Read by Schine Mobile Shipyards (shipyards on ships)

[whooplaah]

What if the Capital Ship has to go to 'station mode' in order to use station-only modules, and then back to 'ship-mode' to begin flying again?

If you have a mobile ship with jump gates, factories, and shipyards on it it can unblanace the game. Fly it down to the surface of a planet to mine resources, crank out ships, and immediately warp-gate them out. Or build a huge warp gate on the ship and use it like a net to warp the enemy to a black-hole. That would be interesting, but hard to balance. It seems unfair to mine a planet directly from a space station, right? That's one reason build mode stopped providing ores when you deconstruct planets.

But what if it took 10 minutes for a ship to go from ship mode to station mode (or back)? That's plenty of time for a sector owner (should they be online) to mount an attack (and lets say drain the ship's shields by 10% or more to halt the process). It would also allow the server to check that the ship-to-station isn't too close to another station/planet/whatever, and to inform sector owners that a different faction is attempting to construct a station.

It would make it harder for players to just move space stations into new sectors they don't own (or that are owned by others). It would also allow for ship yards to construct space stations (cause now the ship can fly to a location and become the base of a station). This would also address the issue of resource depletion: if you've mined out a sector then you can fly your station to a new location (if you have the time to spare). Are you loosing this faction war? Well convert your station to a ship and retreat. Loose the sector, but keep the constructs.

This can change the way sector wars work. You can fly ships in, convert them to stations/shipyards and crank out another to do the same thing. But you have to make sure that you can protect the ship during the 10-minute conversion.

In station mode the ship can't turn or maneuver, and in ship mode it can't use factories/gates/ship yards. In ship mode it can't be protected by home-base status, but it takes time to change to a station that can get that status. And let's face it, if during the 10-minutes it takes to convert from a ship to a station the enemy couldn't drain 10% of your shields then making the ship home-base/invulnerable isn't going to change much.




The question that this creates, though, is whether any ship can become a station, or if a ship has to have a specific (and expensive) type of core to do this...

 

[StormWing0]

10min is too long but like the idea to say the least. The 30sec timer on the reboot could be a saner way to go but make it like say 1 to 2 minutes since I don't know a player tolerant enough to wait 10min for a simple mode change.

 

[Blaza612]

What if the Capital Ship has to go to 'station mode' in order to use station-only modules, and then back to 'ship-mode' to begin flying again?

If you have a mobile ship with jump gates, factories, and shipyards on it it can unblanace the game. Fly it down to the surface of a planet to mine resources, crank out ships, and immediately warp-gate them out. Or build a huge warp gate on the ship and use it like a net to warp the enemy to a black-hole. That would be interesting, but hard to balance. It seems unfair to mine a planet directly from a space station, right? That's one reason build mode stopped providing ores when you deconstruct planets.

But what if it took 10 minutes for a ship to go from ship mode to station mode (or back)? That's plenty of time for a sector owner (should they be online) to mount an attack (and lets say drain the ship's shields by 10% or more to halt the process). It would also allow the server to check that the ship-to-station isn't too close to another station/planet/whatever, and to inform sector owners that a different faction is attempting to construct a station.

It would make it harder for players to just move space stations into new sectors they don't own (or that are owned by others). It would also allow for ship yards to construct space stations (cause now the ship can fly to a location and become the base of a station). This would also address the issue of resource depletion: if you've mined out a sector then you can fly your station to a new location (if you have the time to spare). Are you loosing this faction war? Well convert your station to a ship and retreat. Loose the sector, but keep the constructs.

This can change the way sector wars work. You can fly ships in, convert them to stations/shipyards and crank out another to do the same thing. But you have to make sure that you can protect the ship during the 10-minute conversion.

In station mode the ship can't turn or maneuver, and in ship mode it can't use factories/gates/ship yards. In ship mode it can't be protected by home-base status, but it takes time to change to a station that can get that status. And let's face it, if during the 10-minutes it takes to convert from a ship to a station the enemy couldn't drain 10% of your shields then making the ship home-base/invulnerable isn't going to change much.




The question that this creates, though, is whether any ship can become a station, or if a ship has to have a specific (and expensive) type of core to do this...

While the idea is interesting, I personally don't like it and might not be doable (don't know how the game is written, the way I think it is is simply based on playing the game)

I want to be able to do everything on my ship, and not have to make it a station. There are much better ways of balancing capital ships then making it have to become a station in order to use it's things. Examples:

And again, I don't want to have everything that's station only to be on capital ships, I want stations to still be more efficient in order to provide an incentive to use stations. I would prefer that everything from stations added to ships, but in their own unique way that makes them less efficient but provides players with a new experience to compensate.

Respawning for example could use the clone system I proposed a while back, where you have to make and store clones, and then you can respawn to them, allowing ship respawning, but requires resources, space and time to do. Stations could stay with the undeathinator, making stations the superior respawning system.

Shops don't really need much of a buff/debuff as there's not much that can really be changed too significantly, what could be a possibility is that station shop modules have a significantly greater storage space than ships, or you'd have to use your cargo space for the entirety of the shop space.

Factories, I'm not sure what to change to make them superior other than making station factories faster.

Not only that, but as I've stated, I don't think it's doable in the game, due to this reason:

But at the moment there are two types of entities, stations and ships. What makes them different? One can't move, it's bound to the universal grid that every station is set to. Ships have there own independent grid that can rotate in a variety of directions, the core allows us to determine whether something is bound to the universal grid, or its own grid, thus a ship cannot become a station.

Attempting to move an entity from it's own grid to a universal grid would be a nightmare, as you need to check that every single block is in it's correct place, orientation etc.

 

[Megacrafter127]

Not only that, but as I've stated, I don't think it's doable in the game, due to this reason:



Attempting to move an entity from it's own grid to a universal grid would be a nightmare, as you need to check that every single block is in it's correct place, orientation etc.

false. Just like ships, stations have their own grid. The difference is, that the location vector of a station is not allowed to ever be changed, thus making it unable to move.
This can be proven by docking a station to a ship http://starmadedock.net/threads/20202

 

[Blaza612]

false. Just like ships, stations have their own grid. The difference is, that the location vector of a station is not allowed to ever be changed, thus making it unable to move.
This can be proven by docking a station to a ship http://starmadedock.net/threads/20202

Was not aware of that, that would make it significantly easier to change a station to a ship, and vice versa.

However, gameplay wise, doing capital ships in that way really isn't that good.

 

[Shalmon]

In Space Engineers you have small ships and large ships/stations. The only difference between large ships and stations is that ships can move.
You can convert stations into ships at any time and convert them back.

Since StarMade is a sandbox as well, I don't want to be forced to do things in a certain way. Forcing me to collect a million credits for a station which gives no advantages besides no gravitation compared to a planet and not able to move compared to an asteroid. That is not what I pay a million credits for.

I don't mind seperating stations and ships, as long as there is a reason for it. I am fine with stations required for claiming space (imagine faction blocks on your ship, claiming space wherever you go and letting everyone know on the map where you are :D) but there should be some huge bonus for putting a station up (more defense,offense, faster construction, maybe better mining when you drag asteroids to the station.

Most of the functions that are station-only at the moment (refining,factories, shipyard) should be avaible on ships as well.
Others should stay station-only, like jump-gates. If you want to use your huge ship to bring a ship into a sector far away, dock it on the ship and use a jump drive.

 

[Blaza612]

In Space Engineers you have small ships and large ships/stations. The only difference between large ships and stations is that ships can move.
You can convert stations into ships at any time and convert them back.

Since StarMade is a sandbox as well, I don't want to be forced to do things in a certain way. Forcing me to collect a million credits for a station which gives no advantages besides no gravitation compared to a planet and not able to move compared to an asteroid. That is not what I pay a million credits for.

I don't mind seperating stations and ships, as long as there is a reason for it. I am fine with stations required for claiming space (imagine faction blocks on your ship, claiming space wherever you go and letting everyone know on the map where you are :D) but there should be some huge bonus for putting a station up (more defense,offense, faster construction, maybe better mining when you drag asteroids to the station.

Most of the functions that are station-only at the moment (refining,factories, shipyard) should be avaible on ships as well.
Others should stay station-only, like jump-gates. If you want to use your huge ship to bring a ship into a sector far away, dock it on the ship and use a jump drive.

I like the idea of adding a new way to get stations, which is sending a ship to create it. It could be a matter of it costs a million for the magical spawn block of spawning out of thin space, or turn a ship into a station for free.

 

[killerdude8]

Expect shipyards to be available in some capacity as an option for capital ships; so in the future you won't be entirely restricted to just space stations for your ship construction. But you'll need to work your way towards the construction of a capital ship. Other additional features will be available only to capital ships, (i.e. FTL) but the exact implementation of what makes capital ships a worthwhile investment vs the difficulty in working your way to constructing one is all still yet to be fully fleshed out.

Its good to know that its a planned feature, Hopefully it comes around to being implemented soon.

What if the Capital Ship has to go to 'station mode' in order to use station-only modules, and then back to 'ship-mode' to begin flying again?

If you have a mobile ship with jump gates, factories, and shipyards on it it can unblanace the game. Fly it down to the surface of a planet to mine resources, crank out ships, and immediately warp-gate them out. Or build a huge warp gate on the ship and use it like a net to warp the enemy to a black-hole. That would be interesting, but hard to balance. It seems unfair to mine a planet directly from a space station, right? That's one reason build mode stopped providing ores when you deconstruct planets.

But what if it took 10 minutes for a ship to go from ship mode to station mode (or back)? That's plenty of time for a sector owner (should they be online) to mount an attack (and lets say drain the ship's shields by 10% or more to halt the process). It would also allow the server to check that the ship-to-station isn't too close to another station/planet/whatever, and to inform sector owners that a different faction is attempting to construct a station.

It would make it harder for players to just move space stations into new sectors they don't own (or that are owned by others). It would also allow for ship yards to construct space stations (cause now the ship can fly to a location and become the base of a station). This would also address the issue of resource depletion: if you've mined out a sector then you can fly your station to a new location (if you have the time to spare). Are you loosing this faction war? Well convert your station to a ship and retreat. Loose the sector, but keep the constructs.

This can change the way sector wars work. You can fly ships in, convert them to stations/shipyards and crank out another to do the same thing. But you have to make sure that you can protect the ship during the 10-minute conversion.

In station mode the ship can't turn or maneuver, and in ship mode it can't use factories/gates/ship yards. In ship mode it can't be protected by home-base status, but it takes time to change to a station that can get that status. And let's face it, if during the 10-minutes it takes to convert from a ship to a station the enemy couldn't drain 10% of your shields then making the ship home-base/invulnerable isn't going to change much.




The question that this creates, though, is whether any ship can become a station, or if a ship has to have a specific (and expensive) type of core to do this...

This would entirely defeat the purpose of a mobile shipyard, Which is mobility. If I wanted to be stuck in one spot while building ships, I'd build a station and get the invulnerability bonus.

 

[Valck]

This would entirely defeat the purpose of a mobile shipyard, Which is mobility. If I wanted to be stuck in one spot while building ships, I'd build a station and get the invulnerability bonus.

If you built a station, you'd be eligible for invulnerability, but couldn't move it. Ever. Plus you'd need to build it in place, which may or may not be an option. With the proposed system, you'd get no invulnerability, but would not be permanently restricted to one location, and could prepare your structure in a safe location.

Maybe the whole concept of stations as an unmovable separate type of structure is something that ought to be reconsidered. What if stations were just ships with no or little propulsion (think positioning thrusters), and you'd need to anchor them somewhere to be able to use shipyards, factories etc.
If you want to move, you'd weigh anchor before you can move, and can't produce while mobile. The process of anchoring might take some time, both ways.

I think that might solve several problems in one go, like being unable to orient your station the way you want, or wanting to shift the center once you placed it. I'd be surprised if Schema hadn't considered this as well though, and suspect he has good reasons for things being the way they are.

 

[killerdude8]

If you built a station, you'd be eligible for invulnerability, but couldn't move it. Ever. Plus you'd need to build it in place, which may or may not be an option. With the proposed system, you'd get no invulnerability, but would not be permanently restricted to one location, and could prepare your structure in a safe location.

Maybe the whole concept of stations as an unmovable separate type of structure is something that ought to be reconsidered. What if stations were just ships with no or little propulsion (think positioning thrusters), and you'd need to anchor them somewhere to be able to use shipyards, factories etc.
If you want to move, you'd weigh anchor before you can move, and can't produce while mobile. The process of anchoring might take some time, both ways.

I think that might solve several problems in one go, like being unable to orient your station the way you want, or wanting to shift the center once you placed it. I'd be surprised if Schema hadn't considered this as well though, and suspect he has good reasons for things being the way they are.

I just don't see the point in hampering something that would already be a serious disadvantage, Immobilizing a ship during production wouldn't be a balancing factor, rather a pretty severe punishment, considering a mobile shipyard will have to power many more things than a station based one, thrusters, weapons, shields. Now on top of that with this idea, the ship is not invulnerable like a station and now incapable of maneuvering to avoid fire.

Like I said, the whole purpose of this idea is mobile shipyards, When you remove the mobile part, Then there is no purpose in it.

I do really like the idea of maneuvering thrusters for stations, Would be useful getting things JUST right.

 

[Valck]

Like I said, the whole purpose of this idea is mobile shipyards, When you remove the mobile part, Then there is no purpose in it.

I guess there are just different ideas of what "mobile" means. For me, this would be the equivalent of a mobile shipyard ("only" a mobile powerplant actually, but scaled up, that's what I see when hearing mobile shipyard/factory). It would be towed (or moved under own propulsion for gameplay reasons) to its destination, anchored, and only then brought online. If you wanted to move it, you'd first power it down (however long that takes for a nuclear reactor...), up anchor, and be towed to a new location. Not something you'd pull off in a minute, and definitely not producing anything while under way.

I can see having limited production capability on vessels like carriers or base ships, but here too I think production should be a comparatively slow process, replacing lost units while at anchor or maybe even in transit, between battles, but not spewing out drones or battleships while in active combat. And you'd definitely need a support fleet for protection and construction supplies.

That said, I'm not happy with the current construction speed of (stationary) shipyards either. I think it should take days at the very least to produce a rated ship, preferably longer, but I doubt I can garner much support for this ; )

 

[Daniel L.]

Part of the concern is that placing space station services onto a ship means the entire game can be played without owning a permanent base. Space stations should be a more efficient place to use factories, claim territory, and build ships. If shipyards, among other systems, are placed onto a ship there needs to be a balancing factor which is why they are not in yet.

I disagree. A players ship should be his/hers home, other then a expendable transport and battleship,
I see ships as a permanent occupation for the player with living Accommodation's and all sorts of stuff other than something you hop into when you want to go somewhere. A station on the other hand should be a heavy stronghold that the player can retreat into for defense. And while I do think that stations should have more advantages over ships I don't believe they should have this many, perhaps mobile shipyard should have a mass limit restricting the player to small fighters and shuttles, and factories on ships should be restricted to basic and standard with a refinery, that way it would be possible for drone replenishment and resource refining.

Sorry if I might have sounded rude, I just get riled by the subject of station superiority.

 

[Blaza612]

I guess there are just different ideas of what "mobile" means. For me, this would be the equivalent of a mobile shipyard ("only" a mobile powerplant actually, but scaled up, that's what I see when hearing mobile shipyard/factory). It would be towed (or moved under own propulsion for gameplay reasons) to its destination, anchored, and only then brought online. If you wanted to move it, you'd first power it down (however long that takes for a nuclear reactor...), up anchor, and be towed to a new location. Not something you'd pull off in a minute, and definitely not producing anything while under way.

I can see having limited production capability on vessels like carriers or base ships, but here too I think production should be a comparatively slow process, replacing lost units while at anchor or maybe even in transit, between battles, but not spewing out drones or battleships while in active combat. And you'd definitely need a support fleet for protection and construction supplies.

That said, I'm not happy with the current construction speed of (stationary) shipyards either. I think it should take days at the very least to produce a rated ship, preferably longer, but I doubt I can garner much support for this ; )

The problem with your balancing, is that you're trying to rebalance something that's already balanced. Stations and ship being able to do the same things would be equal, and thus mostly balanced. What you're saying is that we must severely restrict players to having to use a station no matter what, even if you have a ship. I'd rather a station than a semi mobile ship. As I've already said, if you want to balance it, then provide slight changes that provide a new experience to the things that need to be balanced.

And again, I don't want to have everything that's station only to be on capital ships, I want stations to still be more efficient in order to provide an incentive to use stations. I would prefer that everything from stations added to ships, but in their own unique way that makes them less efficient but provides players with a new experience to compensate.

Respawning for example could use the clone system I proposed a while back, where you have to make and store clones, and then you can respawn to them, allowing ship respawning, but requires resources, space and time to do. Stations could stay with the undeathinator, making stations the superior respawning system.

Shops don't really need much of a buff/debuff as there's not much that can really be changed too significantly, what could be a possibility is that station shop modules have a significantly greater storage space than ships, or you'd have to use your cargo space for the entirety of the shop space.

Factories, I'm not sure what to change to make them superior other than making station factories faster.

However, to for warp gates, I think that they shouldn't be on capital ships, but instead, the warp drive range is significantly increased, maybe 24-32 sectors, or maybe more.

And to compensate for the fact that you wont be able to claim systems in a ship, give capital ships a buff to mining yield.

But the point is, don't restrict those who want to be nomads to having to act like not nomads, allow them to be nomads, while still providing an incentive to use a station (that doesn't screw over nomads).

 

[Valck]

The problem with your balancing, is that you're trying to rebalance something that's already balanced. Stations and ship being able to do the same things would be equal, and thus mostly balanced. What you're saying is that we must severely restrict players to having to use a station no matter what, even if you have a ship. I'd rather a station than a semi mobile ship. As I've already said, if you want to balance it, then provide slight changes that provide a new experience to the things that need to be balanced.

Funny how you're telling me something that isn't even in game yet is already balanced...

Stations and ships are not able to do the same things - ships move, stations produce, and one station per faction can be invulnerable if that faction chooses to, if the server even allows it. You want to shift that balance so ships can move and produce, leaving stations on the short end of the equation, calling that "already balanced".

If your idea of "balance" is different from mine, that's fine. Just don't tell me I'm wrong, because the whole point of this discussion is to find arguments for a balance that both you and I can agree upon.

 

[killerdude8]

Immobilizing a ship during production is not a balancing factor though.

And as I said before, A station doesnt have to power things like weapons, shields or thrusters, Which means it can dedicated its entire power supply to production, While a ship still has to balance an array of weapons, thrusters, shields and other systems all the while being vulnerable to damage. So on top of a limited power supply, lack of invulnerability, You want production ships to be completely immobilized? That would be unbalanced.

 

[Valck]

A station doesnt have to power things like weapons, shields or thrusters

Correction: A station doesn't have to power thrusters. The offset being that it cannot move.
Not having to power weapons or shields would be the designer's choice.

 

[killerdude8]

Correction: A station doesn't have to power thrusters. The offset being that it cannot move.
Not having to power weapons or shields would be the designer's choice.

Designers choice or not, It still doesnt change the fact you do not need weapons or shields to make your station safe.

 

[Blaza612]

Funny how you're telling me something that isn't even in game yet is already balanced...

Stations and ships are not able to do the same things - ships move, stations produce, and one station per faction can be invulnerable if that faction chooses to, if the server even allows it. You want to shift that balance so ships can move and produce, leaving stations on the short end of the equation, calling that "already balanced".

If your idea of "balance" is different from mine, that's fine. Just don't tell me I'm wrong, because the whole point of this discussion is to find arguments for a balance that both you and I can agree upon.

I'm not calling your idea wrong, I'm saying there's a problem with your balancing. The idea of balanced is that they're both equal, stations more so than ships with the reasons killerdude8 has explained. The only advantage ships get is mobility, which really isn't as good as say the ability to claim a system.

Now I understand that stations won't be used if ships are capable of completely replacing them, that's why we still provide an incentive, and that's what I said. Stations should always have an advantage over ships, whether it be invulnerability or being able to do stuff more efficiently, stations are a part of the game, they need to be used. My Core Overhaul adds another possible incentive to creating stations, as it provides an alternate way that's easier to use.

Now this is the third time I've had to quote this, so actually read them. I would prefer that everything from stations added to ships, but in their own unique way that makes them less efficient but provides players with a new experience to compensate.

And again, I don't want to have everything that's station only to be on capital ships, I want stations to still be more efficient in order to provide an incentive to use stations. I would prefer that everything from stations added to ships, but in their own unique way that makes them less efficient but provides players with a new experience to compensate.

Respawning for example could use the clone system I proposed a while back, where you have to make and store clones, and then you can respawn to them, allowing ship respawning, but requires resources, space and time to do. Stations could stay with the undeathinator, making stations the superior respawning system.

Shops don't really need much of a buff/debuff as there's not much that can really be changed too significantly, what could be a possibility is that station shop modules have a significantly greater storage space than ships, or you'd have to use your cargo space for the entirety of the shop space.

Factories, I'm not sure what to change to make them superior other than making station factories faster.

 

[whooplaah]

So here's something to think about. Mobile Restaurants. They both exist and are a thing.
Ask Google: https://www.google.com/search?q=mob...ved=0CAcQ_AUoAmoVChMI2PjPgaLoxwIV2DOICh3rEgil

The thing about a Mobile Restaurant is that it can do anything that a stationary restaurant can do. They serve food, have refrigerators, have places to cook, have dish-washers, have places to sit, and even play music. So why haven't mobile restaurants replaced the stationary ones? There are a couple of key differences:

1) Matters of Scaled Production.
A mobile restaurant is smaller than a building (it has to fit on roads), and all the cooking equipment is smaller, which means it produces food at a slower rate and serves meals at a slower rate. Buildings are more productive.

2) Matters of Limited Power.
A mobile restaurant can either only function in locations where it can tap into an external power source, or it faces the limitation of fuel --> only so many meals can be prepared before refueling is needed. Buildings have unlimited access to power.

3) Matter of Locomotive Production.
Cooking/cleaning/eating in a restaurant that is currently moving through traffic is not a pleasant experience. Things slide around the table and sometimes off onto the floor, boiling soup splashes out of pots, things tip over onto the grill, and in general it gets really messy and chaotic. People don't do this; they drive to a location, park, set up, then start serving. Buildings are ready to go much quicker.

4) Matter of Predictability.
A stationary restaurant is always in the same location (but may be closed). A mobile restaurant can be anywhere, including stuck in traffic. Stationary restaurants are more easily accessed than mobile ones, which are more of a pleasant surprise when you come across them.


What can this tell us about mobile production facilities in Starmade?


1) Scaled Production:
Starmade will not impose structure size limits (that's exactly NOT what the game is designed for). Mobile facilities can be exactly the same size as a non-mobile version with no ramifications. This is not an option.

2) Limited Power:
Starmade does not have a fuel system (and I don't remember reading that it is a planned feature). This means that a mobile facility will be able to crank out as many products as a stationary facility. Even if fuel is introduced the fact that mobile/stationary facilities are the same size means they will use (and store) the same amount of fuel (and there's no power grid with 'unlimited' reserves).
The only way this could become a balancing option is if there are both A) fuel requirements for structures and B) immovable sources of fuel.

3) Locomotive Production:
Starmade factories are not affected by speed/movement. However, this could be used to code efficiency/speed into production.

4) Predictability:
If the factory moves, enemies have to constantly search for the thing they want to destroy. Allies, however, can be PM'd the coordinates. This is a great strategic, defensive advantage for mobile factories. This is the feature we are discussing, so it can only be used as a balance if the mobility of a factory is less than that of a ship.

 

[snowhusky5]

In the current state of the game, if shipyards were simply enabled on ships and stations alike, all mobile shipyards have the advantage of mobility (duh), but no absolute disadvantage compared to stations; only 1 station per faction can be invulnerable, if any, so the possibility of being captured/destroyed is not solely applicable to ships (and game balance shouldn't be based around the home base mechanic anyways, since I believe it is planned to eventually be changed). Any difficulties in supplying the shipyard with power or materials can be solved by upscaling the ship. The same applies to any statistical debuffs given to mobile shipyards, such as slower construction rate or increased material cost. Maximum shipyard sizes (if added) for mobile would have to be based on the size of the ship they are attached to (this is starmade after all).

Therefore, it seems to me that an absolute benefit that applies to all stationary shipyards (or an absolute negative to all mobile ones) is required. What that would be, I'm not sure. Not being able to produce while currently moving is not a good idea, since stations don't move anyways, making it not a disadvantage for mobile relative to stationary; the same goes for not allowing warp drives, although both of these are possible balance points, but should not be the main disadvantage. The idea here is that stationary shipyards should always be better in some way than mobile ones which aren't utilizing their mobility (not necessarily in speed/size though, since both varieties should be able to be built however).