"Heat Boxes" and Crew - Why it Works

[kulbolen]

 

[Valiant70]

Couldn't they have a less limiting factor such as being explosive like axuillary power:?

Perhaps. What would that accomplish exactly? Does that assume the use of "shaped" systems or no?
[doublepost=1492485485,1492485355][/doublepost]

the few who come up with ideas and cant back it up?

More like a few who are just about too fed up with flamers to care what they are saying or respect their (on fire) opinions anymore.

 

[Shaker]

your idea is to created bloated airbags of ships with systems surrounded by filler blocks or open space, not only does it sound unflattering it would also cause more lag as the game will have to load shadows in the air pockets.

as for finishing ships, i reckon they need to come up with an advanced build mode that fills an area like MS paint.

also forcing players into making interiors isnt really "sandboxy"
the majority of ships ive seen have 2 rooms, the control room and a hallway/dock path

 

[alterintel]

I can see both sides of the argument (I think), and this represents the crux of the issue. People are getting angry and frustrated by the lack of ability of the other side to understand their point.

(note: The idea that PVP ships can be effective and have RP components will be referred to RPVP)

Ideas at Play:

• this is a game and people want to have fun playing it.
• some people like PVP/RP/RPVP more than others.
• All rules limit creativity is some fashion or another.
• The purpose of a rule is to benefit/detour/limit some ideas instead of others.

My take on the Pro-Heat-Box perspective:
Accessible systems:

every imagining of scifi ships to date has systems that can be accessed and repaired by a crew. This allows for a RP element that is appreciated by the RP and most RPVP. Also centralized systems gives people something to target in battle.​

Simplified build management:

if ship systems need to conform to a heat-box, that would mean they would be easier to edit/balance/overhaul because your systems are more accessible. Currently it's difficult to find all the seemingly randomly placed system and linked blocks.​

A more natural limit of ship size and game lag.

by making heat-boxes dynamic and based off of system size this would have the added benefit of limiting ship size and in turn limit the amount of lag on the server and there for make game play more fluid and enjoyable.​

The Filler Block

Not only do you get to decorate your ship with a realistic looking interior, but now we get an extra block that is pratically weightless and it helps with ship armor and defense.​

Limited Creativity

The current system of stuffing ships full of system blocks really limits RP creativity and also reduces options for RPVP. It also severely limits my ability to tweek my ship.
​

My take on the Anti-Heat-Box perspective:
Limited Creativity

The heat-box idea severely limits strategic placement of system blocks. It also forces builders into one ship building mindset of having centralized systems. It also potentially limits options with regards to taking advantage of un-forseen opportunities (tech)​

The Filler Block

Instead of having all kinds of options of what to fill the space of your ship with, now you have only two: empty space or the consolatory and practically useless filler block.​

A more natural limit of ship size and game lag

While reducing game lag is a commendable goal, reducing ship size is just a means to reducing lag. Any "limit" should be avoided where possible. There has to be any number of less creativity limiting ways of reducing game lag.​

Simplified build management:

Another commendable goal. A better advanced build option or GUI solution for this is preferable to the resultant limited creativity of heat-boxes​

Accessible systems:

eh... not so important. Now if there were a bonus for crew access, that's a different matter all together. But if this is the goal, then lets address that goal directly and not as side effect of a solution for a different problem.​

 

[Crashmaster]

The real tragedy of all this theory-crafting and these well-meaning ideas which attempt to force an artificial balance between wildly different build styles and focuses of effort for a given mass or size, is simply that there has never been and there never will be a way to guarantee balance between the masses and sizes of opposing ships which happen to engage in combat in free space.

If better ships are eliminated people will just go back to complaining about bigger ships I imagine.

The Filler Block
Instead of having all kinds of options of what to fill the space of your ship with, now you have only two: empty space or the consolatory and practically useless filler block.

Just to point out though it has been stated before; If either the filler block or the empty space is marginally better, it's not really a choice.

 

[Shaker]

make system blocks weigh alot more than armor/hull blocks, would that balance it out a little more?

 

[Mortiferum]

Strongly dislike the suggestion, just really an attempt at forcing everyone to build RP boats in my eyes. The current system is fine in my eyes and I would rather see more balancing than scrapping an old system that worked well for so long.

 

[Az14el]

Imminent opinions, abandon all hope ye who read past here

A good heat system may introduce mechanics like venting, cooling & system performance relative to their position, layout and size compared to the ships capability (in whatever form it may be) to vent/cool/repurpose excess heat, and other significant heat generating systems. These mechanics would be capable of making a ship stronger than the sum of its present day parts by their skillful addition, but also capable of diminishing them if applied poorly by a designer, of course, there should be no single "correct" layout for every situation.

A bad one might just progressively nerf ships that stack a lot of big systems, eventually resulting in a dynamic that further penalized ships by mass rather than neglectful or excessive build style. Limitations options in the config, system HP damage penalty and the current thrust mechanics are a good combination of effective counter measures vs larger projects already. Config limits should have some more options of course but there's a good thread covering that right now.

go ahead and smack down them reactors though i guess, unless it's a reasonably small ship (by todays standards..) they're pretty meh, and even then you could just make some boring looking small ships and make it real extra boring, just for fun. There's a lot of things I'd like to see changed (for reasons that could be mostly fixed with a better build mode!), but intelligent additions are what im most looking forward too.

 

[Raisinbat]

I can see both sides of the argument (I think), and this represents the crux of the issue. People are getting angry and frustrated by the lack of ability of the other side to understand their point.

(note: The idea that PVP ships can be effective and have RP components will be referred to RPVP)

RPVP now? There was a troll thread a while back, RP vs PVP = False , that despite just shitting on the people who disagree with heatboxes did make one noteworthy point: It's not PVP vs RP, it's GAMEPLAY vs AESTHETICS. Every argument centered around heatboxes ultimately boils down to making ships look a certain way; replicating SCI FI ships, making interiors, having microturrets, once again like sci fi shows.

The only gameplay relevance that goes into the arguments are interactive internal systems; fiddling around with machines to tweak ship behavior like ftl or guns of icarus, at least as far as i understand.

The problem is, that has nothing to do with heatboxes; It was never part of the power suggestion and really doesn't require heatboxes, they just force interior space around system hubs.

It's also a completely different direction in terms of gameplay, at least from what i've heard schines intentions are. I see starmade mostly as a X3 / freelancer space sandbox; that is it's mostly about ships and growing your faction, and as far as i am concerned interior isn't necessary to the game at all. What it sounds like a lot of people want is more akin to the sims; running around inside the ship and interacting with machines and furniture...

The "PVP" side are really just the "gameplay" side; PVP is just the only gameplay that's currently in the game, but there's no distinction between a PVP and a PVE ship in terms of what works, they stand opposite the "RP" ships which aren't built to serve any purpose ingame so they're only able to function in RP. RPVP is just a pointless division of the gameplay side; the vast majority of PVP sihps i've seen have large and elaborate interiors, i do it myself despite never engaging in RP because i want my ships to look good.

The distinction between RP and PVP ships is inaccurate as well, i find there are three categories of ships:

• Exploitative combat ships: Modular ships with extremely high mass efficency; typically much more agile and harder hitting than regular combat ships. Built to push the boundaries of pvp. Tend to be smaller due to how much work they are to asseble. Example ship: Chronos FTL 180K
  
• Regular combat ships: Typical server ships with the ship built as a single entity, commonly found on servers. One of these will almost always lose to the exploit ships, but not without putting up a fight and two of them will challenge the exploit ship. Example: TTS Rockhopper, FFG-119B (might be wrong version)
  
• RP ships: Completely useless; 50 of these will commonly lose to regular ships and completely helpless against exploit ships; ive seen a tiny 4000 mass ships take down 70.000 mass RP ships with no problems, despite both ships being manned. Worst i've seen was 12.000 mass exploit ship taking down 350.000 mass RP ship. Example: most ships under roleplaying category.

RP ships aren't built to RP, they aren't built with any function in mind at all; that's why they're terrible. The big difference between our ships isn't what we want to accomplish, but HOW our ships are built. The RP ships ive seen built on streams are built entirely with aesthetics in mind and with little if any experience with real combat leading to really terrible choices for whats put on them: they try to do too many different things, maybe because they want a lot of systems to interact with, which leads to lots of dead mass. This inexperience also colours their posts on the forums, complaining about hypothetical problems like bigger ships being overpowered (they aren't, its the opposite), interiors being impossible (they barely impact performance, even exploit ships can fit big interiors) while failing to address the real problems for aesthetic ships.

The rules that actually make RP ships worse are the mass% based support systems, armor blocks being excessively heavy and the lack of cosmetic blocks that resemble armor plates forcing you to use armor for basic constructions. If the RP side actually cared about making their ships more competitive that's what they would complain about, but as always what they have a problem with is aesthetics, not mechanics.

Also getting tired of third parties pulling the "Both sides are wrong!" crap. Can you point out someone against heatboxes not understadning or not listening to someone for heatboxes? WE post arguments and counter arguments, WE explain our points, hell we're even trying to help them make their arguments, but what do they do?

More like a few who are just about too fed up with flamers to care what they are saying or respect their (on fire) opinions anymore.

Whenever someone doesnt agree with them they start screaming and crying about cyberbullying, trolling flaming etc, rather than addressing the arguments that are brought up. Theres no discussion on these forums, because team AESTHETICS refuse to discus anything and just try to shut down anyone they disagree with. They dismis our arguments, claiming to speak for the majority while we're all lone wolves, claiming we're just selfishly demanding mechanics should keep favoring us even when we're trying to help them. Just look at valiant's posts in this thread...

My take on the Anti-Heat-Box perspective:
Limited Creativity
The heat-box idea severely limits strategic placement of system blocks. It also forces builders into one ship building mindset of having centralized systems. It also potentially limits options with regards to taking advantage of un-forseen opportunities (tech)The Filler Block
Instead of having all kinds of options of what to fill the space of your ship with, now you have only two: empty space or the consolatory and practically useless filler block.A more natural limit of ship size and game lag
While reducing game lag is a commendable goal, reducing ship size is just a means to reducing lag. Any "limit" should be avoided where possible. There has to be any number of less creativity limiting ways of reducing game lag.Simplified build management:
Another commendable goal. A better advanced build option or GUI solution for this is preferable to the resultant limited creativity of heat-boxesAccessible systems:
eh... not so important. Now if there were a bonus for crew access, that's a different matter all together. But if this is the goal, then lets address that goal directly and not as side effect of a solution for a different problem.

Again, it's not about things not being possible, it's about eliminating the usefulnes of mechanical solutions. We build to beat mechanical limitations, if you remove mechanical limitations what are we going to do?

Generally dont think you understand our position that well... While your points are correct at least for me they're all very marginal. My big concerns for heat boxes are:

• Exploits galore! Trying to tie ship performance to irrelevant variables are the reason modular ships are so much stronger (Agility tied to ship dimensions, support system depenant on entity mass, power generation handicapped for larger entities) and this will make it much worse
• Spatial limitations are important for mechanical ship design; handing you free space everywhere eliminates design complexity for larger turret and rail systems, and i say this as someone who adds interior to their ships. Consider inline turrets like this:
  
  except a bit smaller. Turrets like these greatly limit how you're able to run your power lines, especially on smaller ships, but can give you omnidirectional firepower. Designing them well is a huge challenge, but if they're 50% empty space, whats the downside?
• Further handicapping of larger ships; big ships are utterly impractical in combat due to their pisspoor mobility; a small quick ship can easily strafe larger ships and gut them while hiding in blindspots, or just staying at long range since theyre smaller and faster big ships cant hit at long range, but the smaller ship can hit the big ship easily, limiting the stats of big ships further and you effectively ban them because they're just a waste of resources.

Meanwhile every gameplay concern with the current power system was ignored by the new power system proposal:

• Slow firing weapons cost much more mass due to their need for power capacitors
• Small ships have major advantage in power generation; same mass in small ships completely dominate same mass in big ships; what happens when small ships use EMP effect?
• Excessive power generation because power has to limit both DPS and thrust.

Gameplay concerns get shut down on the forums while the same suggestions get spammed over and over by team aesthetics, heatboxes are a product of this.

 

[Olxinos]

I'm not particularly against some kind of "heat system"... but I expect it to add depth to the game and interesting building choices. Same for "shape-sensitive" systems (as the OP calls them). I'm interested in anything which makes building more fun, challenging, and rewarding.
Implementing them in a way which prevents different systems from interacting (be it only by cleverly occupying the free spaces left over by the other) as they must be several blocks apart somewhat seems to defeat that purpose though.

If the only purpose of those mechanics is to free space inside a ship so that people valuing good looks can have pretty rooms without degrading performance, I'm not really interested (although I value good looks too, I don't want Starmade to be nothing more than some kind of 3D modeling tool).
We can already have decent interiors in efficient ships. If most efficient ships don't have one, it's not because they're hard to fit in the ship but because the builder doesn't care that much.
Even if we can't (/couldn't) reach the same efficiency level, I would rather prioritize making ship-building more interesting rather than trying to close the gap ships made with efficiency in mind and those where efficiency was just an afterthought (it's important too, but not that much).
Besides, if decoration hinders ship efficiency, it probably has more to do with hull weight (inner or outer) which makes both passive systems and thrust less efficient. No matter how it's done, I can't see a "heatbox" system solving this.

(I'd also add that if you want a mechanic to free space for interiors, from an RP standpoint, it's a bit weird to offer zones so hot nobody can survive inside x'], but I guess we don't get to be picky)

 

[Daeridanii]

This'll probably get shot down pretty quickly, but:

Remember when the members of the community tried to work out problems through cooperation and trying to improve on each other's ideas instead of continuously insulting and bashing one another in an attempt to convince said community that their ideas were superior and the only ones that were valid?

I commend those who do so.

 

[Criss]

What really sucks is not being able to share our complete thoughts on the subject without revealing the entire new proposal.

I will say this. Do not concern yourselves with the heatbox stuff. The new proposal looks very different to the one we posted here a while ago. We have had many team members talk through the mechanics of the system and purposefully try to break it where we could. I think the new proposal will be a large improvement.

 

[Edymnion]

it would also cause more lag as the game will have to load shadows in the air pockets.

An issue that can relatively easily be fixed by future optimizations.

 

[splatthecat]

Oh no! Another pointless thread of willy waggling! Which is best? RP or PvP? Do me a favour!

It is each to their own. Whatever floats your boat, or in this case flies your ship.

 

[KaRe]

Oh no! Another pointless thread of willy waggling! Which is best? RP or PvP? Do me a favour!

It is each to their own. Whatever floats your boat, or in this case flies your ship.

Agreed. If you want Rp and PVP to be the same, build a ship accommodatingly. If you only want your ship to look good, don't send it to the front lines. Likewise if you want your ship to function well, don't expect that it won't auto-shoot enemies or instantly destroy a ship you meant to meagerly scratch.

 

[Lecic]

This'll probably get shot down pretty quickly, but:

Remember when the members of the community tried to work out problems through cooperation and trying to improve on each other's ideas instead of continuously insulting and bashing one another in an attempt to convince said community that their ideas were superior and the only ones that were valid?

I commend those who do so.

What alternate dimension did you fall out of a wormhole from?

 

[wafflepie]

In my opinion, the solution to the problem of gameplay vs. aesthetics isn't necessarily the implementation of restrictions on existing gameplay systems, but rather the implementation of new gameplay systems that encourage aesthetics, namely, a crew system that encourages aesthetic building in various ways, by encouraging them to build rooms for various purposes.

Crew members would require rooms to live in, with NPCs of increasing rank requiring bigger rooms. Players might need to build system control rooms for each individual weapon array and support system, where NPCs go to work the systems. Players could have to build places like cafeterias or entertainment centers or indoor arboretums to make crew happy. And of course, you'd need hallways to connect all of these different rooms together, as well as your already existing docking bays, cargo holds, main control room, etc.

And if crew npcs are able to repair damaged blocks, what if systems could get "damaged" by enemy fire, even when not directly hit, requiring you to have access tunnels through which your repair people go and fix the damaged systems during the heat of battle, like in FTL.

If heat is implemented, I'd like it to be done in such a way that requires the construction of ventilation shafts throughout your ships to vent heat from systems. Just think: sneaking around enemy ships you've boarded by crawling through vents, Mission: Impossible or Half-Life style. And shooting a missile through an exhaust port in a poorly thought out battlestation to blow the main reactor.

 

[Raisinbat]

In my opinion, the solution to the problem of gameplay vs. aesthetics isn't necessarily the implementation of restrictions on existing gameplay systems, but rather the implementation of new gameplay systems that encourage aesthetics, namely, a crew system that encourages aesthetic building in various ways, by encouraging them to build rooms for various purposes.

Anyone who puts aesthetics above gameplay is a massive tool. If aesthetics contributed anything to a game, no mans sky wouldn't be treated like garbage.

Once again failing to address the WHY. WHY should aesthetics be forced into the game, especially when its at the cost of gameplay???

Do you want a game or a modelling tool?

 

[kulbolen]

i dont want you to force me to build a fake ship interior with a 2nd ship interior buried somewhere to house the crew to get performance bonuses, just because my particular aesthetic style doesnt match up with what youve decided it should look like.

this is hypothetical, but the thought exists.

 

[wafflepie]

Anyone who puts aesthetics above gameplay is a massive tool. If aesthetics contributed anything to a game, no mans sky wouldn't be treated like garbage.

Exactly. That's why there ought to be more of a gameplay reason for there to be aesthetically pleasing stuff in ship's interiors. If there isn't, interior aesthetics is pointless. And of course, anything that takes away from existing gameplay just for the sake of giving people room for aesthetics is highly detrimental.

Once again failing to address the WHY. WHY should aesthetics be forced into the game, especially when its at the cost of gameplay???

That's the thing: they shouldn't. That's why interior aesthetics should somehow contribute to gameplay, instead of just taking away from it by being a waste of space, or being forced in at the cost of existing gameplay.

i dont want you to force me to build a fake ship interior with a 2nd ship interior buried somewhere to house the crew to get performance bonuses, just because my particular aesthetic style doesnt match up with what youve decided it should look like.

When crew is implemented, I hope that no specific aesthetic is forced upon people when it comes to building interiors for crew. After all, such a thing would go against the idea of starmade in the first place, which is to build ships that vary wildly in style while all being entirely functional.

Honestly, I sense that the issue being argued about in this thread isn't so much aesthetic interiors, it's aesthetic interiors. People want a reason to build interior spaces; since right now they are just a waste of space that would otherwise be occupied by systems, they want the introduction of gameplay mechanics to encourage the building of interiors. Unfortunately, some of their suggestions would simply take away from existing systems instead of adding new ones, which I guess is what everyone's gotten so hostile about.