Interested in a baby-sized server ?

    Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Olxinos, Apr 18, 2017.

    ?

    Would you be interested ? (multiple answers allowed)

    1. Interesting, I'd definitely give it a go!

      63.4%
    2. Interesting, I'm not sure I'd actually play though

      17.1%
    3. I probably won't play there, but why not?

      7.3%
    4. I don't really like it, I don't think it'd catch on

      2.4%
    5. Hate the idea, I can't see it being successfull at all

      2.4%
    6. Config changes sound awesome, I'd try everything!

      7.3%
    7. Some config changes sound interesting, I've actually wanted to test a couple ones

      22.0%
    8. Minor changes might be good, but I wouldn't alter anything weapon, power, shield or block related

      4.9%
    9. Config changes really bother me, I think all servers should be vanilla

      0 vote(s)
      0.0%
    10. If it's not vanilla, I won't play, period.

      0 vote(s)
      0.0%
    11. Other

      14.6%
    Multiple votes are allowed.
    1. EMC007

      EMC007 The guy who's always in way over his head

      Joined:
      Aug 8, 2014
      Messages:
      128

      Oh, yeah, no, I didn't mean that I wanted a high server speed, I don't enjoy that either because it makes it nearly impossible to stop your ship, and then you enter the physics-breaking territory of the game, which is no fun for anyone.

      I was just saying that we don't want sectors to be TOO big, because, like someone else said earlier, people won't be anywhere near as interactive with eachother, and then we might as well be playing alone.
       
      • Like Like x 2
    2. Treefolk

      Treefolk The Clueless

      Joined:
      Apr 4, 2017
      Messages:
      21
      I was actually discussing something along these lines with a buddy tonight. I'd like to see a server that some how managed ship size in such a manner to keep PVP balanced and interesting (whether that's by capping ship mass, enforcing a "factional population system" that tracked and capped the total amount of mass a faction could field (scaling via number of members and systems claimed, this would require something in the back end to actually function) or some other method). My main hurdle getting into PVP involves the lack of meta-game counter-play (both in the tracking/hunting/sneaking game and the simplicity of defenses).

      Coupled with this is something needs to be done about homebases, its good that they break the cycle of camping/etc but they act as such a deterrent for PvP that its slightly ridiculous (although there are some funny stories about counter abuse I've tripped across). As with many other games, this is a small, fast moving, evasive topic to pin down in anyway that makes everyone happy and isn't just a bog of compromise.
       
      • Like Like x 1
    3. Napther

      Napther Grumpy builder of Kaiju Design Initiative

      Joined:
      Feb 7, 2015
      Messages:
      178
      This is actually somewhat interesting, though I concurr with the 50k blocks/5k Mass consensus. However I am unsure how this config reacts with Docked Entities. Making a max sized ship then docking titan-class turrets to bypass the system... Wont be fun.

      Although with such small numbers of blocks in use, replacing things after a 1 on 1 encounter would be annoying more than tedious. However it then becomes a case of Spam2Win for fleet and AI ships. And replacing 30 small ships that cost as much as a larger one is going to be annoying.

      Should probably also limit "Exploit-tech" to just chain-drives. And add a clear directive that all ships must have Aesthetics or become impounded

      Unlike Uncapped servers, your astro Inventory can easily hold emergency material and ships/miners that can be spawned in the event of a TFW, Total Faction Wipe (Or, some other cheese homebase removal) , to start mining operations and get back some level of stuff within a day or so.
       
    4. Matt_Bradock

      Matt_Bradock The Shrink

      Joined:
      Aug 4, 2013
      Messages:
      596
      I assume the mass limit applies to total mass of the ship in which case turrets and docked modules, even rail doors, are included, so that won't be an issue. Fleet spamming is an issue to handle indeed, but repairs shouldn't be - I usually don't even bother repairing, just deconstruct the damaged ship in the 'yard and fill the BP again.
       
    5. Olxinos

      Olxinos French fry. Caution: very salty!

      Joined:
      May 7, 2015
      Messages:
      151
      The_OwlThe_Owl To be honest, I haven't really thought of it. Faction points might be more interesting to tweak but I don't really know where the balance stands currently (I mean, about FPs). I know that Elwyn Eternity 2 tried a different system where members would cost FPs and claimed systems gave FPs rather than the opposite but I don't know how well that fared for them.
      By default, I'm likely to keep the vanilla "principle" with tweaked values so that factions quickly go into negative if there aren't enough active players (to limit "parasitic one-man factions"). But if you have good arguments for a smarter system (EE2's system or another), I'm willing to listen.

      Shhh!
      Well yes, indeed, this is Starmade we're talking about, there certainly are ways of bypassing the cap (and yes, last I checked, this simple method unfortunately works... I wish they had limited mass/blockcount including docked entities, maybe that'll come in a later update).
      Anyway, I would probably have had to enforce these rules manually were people to try to be clever and cheat. At least, it should be easy enough to check if someone is or was cheating by intentionally exceeding the mass cap.

      Fleets might indeed be a (legit) issue. I don't know if we currently have the necessary tools to limit their abuse.

      Ah, another word about the power capacity change I was talking about earlier. I won't do it. I still think it'd be a nice balance change, but I think there are too many players which deem it problematic. They don't seem to be a majority (not a clear one at least), but I can't afford to deter too many players from playing.
       
    6. Az14el

      Az14el Lord Procrastinator General

      Joined:
      Apr 25, 2015
      Messages:
      647
      Define :D
       
      • Agree Agree x 1
    7. Napther

      Napther Grumpy builder of Kaiju Design Initiative

      Joined:
      Feb 7, 2015
      Messages:
      178
      AKA, full hull and decoration, so simple geometric shapes with no extra fancy bits are going to be frowned. You know, the usual stuff that defines a "ship".

      Although, Miners... Miners, support ships, and starter ships being the exception to the rule due to limited resources... even though selling off the hand picked resources off a roid is enough for most small ships in credits
      --- Updated post (merge), Apr 21, 2017, Original Post Date: Apr 21, 2017 ---
      I meant more in terms of resources, a Player can keep a handle on a 30k mass ship and in keeping the majority of it intact at most times, but 30 1k mass ships (well, 29, as 1 is piloted) will bugger off and do their own thing sometimes...

      and spawning and fleeting up dozens of ships can be a bit annoying. Bloody wish we can link factories to Shipyards to auto-generate the items from a raw stockpile...
       
    8. Az14el

      Az14el Lord Procrastinator General

      Joined:
      Apr 25, 2015
      Messages:
      647
      damn rip me
       
      • Agree Agree x 1
    9. kulbolen

      Joined:
      Jan 4, 2015
      Messages:
      363
      docked stuff is part of the ship mass limit... and theres a pretty simple way (for the server owner) to force the server to recheck on a restart for entities above the limit who tried to skirt the rules. but this is a legitimate concern that you could probably argue as a suspendable or bannable offense, as it violates the entire spirit of the server.

      shipyards: a few clicks, full ship fixed. large fleets become tedious to match being powerful, although i find ai too stupid to be worth the effort against people who know what theyre doing (exceptions to large slow ships, but there wont be any on this server)

      if fleet spam is so op, it probably *shouldnt* be easy to set up an autorig for it... except it is. you can 90% automate fleet building, and fleeting a group of ships of any size only takes a few seconds.

      this is subjective... what is "exploit-tech?" youve accused me of exploiting for having ...a self powered turret.

      otoh, itd be perfectly reasonable to ban things that destabilize servers or are obvious exploits like placing pieces of your ship far away in other sectors, unbreakable warheads, lag bomb logic, etc.


      this will kill the server. everyone has different ideas about what ships look good.
       
      • Agree Agree x 2
      • Funny Funny x 1
    10. Nickizzy

      Joined:
      Nov 30, 2015
      Messages:
      806
      It must have greebling. Besides, if armor is buffed, and if shields are maybe nerfed a bit, then armor is a necessity.
      For this reason, I wish that stations could have separate mass limits so they could hold and power large enough shipyards.
       
    11. Arkudo

      Arkudo Somtaaw

      Joined:
      Oct 1, 2013
      Messages:
      294
      Errrr You want to nerf shield and buff armor at small ship sizes [less 50 meters] REALLY?

      You know the current combat at small sntities is the only you are going to see balanced with the current rules correct? If you need a big explanation about my point only ask about it, but is going to be numbers + Math stuff.
       
    12. Brokengauge

      Joined:
      Mar 3, 2015
      Messages:
      400
      I am not crazy about "must have greebling" as this should be up to each individual person
       
      • Agree Agree x 1
    13. Matt_Bradock

      Matt_Bradock The Shrink

      Joined:
      Aug 4, 2013
      Messages:
      596
      ...Nerf shields on small ships. Right. I could go on for days why that is a bad idea. At 3K mass cap, you can't have layered armor or buffer zones, at 3K mass cap if you lose shields then every system block a shot takes out, will hurt. A lot more than on a large ship, because you don't have as many of them. Every single system block counts, and it counts for a lot, as well as the mass of heavier armor takes so much away from vaulable blocks it's hardly worth using. Also, an armor block protects as much. A block. A single shield cap and recharger already produces a force field around the entire vessel, docked entities included. A damage buffer that also regenerates over time, unlike armor which cannot even be repaired on field, only at a shop, or a station with a shop module.
      Armor is your last resort, not your primary line of defense. Especially if you don't want to deconstruct your ship after the battle even if you won.

      On another topic: Bite-Sized Starmade is my suggestion for servername if you launch.
       
      • Like Like x 1
    14. Jake_Lancia

      Jake_Lancia Official Source of Blame

      Joined:
      Oct 2, 2013
      Messages:
      707
      Small ships actually have an inherent buff to armour, at least if fighting against other small ships. Not much at those size ranges can properly penetrate advanced or even passive-enhanced standard armour. See: NFD Triathlon. There's no need to buff amour further - it'll literally make the small ships nigh-unkillable by other small ships. Nerfing shields is also an incredibly bad idea, for all reasons above.
       
      • Agree Agree x 1
    15. kulbolen

      Joined:
      Jan 4, 2015
      Messages:
      363
      i agree with you, but i think youll find that specialized pvp ships could break the armor rule. at 3k mass, i have no trouble penetrating several layers of adv armor per sot on rapid fire guns. however its still a much larger benefit at that mass range than it is in bigger ships. i prefer fast, light, offensive ships, whether armor is valuable or not.

      agree. stations should have at least double mass cap of ships. shipyards in particular dont weigh all that much but giving stations a half chance in hell of defending themselves from a 1-2 player attack might be nice, sans warheads anyway.

      forced aesthetics is a terrbile idea and will kill the server. shields dont need a nerf at small scales for amror to be strong, it already is strong... but some people prefer to be light and fragile. besides, 0 ahp systembricks have literally never won a major documented pvp engagement, so its really not a concern imo. nothing is a necessity, but "hulled" ships are already encouraged by the game mechanics, because some measure of ahp is really, really useful.
       
      • Like Like x 1
      • Agree Agree x 1
    16. Matt_Bradock

      Matt_Bradock The Shrink

      Joined:
      Aug 4, 2013
      Messages:
      596
      Actually it is more than possible to make punch-through cannons with even a decent fire rate at the 3K mass range that cut shred of advanced armor, I even have a corvette like that. You are right in the way that, for a second, I forgot about the global system block damage resistance armor HP offers. For that reason, an unhulled systembrick will literally only last as long as its shields, because the moment those drop, it'll be torn apart. And sometimes that little extra time the armor HP gives you before overheating can make and break a tight PvP battle, but in PvE, you rather want high enough shield capacity so you can survive the standard pirate encounter unscathed.
       
      • Like Like x 1
    17. MacThule

      MacThule Rocket Man

      Joined:
      Jan 31, 2015
      Messages:
      890

      Also capping ships at 1/10th stations mass would give stations a nice little edge.

      I think it's a great idea; and I think the config changes are interesting. I would be concerned that simultaneously nerfing power reactors while buffing auxiliaries would quickly obsolete reactors completely... which may not be a terrible thing, but I think that would be the outcome of those two changes in conjunction.

      At any rate, any mass limit under 50K sounds great, and for best PvP performance I'm with the people suggesting 5K-10K caps. But you can always start low and lift it later to see what happens, if you start off high then slash it you'll upset people more, IMO.

      Let me know when it's up and running - I'm very interested to do some testing on a server with mass limits.
       
      #57 MacThule, Apr 24, 2017
      Last edited: Apr 24, 2017
      • Agree Agree x 1
    18. Nickizzy

      Joined:
      Nov 30, 2015
      Messages:
      806
      ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ If you watch the Expanse series then your ships are more ugly, greebling seems a good midpoint for asthetics, effort, and functionality.

      Idk how to do small ships. I just wanted to make a skin around ships more important.
       
    19. MacThule

      MacThule Rocket Man

      Joined:
      Jan 31, 2015
      Messages:
      890
      "Forced aesthetics" is fascist and completely absurd and brings nothing of value to a PvP server. Who is the judge? Who has final say? Aesthetics are by definition entirely subjective, and there are hundreds of legitimate theories about what spacecraft might actually look like and variation in taste is infinite.

      Imagine suggesting forcing players to have PvP features like jammers & turrets on every ship, minimum shield:mass ratios, minimum armor:system HP ratios - it would be a needless nightmare and those are actually quantifiable and concrete. If you want to force people to build the way you like you should probably have your own server where you can do that and be the ultimate judge of what is "acceptable" decoration and style. Of course no one would play because people want creative freedom, but...

      No thank you... I've seen that rule in play before and what it ends up being is that if someone gets owned by anyone else they cry foul over how "crappy" their enemy's ship was and it's never pretty enough when it beats you. When mods side with the winning ship the loser starts making accusations about unfairness. It can only go to bad places. That is absolutely not conducive PvP and a terrible idea for a server conceived as being so entirely focused on facilitating PvP that the size limit is micro.

      There are loads of creative, RP and build servers out there for forcing your vision of beauty on the universe, not to mention SP Creative. The notion has no place in this.
       
      • Agree Agree x 3
    20. Napther

      Napther Grumpy builder of Kaiju Design Initiative

      Joined:
      Feb 7, 2015
      Messages:
      178
      I find it ironic the sect of people so viciously lashing out against the term "Forced Aesthetics", and not even acknowledging the simple manifestations of this "rule."

      Not everyone has time (nor patience) to build large, fully set up RP vessels with complete aesthetics and have top quality weapons as they can.

      Therefore ships that arent a simple hulled (Or multi coloured motherboard monstrosity of puke) would be allowed. Shapes, etc. Just a general effort to not make the ship a "pure" cuboid (Exception: True borg cube), sphere (Exception, True Borg Sphere), wedge, Barbell (Though there was this one funny time there was this awful one of this ship shape in Ares-Mod server that lost vs something less than 1/2 mass) , stick or collection of sticks, etc>

      TLDR
      Forced aesthetics can be as simple as an expanded "no doomcubes/breadnaughts" scenario.
       
    Loading...