Expected ship stats per mass / various noob questions

[Olxinos]

Good evening,

I'm pretty new to starmade and wanted to give ship creation a shot (well that's what the game is about after all, and i've seen so many awesome ships that i'm eager to build my own too x] )
I'm still feeling a bit uneasy with in-game building though, which doesn't help with the esthetics, so I decided to get a grasp of starmade mechanics and make efficient ships beforehand as it should require more "off-game thinking" to achieve good results.

Unfortunately, starmade being an alpha and very prone to changes, I didn't find any good "documentation" about:
- the order of magnitude of the expected stats for a ship (for instance, 5m shields for a 50k ship, is it good or bad? what about the weapons? the energy consumption?)
- precise formulas for weapon damage/energy consumption (among other things), besides, sometimes the wiki(s) gives outdated information, sometimes the information is right but the "game is wrong" (for instance the powersupply beams consume less than the wiki suggests, but it seems to be a bug, and not an update), it doesn't really help sorting out which is right, which is wrong, and which is sort of right but currently bugged
- what is currently used by the majority of ship builders? set aside sheer force, what are the must-have weapons/counters? (for instance, if i'm not mistaken, lock-on/heatseeker missiles are widely used and many people use cannon/cannon or cannon/missile turrets to take them down, on the other hand, pulse is rarely used due to its very short range, but it seems to be pretty basic stuff, and there might be niche uses)

Also, during the last week, i also tried to design an auxiliary cannon/reactor (i named it the AC/R Syracuse-M, I love naming things), i'd like to know whether i actually achieved to get some pretty good stats, or if it's just garbage so that I know how i should rethink its design (i'll have to rethink it anyway, it's way too big, at least for my laptop, plus, even without the "lag" the ship would be huge, i should start smaller), i'll give the stats below. I also wanted to know whether extensive use of compactly docked systems to achieve high energy generation could be considered cheating and if i should avoid it.
Oh, and, when i copy/pasted the weapons, some slave connexions randomly disappeared, is it normal? (i mean, do I have to expect the copy/paste never to perfectly copy the connexions, or is it because of something else, like, the number of blocks i'm copying?)

Spoiler: AC/R 426 'Syracuse-M' stats

The AC/R 428 "Syracuse-M" is composed of 34 chain-docked parts, each supporting 428 reactors (sum of dimensions = 429, 499k5/s per part), 18x100:100:100 beam/cannon/explosive (150/hit, 13hit/3s per cannon, no reload, without taking into account the explosive damage, 11700dps/part; consumption: roughly 27k6e/s per cannon, i.e. 497k/s per part), two groups of 461 power supply beams (240 e/hit, 240+300* consumption/hit, 5 hits/2.5s, reload : 2.5s, expected regen: up to 221k28/s) , 335 capacitors (498k, so that the Syracuse doesn't pump the energy reserves of the main ship, that would be pretty dumb, especially if that's for feeding the powersupply beams...) and some lights and logic (also a bit of hull but only on two sides, and it's still ugly anyway).

*actually less, because it's bugged but well...

the weapons are arranged in an array of 34x18 cannons on the side to allow two Syracuse-M to be combined and form a 34x36 array, you can also get a 34nx18 array with n Syracuse-M, but I think it's less interesting given the weapons are logic controlled (thus, no aim).

estimated DpS in cannon mode: 397k8/s (magnified with explosion damage)
estimated EpS in reactor mode: up to 7m5/s (might be less because of synchronization issues, i couldn't really test it in real cases, but i guess 6m2/s is a minimum)
mass: about 25k
dimensions: 361x34x36 (with roughly a 155x34x35 free bounding box at the rear where the module is supposed to be docked to the ship)

Here's a quickly recorded video of the Syracuse shooting its beams, just if you want to see it working, but no music, abyssal FPS, horrible graphics and and no real "use" of the beams, the numbers above are calculated with previous smaller tests (my laptop doesn't have a good graphic chip, plus, it's an intel one, with buggy drivers, hooray).

Sorry for my approximative english, i hope it isn't too weird

Edit: Ah, also, is it the good section for this kind of thread? I quickly looked at the sections but didn't see anything more appropriate (well, again, "quickly", i might have missed something) so i assumed "general discussions" would be a good choice by default (besides i think i've some other threads of this kind here)

 

[shadowulf]

I'm no expert, but your ship, with aesthetics, could be a good one. I don't mess with docked power supply things, so I don't know if its 'cheating'. For all my ships, I really don't have a specified set of specs for systems, however most, if not all, expect a ship that can function without the power failing. As for weapons, you're correct, swarmers are over-used. Right now, you're stated DPS Is respectable. On a side note, if your ship has power reactors internally, are they
RRRRRRR
RRRRRRR
RRRRRRT
Or
RRRRRRRR
R
R
A 3D shape is currently the best way to put reactor blocks. Think a 3d coordinate plane and place blocks along the axis lines, and you regen will go up at a faster rate. Hope this helps, and check out the shipyard sub-forum for better tips.

 

[Spartan4845]

I don't mess with docked power supply things, so I don't know if its 'cheating'.

Since its a object built within the game using game mechanics, I'd go out on a limb to say its not cheating. Maybe a slight exploit, at the very worst, but unless they change the way it works then its just inventive building.

 

[shadowulf]

Since its a object built within the game using game mechanics, I'd go out on a limb to say its not cheating. Maybe a slight exploit, at the very worst, but unless they change the way it works then its just inventive building.

I agree, a small exploit

 

[Spartan4845]

I mean only in a worse case scenario might it be an exploit, but unless the dev say something about it or change it, it's kosher for now. Not to mention that only the larger grade of ships use this method and I see nothing wrong with that since most people don't bother building full fledged titan's that need more than a one or two cores.

 

[Olxinos]

I'm no expert, but your ship, with aesthetics, could be a good one. I don't mess with docked power supply things, so I don't know if its 'cheating'. For all my ships, I really don't have a specified set of specs for systems, however most, if not all, expect a ship that can function without the power failing. As for weapons, you're correct, swarmers are over-used. Right now, you're stated DPS Is respectable. On a side note, if your ship has power reactors internally, are they
RRRRRRR
RRRRRRR
RRRRRRT
Or
RRRRRRRR
R
R
A 3D shape is currently the best way to put reactor blocks. Think a 3d coordinate plane and place blocks along the axis lines, and you regen will go up at a faster rate. Hope this helps, and check out the shipyard sub-forum for better tips.

Thank you for your answer!
I was already aware of this "star-shaped is better" behaviour, but thank you anyway for the tip! I think it's indeed one key point of reactor design, if I didn't already know it, it would have changed everything.
(in fact the current generator layout is:
plane 1 plane 2 plane 3 to n
ABC | AAA | A??
ABC | BBB | B??
ABC | CCC | C??
where A, B and C symbolize generator blocks of three different docked ships and ? is either free space or any other block, so it uses star-shaped reactors, though it's probably not optimal)
I've already read some threads in the shipyard subsection, but I'll definitely follow your advice and dig deeper. Are there some specific threads you'd recommend?

Since its a object built within the game using game mechanics, I'd go out on a limb to say its not cheating. Maybe a slight exploit, at the very worst, but unless they change the way it works then its just inventive building.

I mean only in a worse case scenario might it be an exploit, but unless the dev say something about it or change it, it's kosher for now. Not to mention that only the larger grade of ships use this method and I see nothing wrong with that since most people don't bother building full fledged titan's that need more than a one or two cores.

That's a relief. I was worried about it because it could somehow "break" the current formula (i mean, theoretically, just make 597x1x1 sticks of reactors with powersupply beams, place them in an array and voilà, your energy generation scales linearly with roughly 170e/b instead of the asymptotical 25e/b), but I haven't really thought of the actual required mass to abuse it.

 

[shadowulf]

This has some kernels of wisdom.http://starmadedock.net/threads/dannage-fleetyards-poor-advice-for-noobs.7125/page-1#post-10775
And this.
Most people on here are friendly, so seeing peoples work and asking questions is definitely a good idea. Also Bench and Saber have YouTube channels, and Saber actually has shipbuilding techniques on his. A server is also a good idea. I am on the NFD build server, and have learned quite a bit. Hope you keep building, there's potential in that ship of yours.
[DOUBLEPOST=1431554039,1431553999][/DOUBLEPOST]http://starmadedock.net/threads/jays-engineering-journal.4004/
Another decent thread

 

[Krougal]

Probably not going to get a solid answer to your initial question. I'm still piecing things together. It isn't that the community is unfriendly or unhelpful, it's just the nature of alpha. Things change faster than documentation does.

30% for shields seems like an accepted rule of thumb. That includes caps and chargers. Personally I'd say Ion effect system too if you use one, since at a certain size point there's a greater return there than adding more shields.

Around 5-15% thrusters seem fairly standard, depending how maneuverable a ship you want.

Jumpdrives and defensive effects you generally need 5% of total mass to get the maximum effect, but less can be useful. Most are capped so more is a waste. Jump drive modules going over can charge faster. Scanners are currently...bugged?unfinished? There's no point right now in having more than 1 antenna block unless it's for decoration.

For reactor planning:
This http://starmadedock.net/threads/starmade-ship-build-spreadsheet.6642/ is very handy, although it has some errors (reminds me I should thank the OP and give him an errata list) also to be made applicable to what you're doing (just basicly for rail update really) it needs some extra tabs like the 1st linked to the 1st. It'll let you see how much power you actually need. To be brutally honest, most of the community should look at and use this. I see so many bad power systems and bad advice on power systems it isn't funny. The worst is the "cubes" on the wiki and reddit that keep getting touted. Granted once you are making really large ships it's just slap down lines of 500 blocks and put others in sub-ships like you are doing.

As far as power caps, at a minimum you'll need enough to fire your largest power draining weapon (usually missiles). There's some special situations where you can go with less, but in general more is better. I personally haven't much experience with huge ships, but I suspect there's also a point where you could get by very comfortably with less power regen than you need at full load (because it won't always be sustained....shield chargers for example use 10x as much power when not at 100%) with the right amount of power storage.

Hope some of that was useful. I'm still looking for answers to the rest of your questions myself.

 

[Olxinos]

shadowulf:
Those are quite intersting threads indeed, although jayman's one is a bit hard to read (i mean, long text, few paragraphs), t think i'll finish to read that one later (and i won't definitely give up yet).

Krougal:
These percentages will be very helpful, that's one thing I was looking for (of course, they are not absolute, but they'll be a good baseline). The spreadsheet is awesome (in fact i stumbled into it on my own, but there's so much inside, i don't get why it doesn't have more visibility), by the way, since we're talking about formulas, the damage formula is dph = (s*buff+m)*bdph*(s/m+1)*(1+mod*e/m)*(s+m+e)/(s+m) (s = slaved units, m = master units, e = effect modules, buff = modifier found in blockbehaviourconfig.xml, bdph base damage per hit of the master, mod = effect modifier found in blockbehaviourconfig.xml) isn't it? I could dig in the spreadsheet to check the formula but there are many conditionals and few labels for intermediate calculations so it's a bit hard to read (knowing the formula could help me optimize some weapons). I guess some other stats are computed the same way, but i have yet to understand if this is indeed the case for energy consumption when adding effect modules.


Also, I tried to redo the generator, this time much smaller (19x12x128) and without powersupply/weapon (i thought of adding them later on the last docked unit as energy seems to be able to flow down the "dock-chain"). I calculated roughly 12m/s energy generation (with enough tank to store at least one second worth of energy), and built it in a couple hours, but i ran into a problem (upon restarting the game):

Yes the modules are still docked... somehow. That's the third time it happens to me and it's quite frustrating. This time i guess i overdid things a bit since this generator embeds 128 modules (each with a 156 block generator, sum of dimensions: 157). I can't even spawn this, the blueprint doesn't seem to be recognized. Since it's a new feature (i mean, rail docking) I may have even fewer answers but, how could i avoid this? (besides reducing the module number, i'll do it anyway, but i'd still like to use a reasonable number)
Maybe docking the modules in a different way could help? Currently, they are linked in a "list" fashion i.e.:
A->B->C->D->E->...
would a "tree" fashion be better handled by the game?
A -> B -> D ->...
. . . . v . . . v
. . . . C->...E ->...
. . . . v . . . .v
. . . . ... . . . ...
or maybe an "array" fashion?
. . . .B
. . . .^
E<-A->C
. . . .v
. . . .D

I'll try to do the next iteration with a more "cubic" shape with a hole in its center to link various modules down the generator dock-chain (like a beam weapon or an array of powersupply beams) so that i use less modules but each with an overall longer generator.

Edit: in fact a spine shape would probably be better to protect the energy system if i were to scale it to the size of a whole ship:
i.e. this (H=hull, R=reactor, X=anything else)
HHHHHH
HXR R XH
HRR R RH
HRR R RH
HXR R XH
HHHHHH
rather than this
HHHHHH
HRR R RH
HRX X RH
HRX X RH
HRR R RH
HHHHHH
(plus it would fit better in a non-rectangular ship as each branch of the reactor could extend to the irregularities of the hull, although the cubic shape is probably better for reusable/standard-size modules)
maybe with a smaller hole in the middle for a main cannon or ship interior

 

[Krougal]

I'd have to double-check the formula for weapon damage, at work so I don't have access to the game at the moment. The spreadsheet it's pretty convoluted as you've noticed, but for the most part it is accurate. You've probably already noticed the divide by zero errors you get in some places when you have 0 of something, I've fixed most of those in my own copies. Weapon slave is 1 I haven't, I leave cannon with 0 modules in if I'm not using a slave. I don't do it often enough that it was worth fixing.

It can't take multiple groups into account either as written, it's supposed to be +10% power use per extra group on a computer (primary system not slave or effect), but there is a bug so it doesn't affect all combinations, not worth the trouble to fix in the sheet really, but something to be aware of. So when your power use ingame on a weapon is higher than your spreadsheet, that is why.

Oh, also some systems are not added to the power consumption...some shouldn't be (like jumpdrive or scanner since they aren't always on) and some should be (like radar jammer).

I also added a field on mine for manual block entry at F13, and changed the "block total with turrets" formula to =I10+B115+B120+B125+F13
So in F13 you put all your hull and other blocks, this makes some other calcs more accurate. In particular radar jammer & cloaker power use scale with ship mass. Also thrust to mass being more relevant than just total thrust. Time to recharge shields is another useful tidbit and I added a block for that.

I've made quite a few fixes and changes to my version, but as typical I didn't document as I went, or even add labels on a lot of them. I really need to clean that up and share with Khantron . There are some errors that probably crept in because google docs "helpfully" offsets the row/column when you copy/paste, which in this situation isn't helpful.

 

[Krougal]

So this seems as good a place as any, since it is on topic at least. Someone was working on a guide somewhere, but that seems to have died quickly.

Some observations/tips.

Shields:
Shield-rechargers. Most people don't use enough. Shield caps more or less how big an alpha-strike you can survive, but the DPS you can withstand is how much recharge you have.
Ion effect system- The more shielding you have the more sense it makes to use this. 60% armor value on shields means 2.5x as much damage absorbed. That makes your rechargers more efficient as well. The more I play around with this, the more I'm starting to think this is a no-brainer.

Power:
Reactors- the fewer the better. I can get twice the power out of half the blocks that most community content I've downloaded has. Reactor layout should be the first systems laid out. Ideally you want them running end to end in all directions (preferably with a layer of armor over them), without any repetition in direction.

Additionally the shield-recharger recharge rate power consumption when you are getting hit is 10x what it is "at rest" and that is what your power output needs to be planned around. Most people don't seem to take that into account. Weapon pps, shield chargers, any defensive effects, shield-chargers, thrusters (and the thruster power use shown on build screen is per tick not per second), jammer/cloaker if you have them. Total all that up. That is how much power regen your ship needs. Scanner, j-drive, salvage beams generally don't need to count in that, provided there is enough power for them otherwise.

Power caps- Should be in 1 group. If you're trying to spread the bulk of them around, you should still have a line of them connecting each somewhere. How many? At a minimum enough to cover the largest alpha-strike weapon you have (generally that's Missiles) if you've got a weapon that needs 1 mil per activation, then you need 1 mil storage. Preferably add to that enough to cover all your turrets as well.

Since the AI can fire every weapon at once unlike a player, for a ship designed for the AI enough storage to fire every weapon at once would help greatly, although that is likely impractical. Also on large ships (because of the 1 mil softcap) I imagine it might be practical to have very large power storage arrays and to have systems that actually use more PPS than your reactors can output, but I have yet to test that theory.

 

[Olxinos]

Ion effect system- The more shielding you have the more sense it makes to use this. 60% armor value on shields means 2.5x as much damage absorbed. That makes your rechargers more efficient as well. The more I play around with this, the more I'm starting to think this is a no-brainer.

I agree with you, i have seen several ships' shield stats now, and they are generally high enough (relatively to the ship's mass) to benefit from 60% ion effect (both mass-wise, and energy-wise if you consider the combat power cost as the ion effect virtually multiplies the shield capacity and the shield recharge alike)

Additionally the shield recharge rate when you are getting hit is 10x what it is "at rest" and that is what your power output needs to be planned around.

Do you mean "the shield recharge power consumption" here? If i'm not mistaken shield recharge is actually lower when getting hit, but i think you're correct if you're talking about power consumption when the shields aren't full, (after getting hit, i think the shield recharge formula becomes (1-((shield/max)*ShieldRecoveryMultPerPercent))*ShieldRecoveryMult*NormalRecharge, during ShieldDirectRecoveryTime seconds, the values can be found in blockbehaviour.config, basically the shields regen drops to 5% to 10% of what it normally outside combat during 1mn, completely depleting shields also disable the recharge for ShieldRecoveryTimeAfterOutage seconds, 10 by default).

Since the AI can fire every weapon at once unlike a player, for a ship designed for the AI enough storage to fire every weapon at once would help greatly, although that is likely impractical. Also on large ships (because of the 1 mil softcap) I imagine it might be practical to have very large power storage arrays and to have systems that actually use more PPS than your reactors can output, but I have yet to test that theory.

Docked reactors seem to allow to extend your energy generation beyond 1m/s quite easily, but yes, i also think that having something like enough capacity to store up to 10s worth of energy and a great main weapon which could consume that much energy at once might be interesting (plus, if the weapon has a high reload, you don't have to worry about not being able to use its full potential).

 

[Krougal]

Do you mean "the shield recharge power consumption" here? If i'm not mistaken shield recharge is actually lower when getting hit, but i think you're correct if you're talking about power consumption when the shields aren't full, (after getting hit, i think the shield recharge formula becomes (1-((shield/max)*ShieldRecoveryMultPerPercent))*ShieldRecoveryMult*NormalRecharge, during ShieldDirectRecoveryTime seconds, the values can be found in blockbehaviour.config, basically the shields regen drops to 5% to 10% of what it normally outside combat during 1mn, completely depleting shields also disable the recharge for ShieldRecoveryTimeAfterOutage seconds, 10 by default).


Docked reactors seem to allow to extend your energy generation beyond 1m/s quite easily, but yes, i also think that having something like enough capacity to store up to 10s worth of energy and a great main weapon which could consume that much energy at once might be interesting (plus, if the weapon has a high reload, you don't have to worry about not being able to use its full potential).

Yeah, my bad I was talking about power consumption for the chargers (fixed). I hadn't looked at the shield regen config section before now, but that actually sucks ass. I knew about the 10 seconds when shields fail, but I expected the recharge to be the full value no matter what. All the reason to have more shield regen and ion becomes even that much more useful. Also explains with my crappy shooting how I've taken out some ships I have, where I thought I just barely had enough DPS in weapon output.

Yeah, I wasn't going to get into docked reactors since I think the people who use them understand the game better than I do. Personally with the game mechanics what they are I don't consider a ship bigger than 5k mass to be practical (certainly not efficient), but if I was building something bigger it would have docked reactors for sure!

 

[cyberus111]

Meh ... Shield recharging in this game plus insane weapon DPS (I'm looking at you missiles) make me wonder if they *want* people to die.