Devblog 2017 - 09 - 21

[Byamarro]

doom stick incoming

Won't making you ship a stick, decrease your firepower?

Our current power system also favors long lines of blocks, and we rarely see them (unless you make perma stealth and perma radar jammed ships).

 

[Valiant70]

At least "doom sticks" or "doom bananas" will look more like ships from popular science fiction than doom wedges or cubes do. If we can get some more lightweight decoration blocks, some detailing won't hurt their performance much either. Thus there should be slightly increased potential for aesthetically appealing ships now.

 

[Panpiper]

Won't making you ship a stick, decrease your firepower?

Our current power system also favors long lines of blocks, and we rarely see them (unless you make perma stealth and perma radar jammed ships).

I do not understand why you would think making a stick would somehow 'decrease' your firepower.

Your firepower depends solely on how many powered weapon blocks you are able to build. There is no real limit to how many blocks you can put down, so ultimately it all depends on how much power you can come up with. The new power system rewards placing power blocks in one place, and the accompanying stabilizer blocks a distance away. The more power blocks you put down for more power, the further away those stabilizers have to be. The maximum power will come from ships that have their power and stabilizers the furthest apart (along with appropriate quantities of their respective power and stabilizer blocks).

That means, for all intents, long ships, really long ships. Such long ships will not suffer for power, they will have the most power of all ships, power with which to power the most weapons. Far from decreasing firepower, stick ships will have by far the most.

It is possible that such ships will slightly resemble barbells, or my variation, tri-pod ships with three pods, one filled with power modules at one end, the other far end filled with stabilizers, and the central pod filled with everything else.

 

[GnomeKing]

That means, for all intents, long ships, really long ships. Such long ships will not suffer for power, they will have the most power of all ships, power with which to power the most weapons. Far from decreasing firepower, stick ships will have by far the most..

but they will suffer from turning problems perhaps ??? :/

 

[LoSboccacc]

crescent ship seems the way (which is still a doom stick, only expanding vertically)

 

[Jebediah1]

Won't making you ship a stick, decrease your firepower?

Our current power system also favors long lines of blocks, and we rarely see them (unless you make perma stealth and perma radar jammed ships).

Um what, the current system doesn't encourage doom sticks, if anything it decourages it because of Auxillary power and slower turn speeds.

 

[kikaha]

Nearly a week.... When is the update coming..?

 

[Cluwne]

current system doesn't encourage doom sticks imbecile, if anything it decourages it because of Auxillary power and slower turn speeds

Um, are we playing the same game? Current system encourages extending the ship along one or more axises, resulting in caltrop-like ships.
Such ships usually have the best possible turn rate for their size, although one could go for stick design because of smaller profile the ship will have.
And you can always wrap the AUX around your "power core", or wrap the power lines around AUX blobs, then do the same with other systems. Such design is what would constitute as the "doom stick".

 

[DrTarDIS]

TOTALLY OPPOSED TO REALITY.

If you are really affirming that, you have not understood the energy system, the current power energy system [at 23/09/2017] is maximized using a line on three axis, you do not need to make a line using only 1 axis, as you are afirming.[Surprisingly the 1 axis lines are really common at ships, you can check it at comunity content.]
.

Geometry and the actual math of the game means that having a bunch of single lines in a cherboard pattern gives you more blocks/volume which ends up being better power.
A single reactor in a 3d x shape is "better" than a single reactor of one line in the same absolute max dimension.(EG a 25 high, 300 long, 100 wide reactor is better than a single 300 long one. it is the SAME as a 425 long one, but turning penalties mean the 3d x is "better")
However, 100 reactors of 300*1*1 will fit into a much smaller space than even 75 reactors of 300*25*100

It's geometry.

It really comes down to mass efficiency (3d x shapes) vs volume efficiency (checkerboarded lines). Even the mass efficiency starts converging after a certain total accumulated dimensions, meaning after a certain length it's always better to just run single lines in parallel.
Edit: also, there is a 3rd method, 1*1*1 reactors spammed out in a complete staggered checkerboard. This method is the "best possible" power generation for power after soft cap. The mechanics of WHY it's the best one have mainly to do with rounding errors. it however is 100% incompatible with the other two types is somewhat stupid/wateful after the inclusion of the AUX system. it also completely breaks the [delete] menu and removes all functionality thereof.

 

[Valiant70]

What is a doomcube for you? [Really i need to know it because curiosity is killing me.] Last time i have been seen one of those was arouns 2 or 3 years ago.

It's an outdated design. It's no wonder you haven't seen them. PVP ships frequently use a wedge shape now.

 

[DrTarDIS]

DrTarDIS I totally disagree.

You were totally correct if the energy escalate linearly, but until the second power cap that is not happening.

Before the second power cap is reached, if you want to save blocks, the best way is doing long lines on the three axis, because power escalate exponential. [On a few words the larger the line, the better the energy outpout per block count.]

Spoiler: lol, You can disagree, but math doesn't change. :)

That's the great thing about math, you can disagree all you want and scream 1+1=1 (I've actually read a PHD thesis that mathematically proves this, because rounding errors, but that's a mathemagic thing used to hilite why rounding and floating point operations are dangerous without marking degrees of uncertainty)...but if you have 1 apple, and you put another apple next to that one apple, you will always have 2 apples.

Take any ship shape you want, cram as many 3d x-shaped power reactors as you can into it. Math dictates that having the ship filled with a checkerboard of straight lines along the largest axis will have more blocks dedicated to reactors, which translates to more power. Try it. You might not like the idea, but it's true.

Again, it's a matter of "most power by mass" being 3d x shaped, while "most power by volume" will be had in direct lines. If you need an easy answer to why: it's mainly because of the fact that you HAVE to have a 1 block "dead space" around every reactor "x-shape" in at least 1 dimension in the 3d-x types, but you can put them "corner touching" in a "straight lines in a checkerboard pattern" method.

if you want "most power by mass and volume after the softcap"(EG if you want 5million+power), 1*1*1 reactor spam corner-touching is significantly better because of rounding errors. It breaks the game, you should not do it, but it is what it is.

I'm Fully aware of the power curve, the diminishing returns of every reactor after the first, and the way rounding works in starmade. I'm assuming you just did not understand what I initially wrote, so I reiterate in the spoiler above. I stand by it, but it will not matter in ~2 weeks either way.

 

[DrTarDIS]

Err seriously I´m still thinking you are totally wrong with the current power system, you do not need to fill the entire ship with power blocks.

Choose the the shape you want from 100 meters to 200, I am totally sure that i can get a better outpout with less blocks doing the 3 axis more than only a "chessboard" of 1 axis lines to get 2 millions e/sec outpout. [Less blocks needed at power means more blocks for other stuff.]

Please accept that challenge and let me eat and owned.

You're either not reading what I said, or you're being trolly. I choose a 200^3 cube 2 million e/sec is not enough. the goal is absolutely most power possible in that volume. Screw other systems.

Go ahead, build all three types. I reccomend you build the checkerbord 1*1*200 lines one first, the checkerboad 1*1*1 corner-touching second, and then TRY to get to the power of those with 3d-x shapes.
You will place 4,000,000 reactor blocks in the first two, you will not be able to place more than ~3,000,000 in 3d x-shapes without fusing the x-shapes, and even then you will be unable to get "full dimensions" You will also be able to see the hillarious rounding errors caused by method 3. Do yourself a favor, DO NOT PRESS[Delete] on the TYPE 3 fill, atleast not before your server saves.

when you say {I am totally sure that i can get a better outpout(sic) with less blocks} you are saying the same thing as {it's a matter of "most power by mass" being 3d x shaped,}

You seem to miss that {"most power by volume" will be had in direct lines.} is about getting the most power out of your ship. "Not the best efficiency power" "the most power".

 

[Groovrider]

Doombrick​

Doom...Pyramids?​

The point I am alluding to is that there is nothing wrong with brick, caltrops, chandeliers or any of the other panic people are spouting. Sci-fi can accommodate everyone quite easily.

 

[DrTarDIS]

CHOOSE A SHAPE PLEASE BETWEEN 100 and 200 METERS PLEASE.

I choose a 200^3 cube

DrTarDIS I read what you have been written, but you are based your point that after getting more than 2.5 million e / sec with the power reactor, you will continue to use them to generate more energy. [Doing that is a waste of space and blocks]

2 million e/sec is not enough. the goal is absolutely most power possible in that volume. Screw other systems.
...
when you say {I am totally sure that i can get a better outpout(sic) with less blocks} you are saying the same thing as {it's a matter of "most power by mass" being 3d x shaped,}

You seem to miss that {"most power by volume" will be had in direct lines.} is about getting the most power out of your ship. "Not the best efficiency power" "the most power".

Yawn. You obviously DID NOT read, nor did you UNDERSTAND. I'm going to assume language barrier and leave you be now.

 

[Edymnion]

What I find amusing is how many people are jumping to "doom bananas/crescents/dumbells/etc" while ignoring the simple fact that many of the iconic ships in scifi are built on the exact same principles.

The entire Star Trek nacelle design is because Trek warp coils need to be farther away from the body of the ship to work properly. In Starmade terms, the reactor is in the main hull, and the stabilizers are out in the nacelles. Literally built into special pods that stick out away from the main ship to avoid interfering with the systems.

 

[Cluwne]

It's not a very good idea to use the rеtаrdеd design of some sci-fi ship to justify something, especially a core system like power.

 

[Edymnion]

It's not a very good idea to use the rеtаrdеd design of some sci-fi ship to justify something, especially a core system like power.

Except that, you know, the entire idea of engine pods of one kind or another are damned near universal.

It even makes sense in real world physics. You don't put your living quarters in the same region as your reactor, for radiation shielding purposes. I mean, you can call it "retarded design of some sci-fi ships" if you want, but you're bad mouthing Star Trek, 2001, Space: 1999, Star Wars, Warhammer, Battlestar Galactica, Babylon 5, etc. So you know, all the stuff that basically defines the genre.

The whole "external pods or two halves separated by a thinner neck" thing is an EXTREMELY common scifi standard when it comes to ship designs.

 

[Panpiper]

Except that, you know, the entire idea of engine pods of one kind or another are damned near universal.

It even makes sense in real world physics. You don't put your living quarters in the same region as your reactor, for radiation shielding purposes. I mean, you can call it "silly design of some sci-fi ships" if you want, but you're bad mouthing Star Trek, 2001, Space: 1999, Star Wars, Warhammer, Battlestar Galactica, Babylon 5, etc. So you know, all the stuff that basically defines the genre.

The whole "external pods or two halves separated by a thinner neck" thing is an EXTREMELY common scifi standard when it comes to ship designs.

Absolutely no one except RPers who couldn't care less about combat effectiveness is going to build a ship that looks anything like any of those sci-fi classics. All combat effective ships in Starmade will be made with all their stabilizers at one extreme end of the ship and all their power reactors at the other extreme end. There will be no short and stubby ships except combat ineffectives, they will all be as long as a player can live with, with regard to turn rate. Some players, wanting to preserve some semblance of ship will bother to fill the intervening space with at least an external skin of decorative blocks to attach those two ends. Others such as myself (assuming I still play) will let form follow function and will indeed have 'pods'. One will be a kilometer above my ship, and the other will be a kilometer below my ship.

In the end, people shall pine nostalgically for the design freedom of the old power lines that forced no such nonsense.

 

[Edymnion]

In the end, people shall pine nostalgically for the design freedom of the old power lines that forced no such nonsense.

I'm not going to miss being forced into big boxy squares or gordian knots to try and squeeze enough power into a small enough space.

Others such as myself (assuming I still play) will let form follow function and will indeed have 'pods'. One will be a kilometer above my ship, and the other will be a kilometer below my ship.

Thats fine. We'll either eventually have mechanics/rules in places for disconnected bits if that becomes a problem, or you can have a ship that is literally incapable of turning. Just because you care more about raw power than having something that isn't a flying eye sore doesn't mean we all do.

But you know, I'm willing to bet they're got this stuff set up so that the distance required for the stabilizers is going to end up being about the same as the amount of space a current reactor setup would take. It will just take less blocks overall meaning more room for systems and interiors.

 

[Cluwne]

Just because you care more about raw power than having something that isn't a flying eye sore doesn't mean we all do.
... flying eye ...

I wonder if we'll see sphere ships with reactor core and stabilizer shell.
Should have outstanding turn rate for their size too.
Last but not least: one could slap many a thruster block and set maneuver thrust higher to combat the bad turn rate of barbell ships.