This document is a mess of indie game dev cliches and a thorough example of Schine fundamentally failing to communicate goals both to itself and to the community in a concise, coherent and comprehensive manner. Per Jordan Peterson, the absolute first step to accomplishing anything is stating your goals in a simple and easy to read manner. These goals are not stated simply nor are they easily read. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say perhaps you aren't accustomed to writing these sorts of documents or were pressed for time, but this is honestly just not great. Ignoring all of the other problems, just at the very least organize this. Bullet points, to the point explanations, alphabetically or chronologically listed information, et cetera.You would not believe how difficult it is to rewrite a game design document into a coherent "story" that explains it well for a player that has no idea what's in the other referenced game design documents.
This paragraph specifically, only the third one into the document, and it's already told me everything I need to know about how Schine is going about developing their endgame features - and why it's wrong.When we talked about how to write this document, we simply put ourselves into a specific play role/play style, defining what we would like to be able to do in the finished game. Coming up with ideas was easy, but getting rid of just as many to form a solid, cohesive game was not. StarMade is after all, a sandbox game. A type of genre where you’re allowed to discover a complete world and do whatever you want.
How can the community trust Schine to effectively develop a game based on roles if Schine does not also play the game nor listen to the community? Even if this idea of intangible, non-binding roles was a working solution, how far from reality would Schine's vision of them be? Their ideas could be on a totally different page from where the game actually is, and this disconnect could lead to major balancing issues. This sort of thing already happens, but not on the scale that it could happen should it continue into this.Last time I really played the game was 3 years ago, not sure how relevant that is as we use the community to tell us what's wrong and what's not wrong. those hardcore PvPers seem to be hard to approach, and I already did a polling on the meta and what was unbalanced with a discord group in the past. Although initial feedback was great, it quickly died out as you know.
what game? build a ship, look at it, build another...if Schine does not also play the game nor listen to the community?
So shipyards being later game content fixes small ships being massively overpowered? Except you already talked about public shipyards so this means nothing.What makes you think we don't realize that? Shipyard related content, the feature that would mainly allow construction for fleets, is the tool to reach this end-game content where you're building fleets.
I would definitely say it's overpowered right now, as anyone not using fleets would be at a severe disadvantage.
Sorry, what? The head tester and balancer of Starmade hasn't played Starmade in THREE YEARS? Most of the people on these forums haven't even been playing for three years! What the fuck, dude?Last time I really played the game was 3 years ago, not sure how relevant that is as we use the community to tell us what's wrong and what's not wrong. those hardcore PvPers seem to be hard to approach, and I already did a polling on the meta and what was unbalanced with a discord group in the past. Although initial feedback was great, it quickly died out as you know.
How about the PvP game, or the PvE game, or the trading game, or the ship selling game? All of these are functional to some extent. I've done all of them, and they all have major flaws that would be immediately obvious to anyone who has actually played them.what game? build a ship, look at it, build another...
The past month has been pretty slow with the devblogs just repeating info we already knew, just something to read to tide us over for another week.
Personally, this just looks like a filler, like most of this months devblogs, so my guess is not much is going on or schema is the only one doing something
I don't like this idea...One more thing. CCP (creators of Eve Online) hired three economists to help create their game's economy. If you want a living economy, you might consider hiring one yourself. I wish you could hire an expert spaceship builder to help you out in that department, but I think NASA researchers might be a tad bit out of the team's paygrade. You could hire an electrician or something like that to help you come up with systems though.
No? How did you even come to that conclusion?So shipyards being later game content fixes small ships being massively overpowered? Except you already talked about public shipyards so this means nothing.
Sorry, what? The head tester and balancer of Starmade hasn't played Starmade in THREE YEARS? Most of the people on these forums haven't even been playing for three years! What the fuck, dude?
As soon as I joined the testing team, I stopped playing for "real"...I started playing for testing reasons which is not what I see as "I mean really played this game", hence the 3 years ago part.When is the last time any of you have actually played this game? I mean really played this game.
I guess we'll be able to trade information at some point.I don't get how being an explorer is a role by itself.
Not sure if you've noticed, but one of the major goals for StarMade in the near future is to change that. Also, there's a config option to change asteroid sizes; I personally enjoy them being a bit larger than default.In reality, it's just not fun to explore in the game. All the asteroids and planets are the same, really. Too small, too. There's no real variation, no real fun. On top of that, the game spoon feeds you the information you need - tells you exactly what asteroid X contains.
Well, I think that's the issue. People's standards of fighters and stuff come from scenes in Sci-Fi where you really only have (or only notice) squadrons of maybe ten or twenty fighters. Giant swarms of ships aren't really an expected norm. I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing that they want more roles for smaller numbers of "normal" (i.e. not just specific types of meta design) small ships that can have a noticeable effect in battle (where currently their damage would generally be shield regen'd out of existence)You mean exactly like how it is now, where small ships in "large" numbers (I put large in quotes because a dozen or two isn't really that large a number)
Have you even played the game in the past few years? Currently we have three viable weapons, and (at the absolutely most conservative estimation) six viable primary/secondary combinations - and I'm probably forgetting some of the more niche ones. On top of that, there're all the effects, most of which are useful in some way or other.One last thing to take from Eve, people can be fighters/imperialists solely because of the insurance mechanic, and the variety of systems. We need more than just regular old antimatter canon blocks, I feel like we need tiers of them as well, that consume more power or have other engineering roadbumps tacked on to them. It's like EvE has this minigame of seeing how efficient you can design your ship/systems, and Starmade is close to that except it lacks the variety Eve has.
Not really. The roles listed appear to be in direct connection with current game mechanics, so these roles are likely to be a orthonormal basis in the space of player activities.So why is this, specifically, a problem? Because this kind of development will ASSUME the goals are binding. Players must fit into one of the roles, otherwise they are now not being considered in the grand scheme of things. Features are added, gameplay is expanded, balance is created but only in respect to these roles, only within the scope of these grounded playstyles.
Why can't I be a good builder and a good fighter? This is what I'm talking about. I should be able to be anything and everything I want to be, whenever I choose to. That's what a sandbox is and that's what Schine is seeming to fail to understand. People will do whatever they please unless you force them not to. The game is being stressed extremely hard in MP right now because Schine didn't anticipate that people would automatically build a massive amount of assets, both in quantity and size. The same will happen in the future, when Schine balances "roles" with trade-offs that people will avoid by doing everything at once. I don't get whats hard to understand here.Not really. The roles listed appear to be in direct connection with current game mechanics, so these roles are likely to be a orthonormal basis in the space of player activities.
Assume a game where only placing/removing blocks is possible (like minecraft classic). The builder would be the only 'role' available then. Next, adding mobs&&hp&&weapons a second role appears -- the fighter.
Crafting brings pretty much simplified but valid 'crafter' role.
After the introduction of enchantments the 'enchanter' role also becomes available.
What i am trying to say here is that the difference between "Sandbox" and "non-Sandbox" games (!in terms of roles) consists not in a complete absence of roles in "Sandbox" games, but in fundamental, technical ability for player to combine several roles (which are dictated by gameplay possibilities):
while in non-sandbox games players have to stay with the basis they chose earlier:
The axis here are orthonormal, but it is not necessarily as that. In most non-sandbox games classes do have some common abilities, which, however, differ in strength.
My conclusion here is that those 'roles' mentioned are no other that a complete list of abilities, or opportunities for player, and, most likely, they have to be treated as proposed set of features (mechanics/engine limitations/gameplay aspects) to be present in the final version of the game. There are currently no signs that being a builder makes you unable to be a fighter, too. A not very good fighter, but still.
Completely agree. The "lazy solution" would be having peaks of distribution of some types of resources in some selected systems (one mineral type per 'rich' system), while leaving ~80% of systems with deposits of minerals of all types, but so scarce, that they would be insufficient for large-scale building.To the issue of resources I think one of the problems is that they are too scattered around
The problem is that Schine does not test any of these things to the limit in an actual server environment. Shipyards STILL break constantly for seemingly no reason. NPCs need to be disabled or heavily restricted to keep servers from dying after a month. The weapons, power, and defenses balance are an absolute shit show and it's pretty obvious that you guys don't even try to exploit the systems when you're testing them because if you did this shit wouldn't be here to begin with. "Testing" the game cannot replace actually playing the game. None of you seem to understand how all the mechanics you've piled on over the years actually interact with each other.
AKA, Quality Assurance.
- Playing to see if features works
- Playing to see if said features are properly balanced (which falls under the "works" part)
- Playing to see if said features are fun and find out what to improve upon
No, it wouldn't. Being every role takes minimal amounts of effort, especially when playing with a group. I cannot emphasize this enough - if you balance based on players fitting into specific roles, your game will be busted. It doesn't work like that in a sandbox. It's not a good way of presenting your goals and ideas. It doesn't matter how you slice it.Yes you can! *starmade anthem intensifies*
The only limitation i had in my mind is pure human skill -- it would require much time and dedication, though.
The fact that you're using these words means that it is either me who explained my point not deeply enouhg, or you who didn't read carefully enough.No, it wouldn't. Being every role takes minimal amounts of effort, especially when playing with a group. I cannot emphasize this enough - if you balance based on players fitting into specific roles, your game will be busted. It doesn't work like that in a sandbox. It's not a good way of presenting your goals and ideas. It doesn't matter how you slice it.