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

[Edymnion]

Believe or not works as Panpiper is saying, i told to you the same as DrTarDIS, choose the shape you want that appear a ship with lees 150 metters. [I have no problem into fill that with 1 axis lines chessboard and 3 axis lines.]

No thanks, we're currently in a first iteration dev build. None of the numbers are finalized yet. I'll wait and compare the two when the current system has been stabilized and deemed ready for it's initial release. When the devs say "The numbers aren't finalized and we're still adjusting them to try and find the balance", I rather believe them.

 

[Edymnion]

Edymnion that is not a comparation between old and new power system, is about old power system. [Remember you were who sayed Panpiper was wrong when he is not about old power mechanics.]

I've said to him repeatedly that I never saw any of the complexity or skill he was talking about in the old system. And I don't see his doom and gloom barbell ship happening either.

If "the most efficient way is the only way the meta builders will do it" then we would see nothing but dildo ships today, and we don't. He himself went out of his way to talk about squeezing more power into smaller ships that was inefficient.

That whole "any casual can do it" thing he said really just sealed his deal as far as I'm concerned. Anyone that uses the word "casual" as an insult like that is EXACTLY the kind of person I don't want ANY dev team to listen to.

The "casuals" are the overwhelming majority of players. They are the ones who pay the bills so the "hardcore" minority can play.

 

[Edymnion]

Edymnion give enough time and you see that. [The new system stills at DEVbuild state]

...

my request from above still "on"

You said it yourself, we're still in an early dev build state.

The numbers right now don't mean anything, so there is no point to whipping out rulers and comparing sizes beyond simply being able to say "Welp, this is a bit off. We probably want to adjust this up/down some" as valid testing feedback. Not as "Oh the entire thing is borked, we never should have come here!".

 

[DrTarDIS]

Edymnion give enough time and you see that. [The new system stills at DEVbuild state]

If you build in an inefficient way believe or not is half part your fault and the other half how the system mechanic works.




DO NOT LIE PLEASE, my request from above still "on", is really amazing how an AD Populum argument can works when the true can be checked soo fast.




And now an AD hominen. [The AD populum is not yours but you keep using it.]

Lol, dude(or dudette). You are hillarious. Ever hear of the fallacy fallacy? Don't get me wrong, I respect formal logic, but there is a time and a place for it. I will also point out that formal logic does not mean "correct". That being said, I have respect for you stepping into the realm of logic. Just understand that like any ideological method of thinking It Has Faults. You also seem to be using it in a ham-fisted way. Keep practicing, you will get to a better mastery I am sure. Pay particular attention to Argumentum ad lapidem, because I see that as a major weak point in your rhetoric.

In responce to your challenge: go, do, it. I'm that confident. Please, also do every single example size I've thrown out in this thread and the other. The only thing that will happen is that you learn that boxdim isn't multiplicative it's additive and put your "beef" to rest. Nothing stopping you but yourself and your fear. Beating a dead horse will not change reality. It's that lapidem thing.

 

[Edymnion]

Edymnion buddy i know my english have some lacks, but if you read that again, It is a comparison between different ways of placing the energy blocks in the old system. [Are you trying to move the current topic about old power system?]

What I'm saying is that PanPiper and the others are taking things to the extreme and proclaiming that these extremes will be the norm, when we know they won't be. There are extremes NOW under the old system that don't dictate ship shape. PanPiper himself said in the actual dev thread over in announcements how great he was at shoving lots of power into very small ships as an example of how great the old system was and how "dumbed down" the new one was. If he was getting that much power, he couldn't have been doing it efficiently given the size.

People are projecting their on insecurities and fears onto this because there is a lack of information (though we have more now than we did before). They are making assumptions, then taking those assumptions to the extremes, and then railing against it. When the devs have said repeatedly that what we have now is essentially nothing more than place holders and that they were just trying to get the system into a workable state before they started tweaking numbers and working on balance.

We'd all be a lot better off if everyone could just stop yelling that the sky is falling and help give some meaningful feedback that can help them get the numbers fine tuned. Because thats a thing that we can do.

Instead of saying everything is terrible because its different, whip out a notepad and start giving specific numbers. Feel like you can't make a ship as powerful as you did before? Okay, build the ship under the old system and the new system. Give it the same weapons. Show how build X did Y better, and give numbers to back it up. If you can only get the new system you've only had for a couple days up to 70% as much as you could the old system you've used for years, then show that. Give the devs actual numbers they can use. Put the two ships up on the community content so the devs can see how you are building it to see if there is a legit issue that needs to be addressed or not.

And, if it does turn out that some weapons aren't as effective or easy to power as before, then either those weapon energy costs can be addressed, or maybe we're seeing the beginnings of a reduced effectiveness in weapons (which most people will admit our ability to deal damage VASTLY outstrips our ability to defend against it).

 

[Edymnion]

Edymnion you are defeding on a brainless way the new power system

And you were just trying to get on me for ad hominen?

I'll say it again, hopefully in a way that will be harder to confuse:
1) Anything used as a justification on why the new system is bad that ALSO applies to the old system is invalid to start with. If you want to say the new system promotes a given shape, then the only way that is "bad" is if the old system did not also promote a given shape.

2) No comparisons between old and new system based on output numbers are valid at this point, as we have been explicitly told that the current numbers are not final and are just place holders. Everything from power per reactor block to stabilizer distances are being tweaked. Literally nothing beyond "reactors, chambers, and stabilizers are things" is final at this point.

[Have on mind I'm going to chase you through the forum with that]

I would be careful about admitting your plans to harass someone across the forums.

 

[DrTarDIS]

DrTarDIS You know why i do not move from that?

Because I was waiting for you to select me a shape. And you use your inanition on that to say i am doing AD lapiden. [your attempts to manipulate events begin to be more than fun.]

Do not worry I´m going to use a shape choosed by me, but please do not complain about that. [Have on mind I'm going to chase you through the forum with that]

Edymnion you are defeding on a brainless way the new power system, the best example about that is that part that you get a topic about how works the old power system and you tried to convert on a "old vs new" topic. [If you have a poor reading comprehension and you have reached that conclusion, my apologies about that last sentence.]

First off, thanks for expanding my vocabulary, that is a rare event. You get +1 point for that. "Inanition" is an awesome word I'll do my level best to incorporate.
Second off: threats of harrassment, not cool. You get -2 points for that.
Third off: passing the buck is old. like really old. You're the one rushing in and claiming everyone else is wrong; the onus of proof is on you. That is why I said you're making a stone-argument, well that and you bringing up formal logic. Do click on my picture to the left here, and watch it animate for about 10 seconds. You might ruminate on exactly what that means.Have fun with your proof.

 

[Thingie]

Hay guys, this conversation is starting to heat to dangerous levels. We ask you cool it down now and take a step back allowing others to contribute to op and discussion.
If you would like to continue your heated debate take it to pms.
Moderation~

 

[jstenholt]

tl;dr

Panpiper thinks the game is trash but played a thousand hours of it.

I choose to mostly ignore the positions of people who spend thousands of hours doing things they hate as a leisure activity.

 

[Panpiper]

tl;dr

Panpiper thinks the game is trash but played a thousand hours of it.

I choose to mostly ignore the positions of people who spend thousands of hours doing things they hate as a leisure activity.

Way to completely miss the point.

 

[kulbolen]

I've said to him repeatedly that I never saw any of the complexity or skill he was talking about in the old system. And I don't see his doom and gloom barbell ship happening either.

If "the most efficient way is the only way the meta builders will do it" then we would see nothing but dildo ships today, and we don't. He himself went out of his way to talk about squeezing more power into smaller ships that was inefficient.

i dont believe you have any interest in or experience with min maxing pvp ships. he likely sees more than you. the fact that youre piggybacking other peoples info in this thread as an argument (1x1x92? lolll) to him instead of writing your own says a lot there.

i actually log in and play the game alot, and i see more dildo ships than any other shape.

about ship shape, you could be right. people may hide their long dimension power under a nice facade so its not blatant. but itll still be there under the skin, dictating the shape of the overall ship, if the designer wants to push performance.

What I'm saying is that PanPiper and the others are taking things to the extreme and proclaiming that these extremes will be the norm, when we know they won't be. There are extremes NOW under the old system that don't dictate ship shape.

you dont know it wont anymore than he knows it will.

2) No comparisons between old and new system based on output numbers are valid at this point, as we have been explicitly told that the current numbers are not final and are just place holders. Everything from power per reactor block to stabilizer distances are being tweaked. Literally nothing beyond "reactors, chambers, and stabilizers are things" is final at this point.

and people are saying the "finalized" stabilizers are a bad idea. their opinions are no less valid than yours, whether you believe they should be allowed to have them or not.

comparisons are valid. its what gets numbers tuned from their current values.

tl;dr

Panpiper thinks the game is trash but played a thousand hours of it.

I choose to mostly ignore the positions of people who spend thousands of hours doing things they hate as a leisure activity.

this is why you shouldnt respond to things you didnt read.



the old system was less restrictive in that you could manipulate your dimensional requirements easier. this can obviously be changed by tuning, but complaints are people giving feedback on the tuning. theyre not obligated to give it in a way any particular person on this forum is comfortable with.

xyz still exists, whether you like it or not. you can match power on one dimension, but the fact that no ships are 1 dimensional means you can get more power out of your existing space (up to sc) if you use more than 1 dimension.

long power poles are prevalent in strong pvp ships for other reasons. i use them, and its from a combination of laziness and need for redundancy. in a larger ship, you usually score more points for redundant power than by saving 50 total mass on your efficiency. im also willing to take the small efficiency hit because i make up the difference in other areas that matter more, and i dont like weaving power.

as far as density goes, a less dense ship is a lot stronger than a dense one. you dont see them because even the pvp types usually like flying around in something vaguely resembling a ship, or they havent thought of of how to properly make a low density ship.

 

[Brokengauge]

Much thanks to Edymnion and DrTarDIS for quoting Arkudo, otherwise I NEVER would have understood the last page and a half of posts lol

 

[Edymnion]

comparisons are valid. its what gets numbers tuned from their current values.

Like I said, comparisons for "Oh, this seems off. I can only get 70% as much out of the new system as I could the old system. Here's my build of each." so that actual meaningful information can be pulled are great. Thats what we need right now.

"Oh the sky is falling, the entire system sucks, I told you it was going to suck, you're all stupid for not listening to me!" helps no one and is in no way constructive.

There is a difference between constructive negative feedback and whining.

 

[Az14el]

Well gee i guess we have to call it good implementation then,
You do understand that it's the actual concept we have issues with, rather than the numbers? Is that just not allowed?

 

[DrTarDIS]

Well gee i guess we have to call it good implementation then,
You do understand that it's the actual concept we have issues with, rather than the numbers? Is that just not allowed?

Not directed to me specificly I know but...Eh, what about the concept itself is so objectionable? I don't see much difference between the chambers and ion/pierce/whatever modules. The big difference I do see is moving all the "effects" into one file dedicated to them, rather than burying them with the rest in BBC.xml

IMHO merging stabilizers ad chambers together might be a good direction to go in (chambers need to be x distance away or they grow in size/mass, or power plants just "not producing" as much without dedicated load). That still doesn't negate the concept of it all though. I mean, IRL if your engine doesn't have a radiator you're in for a seize and damage in the near future, maybe throw a rod through your oil pan, twist your crank, etc... Even nuclear-powered systems need active stabilization(control rods, turbine load and precipitation towers), and "remote power" systems develop some nasty charge imbalance without radiation control or intermittent grounding.

If the problem is "removal of capacitor math"...I mean, Literally every single self-powered vehicle IRL uses "on demand" power systems with "capacitors/batteries" being for load-balance and emergency power only. Having giant battery banks isn't really conducive to immersion from that perspective. IRL power-grids don't exactly have giant battery-banks: power is on-demand production and scales with use(that's why the east coast went down from a lightning strike a few years ago, load outstripped supply so greatly it "stalled" the production. if you don't believe me, use your google-fu).

 

[Edymnion]

You do understand that it's the actual concept we have issues with, rather than the numbers? Is that just not allowed?

Well, then PRECISELY what about the concept do you not like? And lay it out in a way that does not rely on current placeholder numbers.

Is it that its now "too simple" to build a working ship?
If so, why do you think it is a bad thing to have a system that is immediately easy to understand and implement? If it is a facet of "there's no skill to it", why do you not also demand similar levels of skill from weapon block placements? Why do you feel that "complicated for the sake of being complicated" is a good thing?

Is it that you feel the numbers are off? As in its too difficult or too easy to get the power requirements you need now? Is it that you think the stabilizer distance is too far? Because all of these are currently things that are being worked on. If you feel the numbers are off, then help make things better by suggesting what you feel would be a better ratio, or a better level.

---

There are parts of the new system I like, there are parts of it I don't like. However, I understand that what I want to happen and what is going to happen don't always coincide. I understand that I can either accept the general direction of where its going and try to influence where it goes from here, or I can find some other game to play.

I mean, I don't like stabilizers any more than the rest of you. I think they're rather poorly implemented solution to a problem that doesn't really exist right now. I would like to see stabilizers changed into something more useful, more creative, that adds more to a build than simply being size dictating gap filler. Instead of railing against the system as a whole, however, I'm at least trying to help brainstorm up better ways to use them.

Bottom line is that it is very clear reactors are the way the game is going to go. If you are dead set against the system as a whole, I'm sorry, but I don't know what to tell you. Its either going to have to be a case of you learning to live with it, or finding another game to play. They have put way too much work into it to abandon it now, they are committed, its going to happen.

The best you can do is try to influence how reactors and chambers and stabilizers are finally implemented, but they are going to be implemented in one form or another. And the best way to get that influence is not to call people names or say the system as a whole sucks or otherwise insult the dev team. Its to go "Okay, you're the ones making the calls, I don't agree with this one but I can work with it" and start trying to convince them of ways to adjust the plan in ways you find more acceptable.

 

[Zoolimar]

Well, then PRECISELY what about the concept do you not like? And lay it out in a way that does not rely on current placeholder numbers.

Won't talk for other people but I don't like that stabilizers are basically a block with single purpose - defining the minimal length of the ship. If developers want to enforce this restriction on building ships it would be better for some other system, say reactors themselves or chambers as someone suggested, to take on this role in addition to their main purpose.

 

[kulbolen]

Like I said, comparisons for "Oh, this seems off. I can only get 70% as much out of the new system as I could the old system. Here's my build of each." so that actual meaningful information can be pulled are great. Thats what we need right now.

"Oh the sky is falling, the entire system sucks, I told you it was going to suck, you're all stupid for not listening to me!" helps no one and is in no way constructive.

There is a difference between constructive negative feedback and whining.

Not directed to me specificly I know but...Eh, what about the concept itself is so objectionable? I don't see much difference between the chambers and ion/pierce/whatever modules. The big difference I do see is moving all the "effects" into one file dedicated to them, rather than burying them with the rest in BBC.xml

Well, then PRECISELY what about the concept do you not like? And lay it out in a way that does not rely on current placeholder numbers.

Is it that you think the stabilizer distance is too far? Because all of these are currently things that are being worked on. If you feel the numbers are off, then help make things better by suggesting what you feel would be a better ratio, or a better level.

people here already spelled out that they dont like the fact that stabilizers exist. the numbers dont matter, the entire point of their existence does.

as far as numbers testing goes, some of us have been doing exactly that since the dev update hit. testing isnt mutually exclusive to complaining, and no ones forcing anyone to read or care about panpipers whiny review.

 

[TrainDodger]

Even under the old system, there were meta shapes for ships. Pretty much the only reason why we have RP ships is because players often agree to stick to a system of honor rules and make their ships look like, y'know, actual ships, and not lumps of systems. Back in the day, it was a box, or a sphere. Now, it's a long stick, be it vertical, horizontal, lengthwise, or even diagonal. So what? Just because your ship's systems are long and skinny, who says you can't build a hull that's outsized on more than one axis? Enclosing extra volume with light hull has a large penalty to turning rate, true, but a small penalty to mass. And with the new turning rate bonus due to chambers, even the turning rate penalty isn't as big of a deal as before.

 

[kulbolen]

while theers a little truth to that... most people are motivated by their own wants, not an honor system. they fly ships that are ship shaped because they actually like ships.

the old system let people do this without near as much penalty. you could still get max power out of any decent size ship of any shape. only real sacrifices were to dmg mitigation from being less dense or abusing hit mechanics, and most players dont really know a lot about that.