy at that time. So configs are approximately 100 m/s for 1.0 tmr. You'll have to deal with it until schema does something about it. And that is not likely to be coming soon because honestly 297.5 is close enough to 300 for the moment. There is a lot of stuff that needs to be done before this detail.
       
      • Like Like x 1
    15. EricBlank

      Joined:
      Jul 1, 2013
      Messages:
      484
      Ideally anything up to 16s reload time. I'm not scared of higher really, 30 seconds wouldn't be bad. We have both shield chambers for high and low damage protection, I thought they could be better put to use if there was such a thing as high and low damage in your own weight class, and to add an extra element of strategy to consider your opponents armament choices and factor them into your own.

      I did see all the arguments and posts regarding why you really don't like the idea, but I'd like it to be implemented and balanced anyway, because it breaks up and counteracts the DPS vs shield recharge meta/strategy youve created. Id love to see other strategies too like e-warfare, but that will require new game features we don't have.
       
      • Like Like x 1
    16. Scypio

      Joined:
      Sep 18, 2014
      Messages:
      565
      Remember old weapons in the previous power system ? Everyone had a beam beam ion to drop other's shields. What choice was there at that moment ? Either bring one to compete or don't and be at a disadvantage.

      Low damage chamber and high damage chambers aren't tied to low and high rate of fire weapon. That would be terribly reducting for theses chambers. Since the effects are ratio from the total capacity, you could, for example, lower your total capacity to have your opponent's weapons always triggering your high damage chamber. Or on the contrary invest a lot on shields to have the low damage chamber always triggered.

      But hey. It's a complete new ship you need to build and it will be like a gamble. Either be right and win or don't and accept your fate. That's more than just pressing a few buttons in your chamber tree.
       
      • Like Like x 1
    Loading...