Dev Blog : October 21st 2016

[Erth Paradine]

...
what we see here is total negligence to work with community and to face their potential customers' requirements.

I can't agree with total negligence, as Schine staff are very approachable for support related needs; speaking first as a player and then later as a server owner. Further, recent changes to the game have improved the experience for all: Chunk32 proved to be a positive performance improvement (once players got around to manually updating client-side settings), and a transition to sparse files significantly reduced disk space requirements. While that's just a short-list from recent memory, it is clear that someone is paying attention...

What I see though, is a mixed software development method. At times iterative or agile methods are in play, while waterfall seems to have a strong influence as well. In waterfall development, testing always follows a build phase, "preview" (e.g. prototype) releases are often accompanied with buggy features that may not get attention until much later dates, and requirements are pre-determined with user input rarely altering the ordering, pace or final outcome (unless it's correcting an architectural defect, such as sparse files or chunk32).

Whereas with more modern development methods such as iterative or agile, there is a constant pace of change iterations, and then iterations become releases (which are frequent), evolving user requirements are expected and readily accommodated, members of multiple small teams closely collaborate, faith and trust in personal motivations is implicit, there is a strong emphasis upon simplicity and technical excellence (e.g. good design, minimal typos, and early stabilization of released features before introducing more), and automated testing is heavily leveraged with exploratory and procedural testing (e.g. QA) also in play.

While I realize the engine has been in development for nearly a decade, with a consumable modern incarnation for nearly half that time, we're all investing our own resources to scratch personal, creative, and professional itches...I suppose this is where confusion leads to frustration: I see token gestures of modern software development conjoined with older practices. The gestures are confusing, they do not help illuminate where user feedback and suggestions fit into the greater picture...and that could lead to perceptions of negligence.

 

[Erth Paradine]

I enjoyed that link too, and read it all, but when I got to the end of the article I was surprised (that I was at the end): the author had spent a lot of effort analysing the negative traits of online gaming....but still hadn't offered a single specific solution.

So it wasn't the constructive criticism I thought it was, it was just plain criticism.

Was a single solution necessary, or even appropriate though? After all, that article is over 6 years old, yet its relevance is timeless.

There were some mild suggestions too: the free -vs- paid downloadable content and dynamic maps. Although neither are truly that relevant in SM's context. What is relevant is the criticism, and its implied solution: consumables.

With FPS or map/maze based games, one highly valued resource is your knowledge of a pre-established playing field, where to find needed items, etc... So in those types of games, you tweak how much pre-existing knowledge there could be. Do you see a recent similarity here in SM? I see the recent Fog of War feature as not necessarily a reaction to user requests, but a developer reaction to perceived stagnation; every time you relog you have to "re-learn" the landscape, which has a moderate effect at leveling a playing field between established and newer players. World resets are another way to approach this topic. Procedural PVE conflict is another way to approach this...for those that play to scratch a conflict itch.

Aside from conflict as a means of consumption, what if things in SM could actually decay, or even break?

Now, you have a newer player; their major concerns are either explicit conflict (and being able to finance it), or conflict avoidance while establishing a base of operations (e.g. miners, builders, traders), in both cases there is an implicit consumption mechanic in play. Whereas larger groups (e.g. factions) can begin to dabble in politics, production/supplies, or even large-scale conflicts, but...not without also giving care to the same issues a newer player needs to consider: hording is no longer rewarded, because if you store for too long, your resources begin to break.

Anyways - trying not to veer too far OT here...but I hope that helps clarify how I perceived the article.

 

[Raisinbat]

Aside from conflict as a means of consumption, what if things in SM could actually decay, or even break?

Now, you have a newer player; their major concerns are either explicit conflict (and being able to finance it), or conflict avoidance while establishing a base of operations (e.g. miners, builders, traders), in both cases there is an implicit consumption mechanic in play. Whereas larger groups (e.g. factions) can begin to dabble in politics, production/supplies, or even large-scale conflicts, but...not without also giving care to the same issues a newer player needs to consider: hording is no longer rewarded, because if you store for too long, your resources begin to break.

Anyways - trying not to veer too far OT here...but I hope that helps clarify how I perceived the article.

It's a big problem, especially since the game constantly generates resources. I guess fuel could make a good limiter for large empires; can't deploy the entire armada for every little thing and warfare, especially with longer distance, becomes prohibitively expensive, while smaller factions establishing themselves require a very modest amount.

 

[Erth Paradine]

It's a big problem, especially since the game constantly generates resources. I guess fuel could make a good limiter for large empires; can't deploy the entire armada for every little thing and warfare, especially with longer distance, becomes prohibitively expensive, while smaller factions establishing themselves require a very modest amount.

Yea, the ideas of fuel and food are hotly-contested topics, of which I do not believe has the support of developers. It's probably not appropriate we turn this into Yet Another fuel thread either.

Hence the decay angle; it leverages pre-existing game mechanics, as blocks are worn-down by either decay or conflict, shipyards can be used for some forms of repair, healing beams on stations, etc. I'm certainly not the first to think of such an approach though...and I'm taking further comments to that linked thread.

 

[Winterhome]

Yeah, that's reported on the bug tracker. And you're correct about the SHP thing. Blocks removal will deduct its SHP value from its SHP pool. I assume he's talking about block destruction in this case. Where beam damage propagation doesn't work properly (which is true when armor is involved).

It seems that beams also don't reliably deduct SHP when damaging systems blocks in all circumstances. I'm not sure what the problem is, but it might be that blocks destroyed by beams' penetration don't register as having been removed for some reason or another.

 

[-Moose-]

Initial Questions:

These NPC factions can expand, what if any, measures will be taken to prevent them from colonizing the entire galaxy? Servers run 24/7 (in theory), players do not.

I see these factions will be given large swaths of territory, and plans on letting solo players achieve a multi-sector empire as well?

Will players be able to create their own "NPC Empire" where large scale resource gathering, building, exploring, expanding etc. can be done automatically by NPC's?

 

[StormWing0]

I'd rather NPCs of both NPC factions and player factions do nothing while no players are online but be active when at least 1 players is online. Having that as a server option would be a good idea as well so if a server owner wants the world to be active even without players it will be.

 

[Oblivionburn]

Build for what reason?
Explore for what reason?

This is my current situation in the game, ive tried to future proof while waiting for something to do, built variants of ships for scouting/mining/fleet combat. Now everytime i login, its like what can i do? Im not really a PvP player so all i can do is fly around and check on other players.

I'm guessing/hoping the planned 'Mission System' will address the current lack of drive the game offers to really do anything other than pvp. I've had similar concerns regarding the reason to do anything in general, and created a suggestion thread (last year) that tried to offer a solution: artificially implementing some form of pace via 'unlocking/unhiding' blocks until certain conditions are met (i.e. making a certain number of an available block), which means always having something new being presented to strive for (due to lack of resources to make it) or experiment with before having more mysterious things thrown in your face. I'm not sure if this has changed, yet, but at the time of starting that thread I was able to get access to every block in the game in ~10 minutes... and then I painfully felt those questions of purpose enter my mind: "Now that I have all this stuff, what should I do?", "What would be the point of doing anything if I already have everything?"

I haven't touched the game since then, but I'm eagerly awaiting the Quarters feature The description of it reminds me of Star Trek, which would be a cool experience to have.

[edit] It might make more sense of this to know that I prefer single-player and have no interest in multiplayer or pvp.

 

[shellspeed1]

Could we use this same system to create drone attack squadrons and fleets to fight with these NPC factions while we expand ourselves.

 

[Lukwan]

Hence the decay angle; it leverages pre-existing game mechanics, as blocks are worn-down by either decay or conflict, shipyards can be used for some forms of repair, healing beams on stations, etc. I'm certainly not the first to think of such an approach though...and I'm taking further comments to that linked thread.

Decay comes from many sources including, wear & tear from basic use, maintenance of static-assets (a car on blocks will deteriorate faster than one gently used) and of course trauma from being pushed to the red-line (combat). Machines need exercise just like our bodies. It keeps the flexible parts moving and the juices (lubricants) flowing. Decay makes perfect sense as a mechanic for SM. We have all the elements for being able to deal with it with shipyards & astrotech and it fits with the theme of the game/genre.

People may complain but they will deal with it and move on. I heard things about System-Shock 2 that had me worried. What?! Your guns will wear out as you fire them...are you nuts? Once I started to play the game it became just another mechanic to play around with and it never detracted from the game.

Now all we have to do re-brand decay (all stick) as maintenance-buff (more carrot). :D

 

[Jojomo]

Decay comes from many sources including, wear & tear from basic use, maintenance of static-assets (a car on blocks will deteriorate faster than one gently used) and of course trauma from being pushed to the red-line (combat). Machines need exercise just like our bodies. It keeps the flexible parts moving and the juices (lubricants) flowing. Decay makes perfect sense as a mechanic for SM. We have all the elements for being able to deal with it with shipyards & astrotech and it fits with the theme of the game/genre.

People may complain but they will deal with it and move on. I heard things about System-Shock 2 that had me worried. What?! Your guns will wear out as you fire them...are you nuts? Once I started to play the game it became just another mechanic to play around with and it never detracted from the game.

Now all we have to do re-brand decay (all stick) as maintenance-buff (more carrot). :D

We already have a "decay" mechanism: combat damage.

A ship out of water will last (much) longer than one in water, no matter how gently used. Perhaps not the case for the engines (couldn't say - not my area of knowledge) but for the rest of it that's the case.

Artificial decay would be a huge turn off for me (I can't speak for anyone else).
When Pixel Dungeon (a fantastic modern rogue-like for phones) introduced weapon decay I stopped playing it.

 

[Lukwan]

I worked for fifteen years as an electronic technician and I now renovate older homes. I do my own bike repairs and whatever I can manage on my car. Cars, electronics and homes are all complex systems of interdependent parts. If things IRL did not decay I would be out of a job & the entire economy would collapse. Repair and maintenance are about renewal in a world driven by entropy.

Google

Nothing artificial about it. Entropy is an integral law of the universe.

It is important to remember that we are discussing decay/entropy here in order to use it as a mechanic to make SM more dynamic and interesting. We are not talking about breaking people's stuff because it is more realistic or because we want to punish players. Decay is what makes renewal meaningful. Decay can function as a gentle prod to avoid a static Turtle-verse of pristine ships that never leave the hangar.
Decay can be designed as a restraint against ship & fleet-gigantism without making it an issue for new players. Entropy could help validate the Engineer-class of player as an important member of the crew. Maintenance is unlike other activities so it would expand the 'change-of-kind' game-play.

There are uses for this mechanic that are worth discussing.

 

[Malacodor]

There are uses for this mechanic that are worth discussing.

Getting rid of casual players? Because they'd suffer far more from decay than regular players. Coming back after a pause? Oh, everything you had is gone, too bad.

 

[Lukwan]

Getting rid of casual players? Because they'd suffer far more from decay than regular players. Coming back after a pause? Oh, everything you had is gone, too bad.

Aw man! You're going to straw-man me for this? No specifics are even an the table yet. You are better than that Mal.

Neither one of us want to burn casual players. I certainly don't want peoples stuff disappearing in a puff a smoke. Hyperbole aside, if you have a concern about casual players please share your ideas on how this could be avoided (besides outright dismissal of the discussion).
[doublepost=1478355570,1478354630][/doublepost]

We already have a "decay" mechanism: combat damage.

Apples & oranges. Combat damage is...combat damage.

Decay/Entropy are:

-Rubber parts drying out because they are static. (EG mashed tires on a car that sat idle for three years.) Belts on a turntable getting stiff from disuse.
-Wire breaking due to expansion/contraction from the day-light & seasonal shifts...or changes in temperature.
-Parts getting loose due to constant low vibrations.
-Fluids dry out over time and get used up though usage.
-Moving parts need to move or they get seized.
-Chemicals loose their properties with age.
-Critters like to nibble...on anything.
-Moisture & frost damage.
-Wear & tear on parts, even from gentle use.
-Corrosion & bi-metallic reactions on electrical contact points.
-Leaks that go un-noticed lead to catastrophic failures.
-Complex assemblies drift from their factory specified alignments.
-Crystal oscillators and reference clocks can go off frequency if jarred. Require re-tuning.
-Compression joins can fail over time preventing needed flexion.
-Human operator error and bad engineering have...consequences.

That is why we need technicians and engineers in the real world. Look on the bright side we will have an NPC to do most of the scutt-work anyway so we can relax and fly the ship.

 

[Malacodor]

Hyperbole aside, if you have a concern about casual players please share your ideas on how this could be avoided (besides outright dismissal of the discussion).

The only possibility I see is to stop decay when a player is offline. But then people could build stuff with an alt, then log to their main and never have any decay. A single alt account could supply an entire faction with non-decaying ships.

If things IRL did not decay I would be out of a job & the entire economy would collapse.

Everyone could work part-time because we wouldn't have to rebuy or repair our stuff all the time.

 

[Lukwan]

The only possibility I see is to stop decay when a player is offline. But then people could build stuff with an alt, then log to their main and never have any decay. A single alt account could supply an entire faction with non-decaying ships.

I agree that players who are offline a lot should not suffer as much effect as heavy players. Any Entropy effects should get more severe the larger the faction/fleet's mass. A single ship below a certain threshold should be easy to maintain by the captain/pilot. As the mass increases there will come a point where you will have to hire an engineer (or get regular ship-yard tune-ups) to avoid any decay.

Everyone could work part-time because we wouldn't have to rebuy or repair our stuff all the time.

I dream of living in this world. I can tell you that planned obsolescence is a reality in the manufacturing sector and in the fashion industry. These greed-driven industries are driving our environment to the brink for temporary & unsustainable profits. (steps off soapbox)

[sorry man, that was not directed at you. Seeing constant evidence of planned obsolescence in my industry is what drove me from it]

 

[Erth Paradine]

The only possibility I see is to stop decay when a player is offline. But then people could build stuff with an alt, then log to their main and never have any decay. A single alt account could supply an entire faction with non-decaying ships.
...

If we took an example from the game's existing mechanics: when a sector is unloaded, asteroids and pirates don't spawn, and shops don't restock. So...how about no (or minimal) decay when a sector is unloaded? After all, if factories are not running at the time, doors not moving, turrets idle, life-support at minimal, etc, then shouldn't decay of such functions be significantly diminished?

 

[Malacodor]

If we took an example from the game's existing mechanics: when a sector is unloaded, asteroids and pirates don't spawn, and shops don't restock. So...how about no (or minimal) decay when a sector is unloaded? After all, if factories are not running at the time, doors not moving, turrets idle, life-support at minimal, etc, then shouldn't decay of such functions be significantly diminished?

In the future a lot of things will happen in unloaded sectors.

 

[Erth Paradine]

In the future a lot of things will happen in unloaded sectors.

Well, you're so right. So we should totally accommodate that "future" mechanic Right Now.

 

[Jojomo]

Nothing artificial about it. Entropy is an integral law of the universe.

It's artificial if the devs have to add it for it's own sake. There are many integral parts of our universe that aren't present in SM - they're unnecessary and/or undesirable in a game.

It is important to remember that we are discussing decay/entropy here in order to use it as a mechanic to make SM more dynamic and interesting.

I think that's why you're discussing it. I'm discussing it because it will make SM less interesting. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

If someone wants to turtle, don't force them to be unable to do that, encourage them to move instead. (And as far as ships are concerned, not being used is the best way to slow decay) There are presumably turtling players who are valuable to the community and their servers. They would disappear if it became impossible to play in the manner they wanted.

As far as decay being a resource sink, combat already is a consumer of blocks. Decay isn't needed for that, and shouldn't be used as a stick against turtling players - it will hurt those players, and non-turtling players who now have to deal with an extra mechanism that was designed to alter the behaviour of other players besides themselves.
[doublepost=1478381205,1478380963][/doublepost]

That is why we need technicians and engineers in the real world.

Technicians perhaps.
For engineers it's a relatively minor driver, the main one is growth.