Is 2.0 power optimization actually meta?

    Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by MacThule, Jan 17, 2018.

    1. Zoolimar

      Joined:
      Aug 14, 2017
      Messages:
      286
      It's not equivalent mass it's equivalent thrust at same power.

      If you want the same thrust at same power but one of the ships is more massive it will need to have more drives. And as power is constant it will mean cutting down on weapons or shields or both.

      So you will have two ships with same power and same thrust but the tube will have more powerful shields/weapons and weight less. It's a simple ratio. If the power is constant you can power only so many systems.
       
      • Like Like x 1
    2. MacThule

      Joined:
      Jan 31, 2015
      Messages:
      1,588
      True, but this is nothing like a difference in power generation.

      Also note that your 16% figure is still a function of the scaling of thrusters, which relates back to the issue of total mass. Larger ships tend to be slower? Surprise! They also tend to be less fragile, BTW.

      And we go back to "but then they aren't equally powerful." No, and I never claimed they would be, but you can't numerically quantify the value of turn rate or an overall less fragile ship in your equation (well, turn rate, you can quantify, but demonstrating its value in application is difficult because playstyle becomes a (non-numerical) factor in the equation).

      Having 16% more shields doesn't translate to a whole lot anymore in terms of making your ship durable. Not if you are flying a glass reactor-bomb. In fact, I seem to recall exactly that being a pretty popular gripe lately.

      Coincidence?

      My whole point was that humping the numbers is leading into an efficiency trap where everyone is screaming "it's all dongs!" because they are locked into seeing building within the (obsolete) framework of constants that were much more meaningful under the old system, and aren't accepting that maybe those constants (looking at you, mass; shield regen) are not as relevant as they used to be. So... I think that restating the known formula (numbers) kind of misses the meaning.
       
      • Informative Informative x 2
    3. Magrim

      Joined:
      Jul 12, 2013
      Messages:
      295
      I mispoke in my previous statement, I meant to say efficiency not stability.

      So, what is stopping the longer ship from running it's stabs at reduced efficiency?


      edit: Removed the number because it was arbitrary;)
       
      #23 Magrim, Jan 18, 2018
      Last edited: Jan 18, 2018
      • Like Like x 1
      • Agree Agree x 1
    4. Captain Fortius

      Joined:
      Aug 10, 2013
      Messages:
      254
      Effi-Stabi-Stabby-Something is leaking out of my ears.

      Okay. Short ship can have same power as long ship if it uses more stabilizers.
      This is all much more complicated than it needs to be, and tangled my thoughts into a loop.
      I wish they scrapped this plan.

      +1 for the above post. What if the longer ship also uses more stabbyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyythe number you have dialed is currently wtf.

      Geez! What's wrong with a simple little power cube generating a simple little fixed amout of power, maybe a little more if they are in a group?
       
      • Agree Agree x 3
    5. MacThule

      Joined:
      Jan 31, 2015
      Messages:
      1,588
      I would love it so much if they just dropped stabilizers entirely and moved on to functional interior replacing chambers. Honestly though, I hate the way chambers have set efficiency rates way, way more than I hate any aspect of the new power so far.

      At the end of the day, I am... doubtful that they will change direction, so I have been experimenting with what we have and trying to understand how it might work rather than how it doesn't. I've voiced my agreement with removing stabs as a suggestion - I'll leave any further agitation on that point to others more optimistic than myself.

      I can be opposed to the new system and still look at it with an open mind. They aren't exclusive, and I'm not going to cling to an ideal when all indications are that an executive decision was made about this a year ago and not 1,000 objectors have undone that.

      With some major tweaks, the new system might be workable... the more time I spend at it, the more I think it's possible that Schema's response to all the constant problems with meta-building was to attempt to design a system that would be resistant to meta-building overall, rather than just fix one meta problem after another, infinitely.
       
      • Friendly Friendly x 1
    6. SkaireKrough

      Joined:
      Dec 29, 2014
      Messages:
      115
      If so he's nearly got that accomplished, best sure fire way to stop meta builders is to stop all builders.
       
      • Agree Agree x 2
      • Funny Funny x 1
    7. MacThule

      Joined:
      Jan 31, 2015
      Messages:
      1,588
      True! I doubt he would go so far on purpose, but the player base is definitely hit
       
      • Agree Agree x 1
    8. Magrim

      Joined:
      Jul 12, 2013
      Messages:
      295
      Surely we can all agree that a larger ship shoud be capable of producing more energy than a smaller ship. If that's true then p2.0 is going against that logic by establishing a ship's longest axis to be it's size. It doesn't matter if the mass difference or block count is doubled, the longer ship gens more power.

      This imbalance is inherent in the new power so there is no number tweak that can fix this. He can keep adding restriction after restriction chasing meta and force the players to build whatever he decides looks "normal," or he can determine the size/power output of a ship by, I don't know, the actual size of the ship, negating extreme meta and allowing players the freedom to build what they want.
       
      • Like Like x 1
    9. Zoolimar

      Joined:
      Aug 14, 2017
      Messages:
      286
      Rechecked some numbers. I was wrong. Forgot the changes made to the drives.

      There will be no 15-20% drop in reactor power due to drives. More like 3-5%, due to the fact that thrusters have gone from ~4 thrust per 30 energy to 8 thrust per 4 energy points.

      So surrounding your reactor with toroidal stabiliser groups or just using oversized stabilisers maybe very well be effective.
       
      • Informative Informative x 2
      • Like Like x 1
    10. MacThule

      Joined:
      Jan 31, 2015
      Messages:
      1,588
      Thank you for checking, sir! I appreciate that. I had read a discussion last week about changes to the thrust mass ratios, but didn't have time to dig up the specifics for the sake of argument. All I knew was that apparently mass wasn't nearly the issue it used to be, and my testing was making the multi-dimensional stabilizers perform very competitively, when factors of overall resilience and maneuverability were considered.

      I think that part of the issue right now is that undocumented game updates seem to be coming through in the dev build as Schema tinkers with the engine to work out the kinks and earnestly tries to make his vision work with a genuine effort... before conceding failure and reverting to old power to mollify the masses if necessary. I can grant him that. For a while.

      Though I still think power 2 should start a second version of SM rather than replacing old power.

      Until we get a solid build of some kind, I am just going to try taking all the numbers with a grain of salt, experimenting with out-of-the-box (off-the-dong??) prototypes, and reporting anything potentially of interest on the dock.
       
      • Like Like x 1
    11. Neutromancer

      Joined:
      Jul 22, 2013
      Messages:
      4
      I know I'm late to this party but if you're not making a dong ship you're probably better off optimizing the distance between the stabs in all 3 axes, so if you have a cube ship, put the power in one corner and the stab in the opposite corner. Because Pythagoras or something.
      Routing the beam can be a measure to make the stab beam less predictable.
       
      • Like Like x 1
    12. GnomeKing

      Joined:
      Feb 21, 2015
      Messages:
      224
       
    13. Jebediah1

      Jebediah1 FlyingZeene_TNT, Emperor of NRE. (Scipio)

      Joined:
      Jun 12, 2017
      Messages:
      128
      Power 2.0 and weapons 3.0 killed the game entirely. Actually a disaster.

      everyone who liked starmade left, starmade servers never go over 5 players. Power 2.0 made PvP unfun and thanks to dumb shits like ed and Jin the game is effectively dead and has no hope of ever recovering.

      Replacing a mostly liked (I will admit it wasn't the best but more ideal then the current flaming pile of shit) power system with a broken system that encourages doomsticks and discourages creative thinking when making PvP ships was a horrible idea and if schine actually discussed it for 5 minutes this would've been seen. Actually, it was seen, we shot it down but it was still passed anyway.

      Then weapons 3.0 bashed the game on the head for the final time dealing the killing blow, by making the game into a fight of who shoots first. Damage is broke, chambers a lazy idea, ships are all fucking sticks (can't make anything else cuz integrity and reactor stabilization)

      This game is fake and gay hoem

      killed by
      - slow development
      - rp tards voicing down people who actually know what the hell they are talking about
      - incompetent development and poor planning.
      - lack of vision

      so much potential down the drain.
       
      #33 Jebediah1, Nov 8, 2018
      Last edited: Nov 8, 2018
      • Like Like x 6
    14. OfficialCoding

      OfficialCoding Currently Fleet Building

      Joined:
      Nov 8, 2017
      Messages:
      317
      I'm gonna dissect this one piece at a time
      This is because people are waiting for The Universe Update. When that drops a lot of people will come back, at least for a time.
      Power 2.0 does not encourage Doomsticks. You can place stabilizers on all 6 dimensions. You can give ships a tonne of stabilization without making them sticks or cubes.
      Yeah, Weapons 2.0 is kinda controversial. It did bring some sweet graphical updates though. It also brought increased shield bubble sizes, fixed some issues with Power 2.0 such as shields not recharging under fire, Tractor Beams, and other stuff. I do miss Damage Pulse, but it was kinda useless, more like a novelty weapon, at least to me.
      I have nothing to say to that.
      I could say the same thing about Meta PvPers and their exploits, and their unfun tactics and playstyle.
       
      • Like Like x 3
    15. Crashmaster

      Crashmaster I got N64 problems but a bitch ain't one

      Joined:
      Oct 18, 2013
      Messages:
      378
      It seems a weak argument to counter loose facts with pure supposition.

      I'm no expert but I think increasing your attackable profile and distributing stabilizers such that they are less efficient to armor is the reason that dispersed stabilizers are by default less optimal than a doomstick arrangement. Probably more to it then I know.

      I disagree, but since it is an emotional argument as opposed to a logical one; what's the point?

      Wait and see seems the only option left. Not a bad one.
       
      #35 Crashmaster, Nov 8, 2018
      Last edited: Nov 9, 2018
      • Like Like x 2
    16. Serene-Switch

      Joined:
      Mar 22, 2016
      Messages:
      35
      Is anyone seriously JUST figuring this out now?! IM I REALLY THE ONLY PERSON WHO PLAYS THIS GAME ANYMORE *sigh*
       
      #36 Serene-Switch, Nov 9, 2018
      Last edited: Nov 9, 2018
      • Like Like x 1
    17. Jebediah1

      Jebediah1 FlyingZeene_TNT, Emperor of NRE. (Scipio)

      Joined:
      Jun 12, 2017
      Messages:
      128
      every time I read anything you say i get brain tumors.

      A. The universe update isn't going to fix a broken power system, the game averages less then 20 people a day, many of the PvP server dwellers are completely done with starmade, so am I, I've lost all hope. There is no recovering from this point without black magic. What's the point of a good universe if basic game functions are broke.

      B. are you in a complete state of denial? Power 2.0 DIRECTLY forces you to build sticks, it's the meta, and it's not fun. No ship diversity just fucking sticks because schine has no iq, do you know how boring it is to just get into fights where whoever shoots first wins? Compared to 1.0 where you had long drawn out fights with shield tankers warping in and out and then providing consistent, avoidable damage. Large pretty ships were completely viable in PvP, you didn't need an ugly stick to be good, as long as you can properly system your mind can do whatever. It's b o r i n g.

      You could build in all 6 dimensions, so I imagine you'd love to be a massive target and slow turn speed.

      C. listen here you mongol I'm not sure if you realize that the PvP community doesn't like the exploits either and we wanted them fixed, but then there are a select few people that worship 2.0 like actual retards despite having no actual game experience and completely ignoring it's obvious Flaws. These people then voice down schine sucking their toes getting absolutely nothing done.

      **how about we make balance PvP the main focus in this game, since it's literally the only thing this game offers currently. There is no PvE.**

      If schine can't even nail this in 5 years then what makes you think proper PvE would do better.

      We don't like: Gay tactics that shouldn't work
      Unbalance
      Lack of weapon diversity and some weapons being stupidly overpowered thanks to exploits that don't ever get fixed.

      how the hell doesn't this get through your brain.
       
      • Like Like x 4
    18. aceface

      Joined:
      Jun 20, 2013
      Messages:
      2,725
      thats a load of B-15 truth bombs right there ^
       
      #38 aceface, Nov 9, 2018
      Last edited: Nov 9, 2018
    19. OfficialCoding

      OfficialCoding Currently Fleet Building

      Joined:
      Nov 8, 2017
      Messages:
      317
      Alright. Lets dissect this.
      And yet you are still alive.
      Power System is not broken. It works just fine. It is actually better than Power 1.0 because you don't need to cram your ships full of Reactors and Capacitors and all the other systems.
      Watch literally any non-meta Starmader on YouTube. They don't build sticks. They build actual ships using the Stabilizer Dimension System that was added like 2 weeks after The Power Update. Sticks and Cubes are not the only viable shape.
      OK. I didn't really do PvP in P1.0, so I can't really give this a proper rebuttal. But I'll take your word for it.
      Turn Rate Chamber, Only in Power 2.0!
      Ad Hominem attacks. Yay!
      Tell that to the Meta Players who used XBB exploits and the like.
      No, 2.0 players have plenty of experience. 1.0 players do too. Just because someone likes 2.0 does not mean that they are stupid, or anything. They like a particular play style.
      How about we make PvE AND PvP the main focus of this game? PvE can be very fun when a game is actually polished. PvP can also be very fun. They are both fun, just in different ways.
      I have nothing to say to this.
      It's called an alpha game.
      Wow like 1.0 was really balanced. Like Cannon Pulse could ever hit anything.
      I could say the same thing to you.
      Almost forgot. If you are done and have lost all hope, then why are you complaining here. If there is no hope that the game is ever going to be fixed, then why are you still here?
       
      • Like Like x 4
    20. TheDerpGamerX

      TheDerpGamerX Lord of Lawnmowers

      Joined:
      Sep 18, 2017
      Messages:
      143
      People said this about Weapons 3.0, and Power 2.0. It's the same thing with new universe
       
      • Like Like x 1
    Loading...