Reilly Reese
#1 Top Forum Poster & Raiben Jackpot Winner
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.You seem to have overlooked the part before the comma?
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.You seem to have overlooked the part before the comma?
we already have mines and I already listed a lot of reasons why it would be a terrible idea.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.
All weapons types should be amazing but in different situations that arent able to completely nullify one weapon type.
each weapon type needs a proper interesting advantage and disadvantage not a rock paper scissor solution.
If thats your solution then you really dont have any imagination.
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.All the best pvp games I've played have had some kind of rock/paper/scissors mechanic, especially the old ones designed for a smaller number of players with out all the modern window dressing and monetization gimmicks. R/P/S prevents stale mate and keeps things moving.
While I understand it's been disabled to make things easier for testing I certainly hope it's re-enabled by the time you put it to release. This is the only mechanic that keeps the relationship between ship size and power output sane. It's the only thing preventing shells from being filled entirely with power and weapons.
- Disabled stabilizer distance and side-based bonuses. (for now.)
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.Stabilizers are generally a harmful mechanic. In their current state the facing mechanic has issues where it can be exploited to make stick ships extremely efficient, but even with the less stick-forming and more balanceable BY_ANGLE version that Schema put in as a config option recently, it still punishes the wrong players.
Stabilizers were conceived as a way to make sure that ship "sizes" (whatever that even means) tracked with power availability. Presumably this was because Lan and Schema saw that most competitive ships were packing in systems inside their hulls, leaving no gaps except for maybe minimal interior. The problems with trying to "fix" that are threefold.
- Not everyone agrees that ship filling was even a problem.
Many players were happy with the creative freedom to do whatever they wanted with their interior space, whether they be creative builders or veteran PvP experts. The scaling restrictions imposed by stabilizers posed little more than an annoyance. Additionally, having less exposed block surfaces meant better GPU performance (granted, that won't be an issue post-universe update due to new optimizations).
For the record, I personally don't like filling up ships at all. I don't hate it enough to sacrifice balance and creative freedom, though.
- There's nothing about systems that inherently forces you to fill up your ship.
The actual main reason for ship-stuffing is the excessive mass of armor. For any given volume of armored hull you would want to make use of the full capacity for systems, because that volume cost you a fair bit in mass on its own. Even pre power 2.0, competitive ships that didn't bother with the largely useless and overweight armor at all would sometimes have sizeable gaps in their systems compartments. The other reason, of course, is that there's no incentive to create interiors or anything. That one only Schine can fix with a crew system, and trying to force space inside ships is no substitute.
- ...But what is ship size really, though?
Trying to define the size of a ship isn't really meaningful, or at least not easy, and no stabilizer mechanic can do it. Presumably the metric we're usually thinking of when we say "size" is internal volume, and that is nigh-impossible to measure in a performant way. It also is not really feasible to try and measure the volume using some sort of placeable system simply from a logical standpoint. You'd need blocks covering the entire inner surface of the hull or something. :P
What you get instead with stabilizers is a very rough, dimension-based approximation of volume that runs into various problems depending on the situation. The simplest example is that there can be a very obvious difference between a 500x500 caltrops shape and a 500x500 cube, or a 500x500 octohedron vs. a 500x500 sphere, but a stabilizer distance system will think they're the same thing.
A PvP builder won't care about this as they'll just use the shape that is most mass- and therefore thruster power-efficient. Creative builders are the ones who get the proverbial shaft, with the quirks of the system producing various inefficiencies in their ships that can't be avoided because they want to use a given ship design that they feel is aesthetically pleasing, or because it looked super cool on TV.
That was literally my suggestion with the 15%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.
[doublepost=1566143681,1566142782][/doublepost]
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).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
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.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.
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.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).
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.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
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.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.
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.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.