Devblog 2017 - 09 - 21

[Edymnion]

That one...made me laugh in a very dark way.
I agree with you overall, but i'm laughing so hard at it.

Lol, well its okay for orks.

 

[Cluwne]

I wonder if some mechanic that increases effective stabilizer count would bring back some of the "hard to master"-aspect of the old system.
For one thing, this would allow good builders to place stabilizer section closer to reactor and offset the efficiency drop with such mechanic.

 

[Edymnion]

Nope. There is such thing as the top-off power draw. If you don't produce enough power - the weapon won't fire at all. Neat, huh?
One way strategic bombers could have been made viable is with the capacitors that would provide the energy to keep weapons charged.
Unfortunately, the power capacitors are being removed with the rest of the old system. No bombers with nukes for you I'm afraid.

The top off power requirement is going to be MUCH lower than the power required to fully charge it.

I'm imagining the difference is going to be like the current Shield system, where weapons have a standby cost of 1/10th their active charging energy requirement. You can still have a giant mega-bomb, you're just going to need a relatively small amount of power to upkeep it, and then let it spend 5 minutes recharging after you fire it.

 

[TheOmega]

Hey, if you don't think this is complicated enough, maybe you are missing the point. BTW the point is (probably) to make reactors smaller and less complicated.

ALSO the game doesn't necessarily need to make sense, it just needs to be relatively balanced. Just because reactors COULD power turrets on their own, doesn't mean they SHOULD.

If you want to work out your brain, learn to solve various styles of Rubik's Cubes. BONUS: a lot of people will be impressed with that, definitely more people than people who are impressed with your ability to argue over the internet.

 

[bricox01]

I'm gonna put my two cents in here. However, it's to suggest something that doesn't seem to have been considered.

Based on what I'm reading, the PVP players are somewhat concerned that the new power system won't actually solve anything in regards to optimal ship design.

Based on what I have watched and read, I agree. We're trading one exploitable mechanic for another.

The more RP oriented players seem to want this new system for the design options it will open up.

What I'm seeing is that PVP players will play on PVP servers, PVE players will play on PVE servers, and a good chunk of players will simply gravitate towards servers with rules allowing a bit of both. Schine isn't lumping us onto one server. We can even set up our own servers if we wish.

Call me crazy, but I've never seen a problem with game balance.

 

[bricox01]

bricox01 that is not an issue Pvpers vs "Roleplayers".

- The power is the true core to balance game mechanics at Starmade. [Real big explanation.]
- Rpers are not the only ones that "design" ships [Believe or not this game is mostly at the current stage about building.]
- The "better shape stuff" of the new power system works with all type of players and ships. [Independently of the type of server.]

I'm not meaning to suggest that rp-ers or pvp-ers spend more time designing their ships, only that they typically design them differently.

As far as ever considered balance, it's always been the question of "do the rules of the system affect all groups equally, or at least as the designers intended them to?"

As far as sbape versus turning goes, it's a matter of trade-offs and working within those trade-offs. This holds true whether you are an rp-er or a pvp-er. It's merely a different set of trade-offs.
[doublepost=1506515942,1506513065][/doublepost]Just to add to my thoughts above, I think a lot of the perceived problems with any system Schine puts in place is only a problem when people push into the extremes of min-maxing. As the rpg saying goes:

"Min-maxing is not a problem with the system, it's a problem with the players."

Obviously, any system put in place can and will be min-maxed to heck. Overall, I think the new system will accomplish what it set out to do: free up ship designers in terms of how they can design ships.

I think it's really up to the admins of servers to set the rules as to what is and isn't acceptable on their servers. Each one will be different. It comes down to who you decide to play with.
[doublepost=1506517947][/doublepost]Further addendum: Using the current system, my serever uses a gentleman's agreement that limits ship power based on size ranges. In short, I agree with your statement regarding power is balance.

 

[Edymnion]

Wrong.

New power system only have 1 way to maximize it, big chunks of blocks at oposite sides of one entity. [The large shape = the better the energy output.]

On a few words, ships that are not an "stick" shape are going to be underpowered. [Forget to see dececent powerred Star treck ship shapes as i read from another user some post ago.]

We don't know that stick designs are going to be any more prevelent than they are today. We just know that there will be room in the ship for things like interiors.

Current power rewards stick ships too. Or cube ships when we make box reactors. Its silly to say "This automatically means the extreme is the only way to be viable" when we don't even know how many blocks it will take to power a ship. If the space required for the reactors and the stabilizers ends up being the same as a current box or line reactor, then NOTHING CHANGES.

If a a 5 reactor line with 4 spaces and 1 stabilizer puts out the same power as a 10x1x1 reactor, then we use the same space as we do now, with only 60% of the blocks used. If a 5x5x10 box reactor and a 1x1x10 with stabilizersin the corners/in a ring with 3 blocks between them put out the same power, then nothing changes. Until we can get our hands on the system and actually play with shapes and things, we don't know what layout is going to be best.

So lets not fear monger and say "This is the only way it can possibly work!" when we don't even know how it works yet.

 

[Panpiper]

"Min-maxing is not a problem with the system, it's a problem with the players."

So someone who studies the rules of a game so as to learn how to win the game, is a "problem"? People who read books on chess and study chess to mini-max their strategies, they are a problem for the game of chess? Such people perhaps spoil the fun of chess?

Studying the rules, and mini-maxing your strategy IS the game. It is not a "problem" and it is most emphatically not a "problem with the players".

If you don't like studying rules, and you don't like thinking about how to play well, that's fine, there are RP servers to play on. But to suggest that people who do want to learn to play well, who want to be challenged by a sufficiently rich rules set and a strategic game that they can think long and hard about, to try to perfect their strategy, that they are "problem players" is frankly insulting.

Obviously, any system put in place can and will be min-maxed to heck. Overall, I think the new system will accomplish what it set out to do: free up ship designers in terms of how they can design ships.

You are flat out wrong. The old system allowed players to use all three dimensions of their ship with regard to generating power. The new system allows only one dimension. The end result is that someone building say a Star Trek Enterprise ship will ALWAYS lose, regardless of how competent they are with the rules and building, to a ship that was built using the same mass, but is four times longer. Only one dimension counts for power, and as a result ALL ships built to be effective will be long and thin.

Some players may deliberately build out a 'pretend' structure of decorative blocks to make their long, thin stick look more like a normal ship, but all this will accomplish is to turn ships that normally would have been a reasonable size in the old system into gargantuan (mostly hollow) behemoths.

The old system permitted the building of anything you wanted to build, and even the Enterprise could be made to be formidable. Those days are gone. The Enterprise and anything else out of standard media fiction will now be forever outclassed by the long sticks and pod ships. This has not balanced PvP and RP players at all. All it has done is dumb down the learning curve a tiny bit for the RPers and MASSIVELY reduce the strategic depth of building for the PvPers.

 

[Edymnion]

You are flat out wrong. The old system allowed players to use all three dimensions of their ship with regard to generating power. The new system allows only one dimension. The end result is that someone building say a Star Trek Enterprise ship will ALWAYS lose, regardless of how competent they are with the rules and building, to a ship that was built using the same mass, but is four times longer. Only one dimension counts for power, and as a result ALL ships built to be effective will be long and thin.

1) Again, we don't know how it works. You can't make this claim.

2) How is it one dimensional when stabilizers can be put anywhere? The demonstration just showed a small working example of it being used in one dimension. It also showed diagrams of three dimensional usage by making rings around reactors. The only thing we know is that there needs to be some space between the reactors and the stabilizers, and the bigger the reactor, the more space it needs. You can put those stabilizers anywhere in three dimensional space you want.

3) If anything a Trek style ship is at an inherent advantage here, because its pre-designed to give you space to put stabilizers in the nacelles far away from the reactors in the main hull or saucer.

 

[Cluwne]

We don't know that stick designs are going to be any more prevelent than they are today.

Except that we do know. Stabilizers have to be n blocks away from the reactor.
Therefore the optimal way is to build a reactor blob, then a stabilizer blob n blocks away. A no-brainer design even a two year-old can grasp.
Whether that means that ships will resemble two pods, barbells or Heighliner-like cylinders is yet to be seen.

 

[Panpiper]

We don't know that stick designs are going to be any more prevelent than they are today. We just know that there will be room in the ship for things like interiors.

There was ALWAYS room for interiors. People not building interiors had absolutely nothing to do with interiors being problematic, and everything to do with interiors being useless. The key to getting people to build interiors is not to 'force' players to have useless space, but to make those interiors useful (as in the planned crew and quarters update).

As for stick designs... OF COURSE sticks are going to be more prevalent. It baffles me how you can not see that. If only one dimension counts for power, PvPers will maximize that dimension. Period. End stop. Maximizing one dimension means building a stick. Anyone who fails to maximize one dimension is not building for competitive PvP, and WILL lose to someone who has.

 

[Edymnion]

Except that we do know. Stabilizers have to be n blocks away from the reactor.
Therefore the optimal way is to build a reactor blob, then a stabilizer blob n blocks away. A no-brainer design even a two year-old can grasp.
Whether that means that ships will resemble two pods, barbells or Heighliner-like cylinders is yet to be seen.

As for stick designs... OF COURSE sticks are going to be more prevalent. It baffles me how you can not see that. If only one dimension counts for power, PvPers will maximize that dimension. Period. End stop. Maximizing one dimension means building a stick. Anyone who fails to maximize one dimension is not building for competitive PvP, and WILL lose to someone who has.

And again, how is this different from now?

Stick and box reactors are the norm NOW. And long narrow box ships are pretty much the norm now as well. I don't see how the concept of "put these blocks X units away from those blocks" is going to change things when thats already how we build.

The only way that would change is if there is a MASSIVE gap required between the two, and right now we DON'T KNOW what the required distance is. Plus, that distance can be tweaked as we go.

So no, we don't know that will be best, because we don't know how it works yet beyond the most basic of ideas. We have no details, and you can't say what min/max will be best when you have no details to work from.

You're all just projecting your worst fears on an empty canvas at this point.

 

[Cluwne]

I think the borg spheres will rule PvP much like doomcubes used to.
Consider this: their reactor core is in the center, protected like you wouldn't believe, what with all the blocks between it and it's "surface".
Inner shell of stabilizers might not even cover 100% of the "minimal distance surface", outer shell is armor of choice.
You've got a shitload of space, depending on reactor size, enough space for thrusters to get a tolerable TWR, enough space for unbreakable shields, for doomsday beams, for chambers...
On top of that you have the best possible turn rate.

Basically you have the love child from the forbidden love between Death Star and Doom Cube.
I fully expect to see planet-sized monstrosities with a beam that can bust a planet in one shot.
Imagine that shit with the sneaky-breeki stealth chamber and permacloak. Fucking nightmare fuel.

 

[Panpiper]

1) Again, we don't know how it works. You can't make this claim.

I've spent forty years obsessively devouring build system rules. Indeed for ten years, my profession required that I be able to analyse rules systems to find exploits and problems (I was the purchasing manager for one of the largest game stores on Earth). We DO know enough from what they have already told us.

The only possible way my predictions will be stymied will be if the developers build their power with a power cap and the cap is reached within a relatively short distance. If your Enterprise is big enough to contain that length, then yes, your Enterprise will work. I seriously doubt they will do that, as that would render the whole stabilizer mechanic completely moot. All it would do is force most ships to contain the same reactor size and length.

One thing they 'might' do is to have a diminishing return for reactor size/length such that for instance, zero distance = 100K power, 50 meters = 250K power, 100 meters = 500K power, 200 meters = 1000K power, 400 meters = 1500K power & 800 meters = 2000K power capped. This will enforce a reasonable spread of ship sizes, but it will still encourage stick ships, as there will be no reason to build thicker other than aesthetics.

2) How is it one dimensional when stabilizers can be put anywhere? The demonstration just showed a small working example of it being used in one dimension. It also showed diagrams of three dimensional usage by making rings around reactors. The only thing we know is that there needs to be some space between the reactors and the stabilizers, and the bigger the reactor, the more space it needs. You can put those stabilizers anywhere in three dimensional space you want.

Yes, you can put them anywhere, and if you do so, you will be building a substandard ship. For maximum effect, for maximum power, you will need to put stabilizers as far from your power reactor as possible and add blocks to maximize output. If you do not, your only effective option will be to reduce the size of your reactor. Maximum power will require maximum distance. Failing to use maximum distance will mean accepting less power.

3) If anything a Trek style ship is at an inherent advantage here, because its pre-designed to give you space to put stabilizers in the nacelles far away from the reactors in the main hull.

The distance between the warp nacelles is substantially less than the distance from the front to the rear. Putting power reactors in one nacelle and stabilizers in the other will result in LESS power than if you put the power reactors at the extreme rear and the stabilisers on the nose. It is not a question of putting the stabilizers at 'some' distance from the power reactors. For maximum power you want the largest quantity of power reactors, and having such a larger set of power reactors will require having the stabilizers (and more of them) at a further distance.

 

[Edymnion]

Yes, you can put them anywhere, and if you do so, you will be building a substandard ship. For maximum effect, for maximum power, you will need to put stabilizers as far from your power reactor as possible

This is not what the video said.

The video said that there was going to be a scaling minimum distance required for maximum efficiency. After that point, it won't matter where you put the stabilizers. If the minimum distance from your reactor is 10 blocks, then a stabilizer 10 blocks away and 50 blocks away will do exactly the same thing. And if you don't want to do the minimum distance, you can simply use more blocks to counter-balance the reduced efficiency.

And assuming we still have power caps, that means there is a maximum usable size to a reactor/stabilizer combo.

There is nothing here that says you have to put anything at the opposite end of the ship, it just says you can't put them right next to each other. You are taking things to an illogical extreme.

 

[kikaha]

If you don't like studying rules, and you don't like thinking about how to play well, that's fine, there are RP servers to play on.

Are you impliying RP people don't play well ?

 

[Panpiper]

Are you impliying RP people don't play well ?

I am stating that the vast majority of RPers do not build their ships to the same competitive standards as do PvPers. From the contest of mini-maxed PvP, no, RPers do not play well. Of course equally, from the standards of RPers, PvPers do not play well. RPers and PvPers are usually playing different games. That said, it is perfectly possible to build a ship that is competitive in both, such as Drakkart's Scimitar. The vast majority however do not bother. They either make their ships powerful, or they make them look good. Rarely do the two coincide from the perspective of RP however.

It's such a pity that Drakkart's Scimitar will now be horribly outclassed due to not having a single really long length to use for power generation.

 

[Edymnion]

Plus, the minimum distance is going to be based on the shape of your reactor. So designing an optimal SHAPED reactor is going to be FAR more important than it used to be, because you'll be able to tweak the sweet spot for stabilizers based on the shape of the reactor.

 

[Panpiper]

To prevent a player from filling his structure with as many Reactor and Stabilizer blocks as possible, we add a single rule:

• The stabilizer groups need to be a minimum amount of distance away from any reactor group. The distance needed between the Reactor and Stabilizer groups all depend on the reactor sizes of that entity.

Source: StarMade Ship Systems 2.0

Correct me if i am incorrect but that means the bigger the chunks of power blocks the bigger the distance between them, correct?

That is indeed precisely what that means.

 

[Edymnion]

Correct me if i am incorrect but that means the bigger the chunks of power blocks the bigger the distance between them, correct?

Yes, hence "scaling distance".

But, we don't know how much space will be required, or how quickly the distance will scale. We also do not know how much power the new reactors put out per block, and how much or even if the amount of power scales with cluster size.

So if we don't know how many power blocks we need, we don't know how much space we need for any given amount of power, and we don't know the ratio of stabilizer to reactor blocks is, then we don't know how much room these new reactors will take.

Hence we cannot say that all stabilizers have to be at the opposite end of the ship and that the only viable build method will be stick/dumbell ships, because right now we don't know how big reactors will have to be to achieve a given result.

Because if we don't know how big they are, and we don't know what shape they are, we can't say how to build around them.
[doublepost=1506527085,1506526736][/doublepost]Unlike Panpiper, I'm greatly looking forward to it because reactor design is going to become a HUGE part of gameplay. Its going to require us to actually plan and build around it instead of just tossing power in as an afterthought. The idea that EVERY ship should have softcap is rather silly to me.

Hell, we know that weapon power works differently under the revamp, and we know there is a weapon overhaul coming soon. We can't even claim to know HOW we will need to power our weapons/shields at this point. The devs may be looking at a bigger picture we can't see, so we really don't have room to be telling them it won't work when we can't even see how it fits in yet.