I finally wrote a review of Starmade, after 1000 hours.

[Panpiper]

You not liking it being easily accessible for new players is frankly one of the problems with this game, too much elitism.

My disliking this new system has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with "elitism" or wanting to make the game inaccessible to new players. I have made great efforts to make the game accessible to new players. Do not infer bad motives on the part of other people simply because you do not understand their position.

The Power Stat was a means to an end, not the whole point of the game. No one wants MAXIMUM power in each ship they build-because why would they? Why have more power than you need when you can have functional systems there instead?

Frankly I am more than a little bit dumbfounded. "No one wants MAXIMUM power in each ship they build-because why would they?" Seriously?!

You do understand that this is a combat game, right? We are building ships designed to survive in a hostile universe, that need to be able to fight to survive. Power is EVERYTHING! Power determines how powerful your weapons are, which more than anything will determine whether or not the ship survives. Even the smallest of ships could use more power. There is no such thing as 'enough' power.

Do you only ever build RP ships with no thought whatsoever to their combat viability? It completely baffles me how someone would fail to intuitively grasp this.

How many forum posts do you see where (not new) players are asking about how to get the best power setup? Did anyone EVER talk about power?

I don't know how you missed those conversations, but yes, there were a LOT of conversations about how to get more power. And I am not referring simply to people not understanding lines and dimensions.

Your optimum shape thing is debatable too. What was the optional shape before and was that the only shape players made?

There WAS NO optimum shape before. All shapes could attain maximum power. That was a good thing. It permitted people great artistic licence. For smaller ships it took some skill and ingenuity to squeeze power in. For really small ships, it took quite a bit of skill and ingenuity. Very few really small ships were combat viable in fact, 'because' it took a lot of skill to make them so.

That is no longer the case. Now with the new system, there IS an optimum shape, a long thin ship, worse, a oblique long thing line. That is NOT an improvement, that is a MASSIVE step backwards. It takes no skill or ingenuity whatsoever.

Moreover because there is now a linear spread for ship power, really small ships are now permanently relegated to largely being useless. (In my opinion, a ship that cannot dish out at least 40,000 DPS is pretty much useless.) That too is NOT an improvement.

Your description of ship building-how is that any different than before? Old system: Choose design (shape), weapons/systems, outfit remaing space with shields(or add them first)

New system: Same as before but with a new final step: Add chambers which customize your ship (warp drive,cloak,Push + all of the 100's of combinations they can come up with in the future now that we have a base for it.

I can tell that you do not build combat ships.

I am not going to rewrite what I have already written elsewhere. I detailed much of the build process I go through in this post. I did NOT detail in that post "self powered turrets, docked power, and power inheritance" because all that is now obsolete, all that "challenging" stuff has been removed from the game. Now it really IS a lot simpler, and a lot less challenging. Now there is going to be a very smooth relationship between ship size length and combat power. If you want a more powerful ship, spend more time mindlessly piling blocks, because there will be no skill and challenge to squeezing more power out of a smaller ship. It simply instead, won't be possible.
[doublepost=1507733417,1507733319][/doublepost]

Where do you get the idea that that is the most optimum shape?

And why do you think everyone wants to build like that, even if it is the most optimum?

FACEPALM.

I give up.

 

[Gasboy]

FACEPALM.
I give up.

Look, I'm at work and not gone through all the links from this thread and others. If you have said it before, my apologies. I've not been playing Starmade much recently, and I've not been following the arguments.

I don't disagree that the power change essentially obsoletes just about everything.

I'm just trying to understand to see why people say now that it'll be stick ships that are the meta.

 

[DrTarDIS]

Look, I'm at work and not gone through all the links from this thread and others. If you have said it before, my apologies. I've not been playing Starmade much recently, and I've not been following the arguments.

I don't disagree that the power change essentially obsoletes just about everything.

I'm just trying to understand to see why people say now that it'll be stick ships that are the meta.

Simple geometry: Reactor size = distance to stabilizers. Distance is most easily gained from adding to one dimension, ergo, a giant blob of reactor on one side REQUIRES you to have X space in between the edge of the reactor and the beginning of the stabilizers. This means that ships move more towards this shape in the power:mass optimization curve.

Because Starmade uses Cube-space, the "most optimum" method of gaining that shape in a compressed volume involves going corner-corner on a cube.

 

[Gasboy]

Simple geometry: Reactor size = distance to stabilizers. Distance is most easily gained from adding to one dimension, ergo, a giant blob of reactor on one side REQUIRES you to have X space in between the edge of the reactor and the beginning of the stabilizers. This means that ships move more towards this shape in the power:mass optimization curve.

Because Starmade uses Cube-space, the "most optimum" method of gaining that shape in a compressed volume involves going corner-corner on a cube.

Okay, that I can grok.

However, aren't many ships usually long along one axis? Many of the ships I have seen released by folks who PvP (since I assume that most folks who aren't serious/hardcore PvPers, aren't all that concerned about this particular aspect of the power change) aren't deathcubes, nor are ones that I've seen in twitch/youtube videos. PvP ships still look like ships, they may have no 'pretty' interior and no wasted space, but they are not the most optimal shape as far as power is concerned.

In taking apart such ships, they've got a variation on the cross for power, and if they are large enough, they had docked reactors. Is it not possible to get the new power system into the same space as the cross-shaped power, but come out ahead in power generation?

And won't maneuverability be a consideration too? You can only get so big along one axis before noticing turning issues.

 

[Panpiper]

Look, I'm at work and not gone through all the links from this thread and others. If you have said it before, my apologies. I've not been playing Starmade much recently, and I've not been following the arguments.

I don't disagree that the power change essentially obsoletes just about everything.

I'm just trying to understand to see why people say now that it'll be stick ships that are the meta.

I apologise. I should realize that not everyone shares my OCD and not everyone is going to read reams of pages of various threads.

Simple geometry: Reactor size = distance to stabilizers. Distance is most easily gained from adding to one dimension, ergo, a giant blob of reactor on one side REQUIRES you to have X space in between the edge of the reactor and the beginning of the stabilizers. This means that ships move more towards this shape in the power:mass optimization curve.

Because Starmade uses Cube-space, the "most optimum" method of gaining that shape in a compressed volume involves going corner-corner on a cube.

Thank you DrTarDIS.

The old system allowed us to exploit all three dimensions with our power lines. More, it allowed us to run more than one line. The end result is that a ship builder could use all the dimensions of their ship to generate power, so even well designed small ships could get good power.

The new system allows only one line, and that line only counts to two end points at either end of a hypothetical cube. Only one line counts, only the two end points of that line count, and the optimum placement of those points is at opposite corners of a cube. You do not need to fill in the cube or even the line.

 

[Gasboy]

I apologise. I should realize that not everyone shares my OCD and not everyone is going to read reams of pages of various threads.


Thank you DrTarDIS.

The old system allowed us to exploit all three dimensions with our power lines. More, it allowed us to run more than one line. The end result is that a ship builder could use all the dimensions of their ship to generate power, so even well designed small ships could get good power.

The new system allows only one line, and that line only counts to two end points at either end of a hypothetical cube. Only one line counts, only the two end points of that line count, and the optimum placement of those points is at opposite corners of a cube. You do not need to fill in the cube or even the line.

See, this is better described than what I have seen before.

Could you not stack them? I know that the devs said there was a delay in changing rector cores, is it still useful enough for those who do PvP?

 

[Panpiper]

Could you not stack them? I know that the devs said there was a delay in changing rector cores, is it still useful enough for those who do PvP?

No. Only one power reactor system can be active. You can have backups, but they will not affect your available power.

However, aren't many ships usually long along one axis? Many of the ships I have seen released by folks who PvP (since I assume that most folks who aren't serious/hardcore PvPers, aren't all that concerned about this particular aspect of the power change) aren't deathcubes, nor are ones that I've seen in twitch/youtube videos. PvP ships still look like ships, they may have no 'pretty' interior and no wasted space, but they are not the most optimal shape as far as power is concerned.

There was no optimum shape in the old system. Any shape of ship could contain maximized power. That is no longer the case. Now the optimum ship is a seriously bizarre oblique line between two opposite corners, assuming you even bother to connect the two points.

And won't maneuverability be a consideration too? You can only get so big along one axis before noticing turning issues.

Turning will be pretty much the same issue as it was, except worse, because people can 'only' exploit length for power, there is no other way to get more, unlike the old system. People will build ships with the absolute worst turn mode they can live with. Personally I think balancing a game by creating a system that requires people to build to the 'worst' flying experience they can tolerate is a "very bad decision".

 

[Scypio]

Where do you get the idea that that is the most optimum shape?

Because that is the shape you're forced to build with the current rules. Forcing to have far away from your reactor the stabilizers, giving you two possibilities. Either a coat of stabilizers all around the reactor but far away with others blocs between. For example of a sphere it would be one too but empty. Or you can build another bloc of theses stabilizers far away, meaning you build basically a stick.

Knowing that you basically need 1/1 stabilizer for a reactor bloc you basically wan't use the coat system, as the first penetrating shot you'll loose all power generation. So what is left ? Stick.

Though if you're fine having a ship like that i don't mind but i'm note sure you'll still have fun after a few ones. And i know i don't.

 

[GnomeKing]

I think it should be noted that PanPiper and others have wanted nothing more than for the game to be the best it could be, and for it to provide a range of rewarding challenges from single-player building to multi-faction servers, catering for the broadest possible interests.

I have always valued the potential diversity of the game: of builds, of styles, of roles, of player goals and attitude. I think it is fair to say some of us are old veterans of ‘PC gaming’ and really do want to provide advice based on experience, rather than just getting possessive about a single game. That said, Starmade has all ways brought a rather unique menu to the table. We are concerned about diluting some of those flavors and qualities, and nobody is opposed to development of the game. I am concerned that fleets, AI, and a range of other 'strategic' issues seem still to be on the back-burner. I think many new players leave not directly because they find power and systems difficult, but because all to often OP factions and 'troublemakers' on servers prematurely create arms races, home-base cold-wars, and vastly accelerate the desire of players to focus only on a) more shields, b) more guns, c) more thrust for the previous - and finally d) more power to power it all. Build quality and long-term enjoyment is greatly reduced under these conditions.

I rather liked the fact that a well made XYZ power grid resembled a skeleton or nervous system of a whole ship (on reasonably sized ships that did not just use power rod rod-waffles) – this was a) something to be worked at and improved, b)something that provided real benefits to players taking the time to build that way, d)made a nice ‘intuitive’ feel – i.e. a power grid distributed and connected across a whole ship structure. Geometric type bonus for builds can still provide a good avenue for rewarding intricate builds – personally I would love to see alternative forms of power co-exist (grid/solar, generator, perhaps even alongside ‘fuel’). But to get back on topic …



RE: new dumb-bell/stick Meta-Ship

It is clear that most ships will likely have a power system that is basically of the dumb-bell form – this will be variably buried within the rest of the ship structure, which will may or may not reflect that basic shape. (unlike the variability of threaded XYZ power grids).

However, having messed about a little in the Dev build, some thoughts occur;

-power is easy to achieve and deploy – in fact, rather than aiming for max power, it seems more relevant now to scale down power carefully to actual effectiveness and need. Now a strong limit on upper power is the minimum size of associated chambers, and the OP nature weapons that might possibly be functionally powered (eg wasted penetration, block overkill, ect).

(…I am not sure, but I imagine all this easily achieved spare power can be dumped into shields and the associated extra thrust :/ - also not sure that ‘carefully scaling down power’ will ultimately achieve much in terms of mass reduction/thrust and other benefits – I have just briefly examined the new blocks )

I think the point is, in regard of super-meta-uber ships, beyond the buried internal ‘dumb-bell’ there will be so many blocks needed for the rest of the systems that the distance between stabilizer and reactor is not so relevant – ie unless it is very much a floating reactor, a functioning megaship (with eg 10,000 power blocks) with soon have need fill up its minimum reactor-stabilizer distance with systems anyway.

So, maybe, yes: it is a new stick-meta, but it is a relatively short stick that could quite easily get buried by other systems .

For me, it is not so much the ‘stickiness’ of it but the repetitiveness of it that bothers me. And as said before XYZ grids create interesting frames to work around, prompting unexpected builds perhaps. I am not sure the very linear new system, with its simple blocks of reactors and stabilizers is as interesting.


PS/

Under the new system a build for me might go something like this:

2000 reactor blocks means all chambers have to be 1000 blocks, which is kinda big for me….

So reactor will be ‘level 19’ at 1999 blocks, meaning chambers will need to be only 500 blocks (more manageable in my builds)

1999 reactors is crap loads of power compared to XYZ (ie more deployable power than a single 1999 XYZ rod + associated capacitors) – enough for repeat fire of astonishingly block-overkill weapons for example, so should be plenty for most ships.

1999 reactors needs 50-something meters gap to fit in the stabilisers at 100% efficiency – not exactly a huge challenge… but not necessarily particularly stick-like, i.e. I could build a variety of shapes around my stick, because power is easy to achieve and the ship shape does not need to be finely optimised to the reactor shape in the same way as XYZ. There are some good things in this, but generally I am struck by how very simple it is gain power, and how crude the opposing stacks of reactors and stabilisers look :/.

 

[Winterhome]

For me, it is not so much the ‘stickiness’ of it but the repetitiveness of it that bothers me. And as said before XYZ grids create interesting frames to work around, prompting unexpected builds perhaps. I am not sure the very linear new system, with its simple blocks of reactors and stabilizers is as interesting.

The XYZ grids have been gone for years. Used to be multiplicative which prompted interesting and bizarre ship shapes. But it was switched to being merely additive after multiplicative power caused some neato exploits that hurt the game for newbies. Every single "modern" ship design made by large factions prior to the new power system used the same power layout - 1*1*x powerlines in a checkerboard.

 

[GnomeKing]

"Every single "modern" ship design made by large factions prior to the new power system used the same power layout - 1*1*x powerlines in a checkerboard." - IDK about that; large ships yes, probably, with loads of aux aswell. Personally, i regard the 2mil/sec cap as an indication that the ship is 'plenty-big-enough-already' .

if the ships are below the size were aux power is actually of of use and not at capped 2mil regn, waffle-powerlines are only as effective as threaded-powerlines when the whole ship is basically a rod...otherwise (unless each rod is sooo long it maxes out power regen anway) any amount of addition of X or Y to Z will result in some positive change in mass:power-gen ratio....

 

[DrTarDIS]

The XYZ grids have been gone for years. Used to be multiplicative which prompted interesting and bizarre ship shapes. But it was switched to being merely additive after multiplicative power caused some neato exploits that hurt the game for newbies. Every single "modern" ship design made by large factions prior to the new power system used the same power layout - 1*1*x powerlines in a checkerboard.

1*1*92 IIRC. The optimum gain before fall-off of the curve, while also being just shy of the next major turning penalty round-up. THe new system has plenty of potential, it's just...not quite there.
Honestly, I'm starting to evolve my views on Starmade. I'm seeing it less as "the game" and more as "an exaple of all the possible stuff in the schine engine." While the two views aren't exactly mutually exclusive, one seems to make some of the "design choices" more sane.

Really, server admins have some CRAZY (if poorly documented) ability to customise the game to their niche. A lot of the community QQ seems to revolve around "vanilla config" being poorly slapped together by people who make the game but don't really play it so much outside of super-admin mode.

As an example: Switching the values of the new "reactor power" blocks to 100, changing the stabilizer distance from exponential to linear and increasing the band of that fall-off to a wider range(so it doesn't go from 0% to 75% over 2 blocks, and then from 75% to 100 over 5 more) certainly changes the mechanics to ones less "dumbell only". Other examples I can think of include making thrusters have less-or-zero weight, increasing the weight of stabilizers and reactors, including an inherent armor % of systems blocks(which would require armor "pool" blocks to be useful) and all manner of other "tweaks" that the server-side blockbehaviourconfig.xml file gives.

Really, we need to stop looking at schine-engine as "just starmade", just like people don't look at cryengine as 'just crysis." There are a couple servers with custom blocks and heavily modified configs that stand to gain a LOT of use from the new system. I think we should focus a little more on documenting exactl what changes we can and cannot make, what their effects are, and why they should be tweaked in various ways to cater to different playstyles.

 

[DrTarDIS]

Azereiah Seriusly the XYZ NEVER GONE, congrats for a fallacy [Before you disagree that remember reactors must be 1 long line and ships are not cubes.]

Azereiah GnomeKing DrTarDIS The checkboard shape is a waste of power block density until the second nerf curve appears. [In other words you can get a better output with less blocks thinking on 3 axis, AND THAT IS NOT A <Select a permaban insult> OPINION.]

It is an opinion, one couched in "less blocks" specifically. The checker-rod pattern you are (uselessly) capslock arguing against is about power Density, not about "efficiency by mass ignoring the rest". If it was NOT about density, you would see PvP ships as literally giant 5-block-thick rods intersecting in a 3d "+-shape" the fact that you don't shows why density > efficiency.
Please though, continue to rant and rave. You are obviously savant and can ignore geometry at whim.
You are right about one thing though, but I suspect by accident. the 1*1*1 (or 1^3 in smaller notation) massive-checkerboard is only the most efficient after the full nerf-curve where additional "connected" power reactors only supply 25 e/sec.

 

[DrTarDIS]

It is an opinion, one couched in "less blocks" specifically. The checker-rod pattern you are (uselessly) capslock arguing against is about power Density, not about "efficiency by mass ignoring the rest". If it was NOT about density, you would see PvP ships as literally giant 5-block-thick rods intersecting in a 3d "+-shape" the fact that you don't shows why density > efficiency.
Please though, continue to rant and rave. You are obviously savant and can ignore geometry at whim.
You are right about one thing though, but I suspect by accident. the 1*1*1 (or 1^3 in smaller notation) massive-checkerboard is only the most efficient after the full nerf-curve where additional "connected" power reactors only supply 25 e/sec.

Edit: just for clarity, I think you're missing on one of the changes to power systems.
Do yourself a favor. Build a + reactor which is 7 blocks high, 7 wide, and 7 long. (total of 19 blocks) -> note the e/sec
now build one that is 19 blocks long -> note the e/sec
-> compare notes
->build a 3rd reactor that is checkerboard, filling the 1^3 space with 7-long reactors ->note the e/sec
->build a 4th one, using "3d shapes" as absolutely densely packed as you can make it -> note the e/sec

if you're REALLY anal about showing the metrics build all of these up to a 21^3 scale and compare notes.
->then come back and tell us how you made out. I'm fairly certain i know ahead of time how you'll make out (because math) but go ahead. prove it, with blueprints.
[doublepost=1507764279,1507764012][/doublepost]

DrTarDIS as i told you before, select the shape you want with less 150 meters[Please not a cube] and lets to check how manyblocks and what energy outpout you can put there.

Most probably you are going to ignore that request like the first time.

I selected the shape and refused to allow anything less than 2.4million e/sec as the metric(you wanted 1 million because it's the only area your hyper-focus holds true in), you refused, because you know what you say only holds true in one specific autistic-hyper-focus area of metrics.
You refused, not I. I even gave you very simple instructions and repeated my selection to you twice. You're either a democrat or a social-science zelot; you have quite the capacity to demand reality remake itself to fit your views

Edit2: Thingie See, another instance where muffin, kale, and eggplant could be used. It's all about the nuance and how people just can't handle it)

 

[DrTarDIS]

As i remember your "shape" was a 300 x 300 x 300 cube and i told you anything that was not a cube and less than 300 meters if my memory do not fails.



False i request to you a shape that appear a ship shape and not something you are saying



I do not refuse it buddi, remember you told to me that you do not want keep talking because from your "point of view" i was trolling you or my english was not enough to your comunication standards.

You do not want to get on that request because you know i am correct.

a ship shape you say? really? so if it's a ship it's fine? OK.

Spoiler: This one

please, fill it. prove you're right. :muffin:
it's REALLY EASEY to prove, right? :kale:
it is so glaringly obvious that I and all the major PvP players :eggplant: are wrong :rollingeyesschemacat:

 

[Calhoun]

DrTarDIS

Arkudo is technically correct, it's more efficient to use all your dimensions then limit yourself to a rectangle shape. The lines going into waffles aren't bad in themselves, as a line is also a max efficiency shape, but if you can exploit your dimensions then you should do so.

 

[DrTarDIS]

Oh I'm fully aware Calhoun. What you're missing is a previous exchange. The only issue I have is that they don't understand that "dimensional density" and "block efficiency" are two different building styles. Specifically, that they seem to be espousing a 2*1*12 reactor(13 blocks in unique dimensions) is "better than" or "equal to" a 1*1*24(24 blocks in unique dimensions).
Also particularly that in, say, a 5*11*25 shape, you'd get "more" power out of building 3d t shapes than by waffling 1*1*25 lines. The previous exchange is rife with this idea that their "challenge" is refused by me, while I chose the absolute simplest shape(cube) and demanded a "fill to capacity and compare numbers." It's a matter of them wating "first past the goalpost" to 1million e/sec while I'm pointing out "farthest distance ran" absolute maximal power in the smallest space.

 

[Edymnion]

1*1*92 IIRC. The optimum gain before fall-off of the curve, while also being just shy of the next major turning penalty round-up.

So... basically you're saying PanPiper's entire "There's so much skill and design choice in the old power design!" argument boils down to being false, and the only skill required is "set advanced build dimension to 92 on the Z axis"?

 

[GnomeKing]

no...not really, just that it is easy to lay down a waffle of 1x92 rods in any ship thats wants to fit it. It is still more difficult when the overall ship will not allow for single axis runs of 92 blocks...once the 2mil cap is reached/we are talking about 'very large' ships and aux power, then the design of the power rods becomes entirely moot. But for an easy life, Yes, base designs around central 92+ long rod...of course there might be other design considerations to think about, but if you just want a power-rod-dildo ship, yes, there it is, simples... - (which also shows that XYZ system is far from being too difficult for newbies to get along with ...)

 

[The_Owl]

p sure the most efficant way of 2mil e/s in old system is a single line like 1592 blocks long or somethin