1. 25th of May, 2018: The forums are currently undergoing maintenance, during this time, the site may become unavailable.

    Devblog 2017 - 10 - 13

    Discussion in 'Game News' started by schema, Oct 13, 2017.

    1. UrstMcRedHead

      Joined:
      Mar 27, 2014
      Messages:
      23
      First: One of the features of this build is to try to prevent you from placing those blocks at less than 100% efficiency. --Which is stupid--

      Of course we're going to make the assumption that we have to place the reactors at 100% efficiency. Some Awesome guy built a feature into the game to discourage us from doing anything different.

      Second: This "Efficiency Feature" basically forces all designs to either be Extremely inefficient barbells, moderately inefficient barbells, or wispy efficient barbells
      ---Unoriginal designs, or designs not made for this power system will not work which is a thing that PS2.0 needs to prevent if it's going to be accepted.---

      This should be obvious to the developers. If your new game mechanic changes is so obtrusive that it becomes impractical to do things like recreate Farscape ships, or Halo, or Eve Online without sacrificing all of the potential features of those ship designs, then there's no reason to make it in the first place. The only people that you're going to satisfy, are the people looking forward to figuring out what DoomCubes are going to look like after your redesign.

      And I think we can all agree that this group size is small enough to be virtually nonexistent.

      Third: Good luck getting anyone to use your fancy Tiered upgrade system for PS2.0 because this system seems to want to take up more volume than the old system without the chambers that are already going to need to be extremely large.

      Fourth: I've decided to trademark DoomthCube and the uncensored variations of it.
      Oh and here's an addendum to my rant.

      From what I remember the biggest group of PS1.0 complainers in this community are the RP shipbuilders.
      None of them can get anything built that's usable because theirs an assumption in other SF that spaceships will have a lot of void spaces in them to fit people, and gadgets.
      So we're building this to placate them, but breaking it at the same time because none of us thought about just forcing ships to have a certain amount of void space for the volume that they take up.

      The second group of people complaining about this are the semi-peaceful server dwellers that don't want to have to deal with docked power transfer systems crashing servers every time two titans clash.
      This isn't a problem with PS1.0 it's a problem with the devs kneecapping power output instead of setting maximums for ship size/mass

      **** Edited by alterintel to be less inflammatory ****
       
      #101 UrstMcRedHead, Nov 18, 2017
      Last edited by a moderator: Nov 18, 2017
      • Agree Agree x 1
    2. GnomeKing

      Joined:
      Feb 21, 2015
      Messages:
      211
      well the ball ship will be very hard to put a hull on at the necessary radius when only a single vector is relevant > if total relevant distance for stabilization was made up of X+Y+Z components, then i would be happier (and ball ships actually achievable and decently functional)

      yes it can be both > EITHER fill it witrh with satbaliser spam at sub50% OR build a fucking huge stick > at least a cross is more interesting...and many overlapping/not touching ones actually a bit hard to make (not just set build-mode to 'fill area')

      ??? - the point is I can solve 'power problems' in 1.0 with 2 overlapping systems, each with rules that allow me potential to build along whole length, width height of ship > 2.0 is boring because the only feasible option is to spam stabilizers at one end with no additional block based rules or bonuses at all...yawn.
       
      #102 GnomeKing, Nov 18, 2017
      Last edited: Nov 18, 2017
    3. kulbolen

      Joined:
      Jan 4, 2015
      Messages:
      613
       
      • Like Like x 1
    4. Nebulon-B_Frigate_FTW

      Joined:
      Jul 4, 2013
      Messages:
      255
      I don't think hard caps on size would've accomplished the goals. Interior voids in the ship are only preferable if either there's things that need the voids that help the ship in combat or if the voids have a tactical purpose to not hurt the ship in combat. Without either, it's best to build system-solid ships, be they spaghetti abominations of just systems with exterior voids or balls of death with a thin hull surrounding a dumbbell of doom coated in shield capacitors and weapons.
       
    5. UrstMcRedHead

      Joined:
      Mar 27, 2014
      Messages:
      23
      Let me clarify.
      hard caps implemented server side would/have alleviated a lot of the Titan vs Titan server crashing battles.

      Forcing a certain amount of void space into ship design would be really hard to implement properly, but it would end CENSOREDDeathCubes
       
    6. Zoolimar

      Joined:
      Aug 14, 2017
      Messages:
      210
      How ? What stops a "death cube" player just attaching void space/crew quarter on the outside and using it as another layer of ablative armor?
       
      • Agree Agree x 1
    7. UrstMcRedHead

      Joined:
      Mar 27, 2014
      Messages:
      23
      Putting void spaces on to the outter parts of ships is an IRL navy design strategy. They act as ballast, or suck up damage from hits in an environment where magical startrek shields don't exist.

      Also your point is partialy why I said it would be hard to implement this properly.
      You would have to combine it with server side rules on ship mass, and/or create rp specific voids/chambers that specific sizes/types ships require.

      For example birthing, chow, and heads, all would need specific rp blocks and a certain ammount of unused space for each room.

      This would have gone nicely with npc crews since nobody is going to be less than a captian on any of these servers.
       
    8. Jojomo

      Joined:
      Aug 23, 2016
      Messages:
      758
      Sorry GnomeKingGnomeKing I missed your post somehow.

      Not entirely sure I understand you, but stabiliser distance does use x and y and z all together.


      Or any mix of the two between those extremes...
      The ship I posted earlier has average stabiliser efficiency of 35%, and isn't full of stabilisers.
       
    9. Jojomo

      Joined:
      Aug 23, 2016
      Messages:
      758
      To further clarify, here are examples:
      starmade-screenshot-0062.png
      Although both ships have the same reactor, same single stabiliser, and same length (i.e. reactor to stabiliser z distance is equal in both cases) we can see that the ship on the left achieves an efficiency almost double the one on the right, because its x and y stabiliser coordinates are different (further) than for the ship on the right.

      In other words, all three dimensional components matter, not just one.

      EDIT: updated quote to one level higher
       
      #109 Jojomo, Nov 24, 2017
      Last edited: Nov 25, 2017
      • Informative Informative x 1
    10. Zoolimar

      Joined:
      Aug 14, 2017
      Messages:
      210
      It is still one dimensional. The fact that your blocks are displaced on an Y axis doesn't matter because reactor and stabilisers work as ends of a one dimensional line made in three dimensional world.

      Imagine a ruler. It doesn't matter how you turn it in your hand it still will be a straight line.
       
      • Agree Agree x 1
    11. Jojomo

      Joined:
      Aug 23, 2016
      Messages:
      758
      All three component vectors of the ship matter and can be used together (x y z).

      I didn't quote the full chain but I was replying to a post that said only one component mattered.

      EDIT: this one
       
      #111 Jojomo, Nov 24, 2017
      Last edited: Nov 25, 2017
    12. Zoolimar

      Joined:
      Aug 14, 2017
      Messages:
      210
      But what you've written is currently wrong in context of the post quoted by you. While technically spherical ships are possible reactor-stabiliser pair in no way helps to create them due to the most effective position for them being on a single line at opposing sides of the sphere. What you have shown in your post about displacement on 2 coordinates won't help a spherical ship in any way because it still must place both stabilisers and reactors on a line going through the centre of the sphere for maximum effectiveness.
       
      • Agree Agree x 1
    13. Jojomo

      Joined:
      Aug 23, 2016
      Messages:
      758
      That isn't correct on its own - for example consider the case where the distance between reactor and sphereical shell is "optimal" (100% stabiliser efficiency)

      In any case, although I can't speak for anyone else, I can definitively say that my post was not in the context of defending the feasibility of sphereical ships, it was purely about the correctness of the XYZ component vectors post.
       
    14. GnomeKing

      Joined:
      Feb 21, 2015
      Messages:
      211
      to clarify:

      2.0 is currently X or Y or Z for stabilizer calculation distance (relative to core)- this is what i meant by 1 dimensional, some other more veteran builders have also made similar comments elsewhere

      what i propose is:

      stabilizer distance calculation based on X plus Y plus Z.

      thus extensions to power systems can work more happily with whole of a ship, and without pressure towards 'dumb-bells'...

      for example: a spherical ship would not have to have its radius as the max-efficient distance, but more like 1/3 radius (until block placement itself gets too crowded)
       
      • Informative Informative x 1
    15. Jojomo

      Joined:
      Aug 23, 2016
      Messages:
      758
      But this isn't correct: it isn't x or y or z it's all three combined, as I showed with images earlier.

      I think there is miscommunication happening here, but I'm not sure why or in which direction...
       
      • Informative Informative x 1
      • Useful Useful x 1
    16. GnomeKing

      Joined:
      Feb 21, 2015
      Messages:
      211
      ok - i have checked latest dev and i see your point Jojomo:




      R-------S........gives less stabilization than..........R--------S......,......even better is...R--------.
      ............S...................................................................................................................................
      ................................................................................................................................................S
      ............................................................................................S..................................................S



      ,because of the reactor bounding box and diagonal distance measurements.


      which i guess makes the X-wing-dumb-bell meta ... :) [actually i mean 'offset' as already said by somebody somewhere ]


      What i meant earlier was more like:


      R----------SS......... equals........ SS-----R-----SS..............equals.................... SS---R ---S
      ................SS .............................................................................................................
      .................................................................................................................................S


      where stabilization distance can be achieved be summing components on 3 axis - ie a distance of 9 can consist of 9X or 9Y or 5Z+4X or 3X+3Y+3Z


      [also i forgot to say: in relation to the reactor bounding box, there are +ve and -ve distances, to make 6 possible relational vectors > to prevent 'very solid' reactor/stablizer ball/cube-ships (ie that make maximal use of each vector) the impact of each vector should be scaled so that using just (+veX) > (+veX + -veX) > (+veX + -veX + +veY ) = (+veX + -veY + +veZ) ect....using all 6 vectors at once enables more compact shapes, but there are diminishing returns on vectors for additional vectors used ]


      ,bearing in mind that at 'large' sizes stabilizer block counts and needed space should impinge on diagonal measurements (and their total cumulative stabilization distance requirements) from bounding box
       
      #116 GnomeKing, Nov 25, 2017
      Last edited: Nov 25, 2017
      • Informative Informative x 1
    17. Jojomo

      Joined:
      Aug 23, 2016
      Messages:
      758
      I read this earlier on a phone where I couldn't understand the diagrams, and then forgot about it.

      Unless I'm misunderstanding you (possible) you're in luck: stabilisation already works like you described - PROVIDED you only talk about distances above the minimum cutoff distance (I'll refer to this distance as "C" below).

      Notation so I don't have to type so much: "3(C+4Z)" means three stabilisers at a distance of C+4 from the reactor on the Z axis.

      2(C+10Z) is equal to 4(C+5Z), or 1(C+20Z)

      so to rewrite a line from your post (the one with the yellow text in it) in my notation, and accounting for C:

      1(C+9X) = 1(C+9Y) = 1(C+5Z) + 1(C+4X) = 1(C+3X) + 1(C+3Y) + 1(C+3Z)

      So what you're suggesting is actually what already happens, except that you need to take into account the cutoff distance.

      I'll post a graphical version when I can.
       
      • Useful Useful x 2
    18. GnomeKing

      Joined:
      Feb 21, 2015
      Messages:
      211
      Thanks Jojomo,

      My example differs in that C is not constant;

      As the number of vectors used for stabilizers groups (in relational to the reactor bounding box) increases, the value C decreases on each vector.

      (calculation would actually involve the components of main 6 vectors as variably expressed by the position of any given stabilizer block - each block placed alters the algorithm calculation applied to all the others)
       
    Loading...