How do you test your creations?

[Neon_42]

So I've been wondering how people test their creations. Do they have a standard format for viability of a fighter, cruiser, titan, ect. The best I've come up with is spawning in a fleet of Isanths to test against fleets of mobs. for example. To test fighter viability I test 1 fighter vs 1 Isanth, and scale this up to 2 fighters for 2 Isanths, 3v3, 4v4, to test viability of fleets. But testing for PvP and more advanced PvE is more difficult and I can see this becoming very complex very fast. How do you test creations.

 

[JinM]

Depends on the type of ship I designed, but I have no standard format. For a small fighter I spawned the same ship controlled by pirate AI into the game and tried to beat my own design.

I often test out the damage of turrets on my ship, if their purpose is to attack sourounding ships instead of a single target.

I don't see where the pvp testing is needed atm., as there is only the "use as many as possible beam outputs" meta if I would care for competetive...Or do I have a logic mistake there, when I assume that every weapon that can break 5mill shields, will quickly destroy that 1mill blocks behind them?

 

[Brokengauge]

I usually download the ships from the blood and steel competitions that get posted. I'll hop into a "spectator pod", go to an empty sector and spawn my ship as a mob faction, and whatever I'm testing against as pirates. Then I sit back and watch.

I do it this way because I'm testing my design, not my piloting skills or my tactics. I want to see how well the design works first. After that, I'll do a few fights of me vs the mobs, and then finally I'll get with a buddy and see how well I fare against him. He doesn't focus on combat, so if he beats me I know I need to radically rethink what I've done lol.

 

[nogg]

i generally spawn in my ship and VS 1 on one against the AI, and I sometimes go kick the trader's NPC faction base and see how I do.

 

[Napther]

Isanths are NOT a good analogue. My best suggestion is taking your own designs and pitting them against each other.

When I test, I put variations of my ships up against each other in varying amounts based on size and mass, and note anything that happens with the AI since all my stuff is focused on AI-useability (Hence why all my things currently lack Ion, Overdrive, and large ships using Power Aux havent been created yet).

During first tests, I shoot into inert targets. I use huge target "blocks" initially, then test weapons against some of my actual ships spawned in idle mode. They make great "worst case" targets for being struck with missiles onto their double layer Spaced ADV armour as the blast gets absorbed quite well.
Generally, I want weapons to at least reach damage threshold limits. So at the least a small gun needs to deal 100 damage to 1-shot a weapon block every shot.
Next is with Cannon/Cannon/Punch, I aim for the system to at least get 3 penetrations which happens at 'around' 100/100/100 CCPu. The shell damage in the thing per barrel should say something like 125, 63, 27.5. with 25 being an important number to beat as this is the HP of a capacitor/reactor/thruster block. A cannon like this will destroy a an ADV armour block in a few hits to the same place. However its not as efficient as something a bit bigger. Also note that Every new weapon output added onto a computer multiplies power use by x1.10, meaning a 10 output system consumes 2x the power than if it was 1 barrel. Do not mix with Overdrive.

For missiles, their break-points are more set in stone (More for larger scale systems), and based on the composition of blocks in the target. I almost solely use Missile/Beam/Piercing due to piercing effect on missiles damaging shields, AND provides latent anti-armour and +5 radius to the damage. (And rarely missile/pulse/pierce)

The only time Piercing is not an advantage over Explosive or over Punch effect is when the target is either raw system blocks, or made of basic materials like motherboards or basic hull which offer little protection (Though, hulls offer a missile-resist effect due to AHP)

Generally, a lot of my "testing" is just done by checking weapon numbers and seeing if they are what I expect, etc.

 

[Mortiferum]

Against other people

Easiest way to test is to take your ship onto a pvp server and kill someone with it. Result of test is usually instantaneous. If your ship doesnt work, you die, if it works, the enemy dies.

Then you try to make it so the enemy dies faster. If the fight took you 10 minute to win, your next attempt should take less time, or you should be able to pick on things larger than you, etc.

(otherwise just like all others do, test your things against a dummy block of lets say 100m shields if you want to examine shield damage, a solid brick of armor to test block damage, test your own shields using a turret you made which you know the DPS of, etc)

 

[Scypio]

The testing of your ships should not be done with isanths, they're too old and doesn't even have shield, though they're built in standard armor. At least take some NPC factions' ships.

Every new weapon output added onto a computer multiplies power use by x1.10, meaning a 10 output system consumes 2x the power than if it was 1 barrel. Do not mix with Overdrive.

11 ouputs. Please.

 

[JinM]

Isanths are NOT a good analogue. My best suggestion is taking your own designs and pitting them against each other.

When I test, I put variations of my ships up against each other in varying amounts based on size and mass, and note anything that happens with the AI since all my stuff is focused on AI-useability (Hence why all my things currently lack Ion, Overdrive, and large ships using Power Aux havent been created yet).

During first tests, I shoot into inert targets. I use huge target "blocks" initially, then test weapons against some of my actual ships spawned in idle mode. They make great "worst case" targets for being struck with missiles onto their double layer Spaced ADV armour as the blast gets absorbed quite well.
Generally, I want weapons to at least reach damage threshold limits. So at the least a small gun needs to deal 100 damage to 1-shot a weapon block every shot.
Next is with Cannon/Cannon/Punch, I aim for the system to at least get 3 penetrations which happens at 'around' 100/100/100 CCPu. The shell damage in the thing per barrel should say something like 125, 63, 27.5. with 25 being an important number to beat as this is the HP of a capacitor/reactor/thruster block. A cannon like this will destroy a an ADV armour block in a few hits to the same place. However its not as efficient as something a bit bigger. Also note that Every new weapon output added onto a computer multiplies power use by x1.10, meaning a 10 output system consumes 2x the power than if it was 1 barrel. Do not mix with Overdrive.

For missiles, their break-points are more set in stone (More for larger scale systems), and based on the composition of blocks in the target. I almost solely use Missile/Beam/Piercing due to piercing effect on missiles damaging shields, AND provides latent anti-armour and +5 radius to the damage. (And rarely missile/pulse/pierce)

The only time Piercing is not an advantage over Explosive or over Punch effect is when the target is either raw system blocks, or made of basic materials like motherboards or basic hull which offer little protection (Though, hulls offer a missile-resist effect due to AHP)

Generally, a lot of my "testing" is just done by checking weapon numbers and seeing if they are what I expect, etc.

But does every additional weapon output also increase the damage by 10%?

 

[Napther]

But does every additional weapon output also increase the damage by 10%?

No, thats the point.

Weapons are a rather complicated subject, in general, you should not unnecessarily split up a weapon into multiple outputs without any thought.

You should only split up a weapon when it reaches a certain large size, as the penetration of the weapon suffers diminishing returns. For cannon-cannon weapons I suggest you dont EXCEED 10,000 damage on a single projectile. Keep it about 2000-4000 ish would be more efficient. Ish.
Been a while since I tested weapons, been AFK a while waiting for Power Update, as this is liekly to effect weapon balance/power too.

And projectile scaling when. 1 output of large cannon pulse explosive is rubbish as is.

 

[JinM]

No, thats the point.

Weapons are a rather complicated subject, in general, you should not unnecessarily split up a weapon into multiple outputs without any thought.

You should only split up a weapon when it reaches a certain large size, as the penetration of the weapon suffers diminishing returns. For cannon-cannon weapons I suggest you dont EXCEED 10,000 damage on a single projectile. Keep it about 2000-4000 ish would be more efficient. Ish.
Been a while since I tested weapons, been AFK a while waiting for Power Update, as this is liekly to effect weapon balance/power too.

And projectile scaling when. 1 output of large cannon pulse explosive is rubbish as is.

I hate this about pvp. Those are easy rules and the only reason some guys have a so called "engineering" advantage is, that the game mechanics are badly documented and I have to ask for each lousy detail how the weapons work. I tell you if people would have an easier time understanding that game "mechanics" (or how you like to call this unmatured meta), at least with documentation, there would be more people joining pvp.

 

[Neon_42]

This is interesting. What is smallest scale size you test against. I use Isanths but they clearly are not the best choice. Basically what is the ship hiarchy? I build fleets based on an increasing scale philosophy. The smallest ship dictates the next size scale up and so on and so forth. Smallest< small< medium < large < larger < largest

 

[Scypio]

I hate this about pvp. Those are easy rules and the only reason some guys have a so called "engineering" advantage is, that the game mechanics are badly documented and I have to ask for each lousy detail how the weapons work. I tell you if people would have an easier time understanding that game "mechanics" (or how you like to call this unmatured meta), at least with documentation, there would be more people joining pvp.

They are not poorly documented, they're just long thoughts about something that everyone can get their eyes on, aka this page or even the game configs that everyone can take a look at. If you're too lazy to do the process behind all of that by yourself it's not the fault of people doing pvp. Again, you can ask someone doing pvp to teach you "tips", you'll still stay behind because you don't do what is needed to keep the engineering level on your ships and you won't know why theses things are used and how to use them properly. It's up to you to stay informed of what is meta or not, search, try, fail or find something really strong. Don't expect the candy to fall in your mouth without doing anything, this doesn't work.

 

[JinM]

They are not poorly documented, they're just long thoughts about something that everyone can get their eyes on, aka this page or even the game configs that everyone can take a look at. If you're too lazy to do the process behind all of that by yourself it's not the fault of people doing pvp. Again, you can ask someone doing pvp to teach you "tips", you'll still stay behind because you don't do what is needed to keep the engineering level on your ships and you won't know why theses things are used and how to use them properly. It's up to you to stay informed of what is meta or not, search, try, fail or find something really strong. Don't expect the candy to fall in your mouth without doing anything, this doesn't work.

You are wrong but this is so shallow I am just out.

 

[Scypio]

Ok you just said the documentation is ok: Where the fuck is it written, that multiple output dont give you additional damage? And how in the world do you expect players to search for this info by browsing hours through this wiki?

On the page i linked to you. First paragraph. Note that nothing says specifically that you can have more damages this way so if it isn't specified, it isn't the case.
You can access this page from the homepage of the wiki so it takes me about 30 secs to scroll up in the starmade site, load the wiki and find this page.

Construction
Each weapon system consists of a computer linked to at least 1 module of the same type (Cannon Computer with Cannon Barrel, etc.). Weapon modules in a physically-contiguous grouping are considered one group, and will output 1 projectile (unless modified otherwise). Larger groups have a directly proportionate increase in damage output and power cost per firing of the weapon. Although several groups can be linked to one computer, the total power cost is increased by 10% for every subsequent group for cannons and beams, and by 2.5% for missiles. Damage pulse has no penalty for multiple groups linked to the same computer.

The rest is just thinking about min-max everything on a ship, trying, failing a few times and seeing what is the best.

 

[MrFURB]

As Mortiferum says, the best test is against other designs by other people. While you can go through the effort of building and fighting with your shiny new ship on a server, I would recommend finding knowledgeable players on a build server if allowed. If the right people are there you can begin combat tests immediately. If they're overcome with smugness they will rarely hold back on giving any tips they can.

 

[KiloZulu]

I've never bothered to test my ships against other player creations. Given the endless variety and ever increasing power scale, it seems pointless to do so. I've always tested against Isanths in the past. This is because it was the only standard ship in the game. I haven't tested any ships since the introduction of fleets, or I would look for the strongest ship in their arsenals to test against. If I feel my ship design is powerful enough for it, I will also test it against the default stations.

From my testing, I can say if a ship can square off against an Isanth or two, take on a pack of Isanths (typically 6,) or tackle a pirate station (which includes waves of reinforcement Isanths.) Plenty of my ships rate way off that scale, but I don't bother measuring it - I've already beaten the default game at that point, I guess.

 

[EricBlank]

I like to test against other players ships around the same mass as what im testing, ai vs ai. Because i rarely get to play online anymore, all ive been on is the minimade server. I also use blocks of systems/armor/etc

I would prefer to be able to fight against players in controlled tests, just never get the chance

 

[taisong]

I have a simple cube ship that I use to test ships with.
A fighter cube, a corvette cube and a cruiser cube.

It is pretty fun to see 4 cubes swarming on the test subject.

 

[kulbolen]

there isnt a particular scale that defines ships .

if you never plan on playing against other people, isanths, or whatever ships you plan on letting your pirates be is fine... you dictate your sp experience.

if you plan on playing against other people, dont listen to the whiners. theres plenty of info to read up on, but you need to put in the effort to develop builds and learn systems instead of hoping itll be spoonfed to you if you want to do well. that said asking questions is probably a really good idea, you just have to learn to sort bad info from good info, cause theres lots of bad info floating around.

using others stuff as ai is usually not a good idea unless youre already skilled enough to identify how their ship works and how to configure it to at least marginally function as ai, because thers lots of things the ai cant handle properly that will taint your testing.

test your ships against your own ships. against your older ships and against themselves. find the strongest players you can online and test against theirs.

I hate this about pvp. Those are easy rules and the only reason some guys have a so called "engineering" advantage is, that the game mechanics are badly documented and I have to ask for each lousy detail how the weapons work. I tell you if people would have an easier time understanding that game "mechanics" (or how you like to call this unmatured meta), at least with documentation, there would be more people joining pvp.

howd the people before you learn? did they just ask someone? somewhere along the line someone had to sit down and do their own testing... id say every single one of the good pvpers does their own testing and comes to their own conclusions. dont expect to be spoonfed and go do your own work.

no one has an unfair advantage over you, theyre just actually working on their shit.

 

[JinM]

howd the people before you learn? did they just ask someone? somewhere along the line someone had to sit down and do their own testing... id say every single one of the good pvpers does their own testing and comes to their own conclusions. dont expect to be spoonfed and go do your own work.

no one has an unfair advantage over you, theyre just actually working on their shit.

A game is also about what kind of work it wants from you. There are valuable experiences and duties, and not very inteligent stuff like setting up a testing shooting range and test each weapon type in each new update. If you have fun with this dumb number work, I can't judge you. I rather admit that I want to get this particular dumb stuff spondfed to me on the wiki or on some tutorial here (as I would call it: raise the accessibility).

I suggest you take an example from Dota2: There the players have all the numbers very well documented, and the fights are amazingly complex anyway. I am glad the times are gone, when some players had an advantage in older Dota version just because some stuff was not very accessible. (Good examples are the tower attack ranges, and jungle creep camp spawn boxes.) I tell you the fights there are even better, because the player have the access to the numbers, and can invest the time, they saved for number gathering, in making some own unique strategies.

Yes, I expect a game being more than work to me, I expect it to challenge me in the first place. And this dumb work is not very challenging it's just repeating easy stuff that takes a hell of a time. Even more time consuming when you have some older computer.