No kidding the power system is broke just realized why!

[GRHayes]

So started building a base. I realized stuff wasn't working right.
So I started testing. Here is what I found you killed all upstream power transfer.
So you can't recharge a ship by docking, you can't charge even caps in a turret none of it.
So 99% of anything made in the past is scrap.

Why did you do this well. I know why. Because I showed you I could get 100% power transfer by chaining power systems together on the upstream. Your mentality is that if you didn't plan for it you need to put an end to it.

So you pretty much went to the point of breaking the game to stop it. Lets face it this game isn't anything without a working power system. And you want me to believe that you aren't going to apply the same mentality to the new power system. Yea, right. That heat system will be the primary way you do it. I bet power transfer then isn't fixed either to any extent so pretty much everything will need its own power supply including turrets. Now I know why you are talking about reducing power requirements on everything. Because turrets will need their own supply system a will be severely limited to what you can fit on them.

Lets add this up both direction is power transfer and shields you broke because I brought up stuff.
The beam system you guys messed with after I pointed out you were missing a tick. Distributed shield. Forward stacked power transfer, multi hull armor...

I'm done with the game. Other games are coming out. As long as you keep the mentality that every time someone does something with a tool you don't plan on well you are going to put an end to it all you are left with is the crappy game below.

This game may be in ALPHA but if you are doing this garbage now it is going to get built into the game and will carry through. I'm done. I can't believe I wasted my time checking up on this game the last 3 months then trying it out again. Should have known better.

Update: after several comments this is apparently what some people believe
1) Power transfer beam - they never expected people to use it.
2) Shield transfer beam - they didn't expect anyone to make use of that either?
3) upstream power transfer - used to power turrets, resupply ships with power for jumps... again never expected to be use?
4) blocks fitting together - they actually changed the collision boxes after the rail system so they could fit together - never expected to be used also?
5) docked entities having shields of their own until they get down to 50% then the shields of what they are docked to covers them - I made use of it in the distributive shield demo to reduce shield recharge time - again not expected by them right?

If you really believe that that is more insulting than what I am saying. That is like giving a crack addict $20 5 times in a row and expecting them not to buy drugs and then getting upset because they did and wanting your money back.

On the other hand I am simply saying they got in a bad rut of trying to use the same method to solve their problems. Yea, not good either because they went to the point of effectively breaking the game but it isn't at least that level of incompetence you are suggesting.

But who knows maybe you are all correct and I am wrong and they actually are that incompetent.

I doubt most of you actually believes the development team is stupid or a bunch of morons. I know I don't. So my assumption the reason you chose this answer would be that you where simply trying to be supportive of their decision or choice.

 

[Crusade]

Bye!

 

[Dire Venom]

Wait power transfer between docked entities was removed??
That sucks -_- I would hate to have to build a power source for every single docked entity on my ship :/

 

[Brokengauge]

Wait power transfer between docked entities was removed??
That sucks -_- I would hate to have to build a power source for every single docked entity on my ship :/

My turrets still work. I never put a power supply in those lol.

Maybe it just doesn't work on stations?

 

[The Judge]

Just refit your ships like everyone involved with PvP.
Unless you want laggy exploits that kill Servers constantly.

 

[MacThule]

QQ

 

[Nxn]

Someone did testing a while ago, power is able to be drawn to power systems like shields, weapons, and systems, but it can't be used to store in batteries. There is also a weird issue with power and weapons, if your weapon has more than one "barrel" and firing with multiple barrels would completely drain the battery of the dock you're drawing power from, the weapon will fire the first few barrels, but then trigger a power failure message, making you unable to shoot for a second with that system. This means that the power won't take from two sources at once, if firing a salvo would completely drain one source.

 

[Az14el]

There are still very nasty super dps/mass multicore powered launchers/gatlings out there, which everyone should get to try their hand at before they're done with

Doesn't transfer up anymore, and any weapon up the chain will keep checking cores down the chain for sufficient power to fire (additively, important) and just take everything it needs starting from the top, additionally all power failures within the chain are ignored by the firing weapon so long as the main ship remains power stable. So you can do the same old shit, each core needs recharge enough to refill entirely between shots and capacity to split the shot between them ideally without touching the main ships reserves. So 200k+ dps turrets entirely self powered without aux & without need for much/if any power capacitors still very buildable.

 

[GRHayes]

There are still very nasty super dps/mass multicore powered launchers/gatlings out there, which everyone should get to try their hand at before they're done with

Doesn't transfer up anymore, and any weapon up the chain will keep checking cores down the chain for sufficient power to fire (additively, important) and just take everything it needs starting from the top, additionally all power failures within the chain are ignored by the firing weapon so long as the main ship remains power stable. So you can do the same old shit, each core needs recharge enough to refill entirely between shots and capacity to split the shot between them ideally without touching the main ships reserves. So 200k+ dps turrets entirely self powered without aux & without need for much/if any power capacitors still very buildable.

No you can do the same thing any more. Before power transferred up stream was storable and accumulative. This meant if you chained 20 1.5Me Power-supplies you you got 30Me power generation. Now you will only get 1.5Me no matter how many you chain they are not accumulative nor are they storable. So in short before you could make a 30Me full auto cannon and it would never drain out.
It would take roughly 60,000 power blocks and capacitors total. Just to get the 30Me generation 1,123,415 reactor blocks roughly.

In short you can by no means build anything with near the same size and power generation. You are left with less than stellar power and have to wait for caps to charge to fire something that will drain it to death in a short time and then be waiting again.
[doublepost=1491630449,1491630180][/doublepost]

Just refit your ships like everyone involved with PvP.
Unless you want laggy exploits that kill Servers constantly.

Chained power isn't laggy it didn't rely on beams or logic. About the only lag one would have with it if someone destroy the docking point and it broke loose. That is more an issue with poor design on the devs end as to why we don't have the ability to connect something with more than one location.

 

[GalactusX]

As Crusade said
Bye mate

 

[Az14el]

No you can do the same thing any more. Before power transferred up stream was storable and accumulative. This meant if you chained 20 1.5Me Power-supplies you you got 30Me power generation. Now you will only get 1.5Me no matter how many you chain they are not accumulative nor are they storable. So in short before you could make a 30Me full auto cannon and it would never drain out.

Don't be unimaginative, i just told you how to make a current patch rail docked weapon that can draw more than 2mil e/s from 100% efficiency reactor placements, you don't drain it if each entity stabily recharges in time which is a matter of picking a slower charging weapon system & grabbing a calculator. meaning yes I can use the info that i just gave you to chain dock 20 1.5m e/s entities together and fire 30m e/s (not 30m entirely because lag often costs power too in long enough fights..) worth of dakka from the final entity in the chain without it ever reaching the main ship due to lack of power supply or power failures in the chain, don't mind me if you still disagree though I ain't a tutorial :D

No really though they didn't "remove" it, they made it more laggy and complicated-design-wise to pull off stably. Because of course they would :/

as far as the particular dps/mass achieveable I can't say you can stack as much as previously, as capacitor group bonuses can't simply be stacked on the final entity anymore, but well over 300/mass is achieveable at that 1.8-2m e/s mark, this method just extends that mark up to whatever you want (windows will absolutely cockblock you at around 50m e/s though due to the funky way the game handles entity data in their own little folder & the 25 entity in chain cap it has to have because of this, you know this part well though i take it) at the cost of lagginess, can't speak for everyone but 300/mass is a pretty far off upper limit in my books, and my books might be underselling it because thats only the best ive achieved personally without relying on overt exploits.

Got a point on the no-full-auto though, this method won't work with cannon-cannon or beam-cannon very well, but in this case you wouldn't even need to entity stack, 20 regular self-powered 200k dps turrets can very nearly (computers, bobbys n rail parts...) do the same dps per mass as a single 4mil dps turret built with a rail chain. Chaining doesn't defeat the need for aux powered weapons on its own, the reactor soft cap being per entity does. The only real benefit that chain docking specifically on its own grants, is that you can use far less capacitors to fire an alpha damage weapon, with some gatling-lock on set ups (staggered beam support levels on each firing computer) you really don't need any capacitors on the damn thing at all tbh. That does seem to be the strength of chain docked weapons relative to regular entity spam if you ask me (not that im opposed to this working with full auto weapons, it should work for both or neither of course, just pointing out that it seems to be more relevant to alpha damage weapons in the first place)

 

[arouq]

I'm done. I can't believe I wasted my time checking up on this game the last 3 months then trying it out again. Should have known better.

Ok, but this is for (at least) the second time

On Sep 22, 2016:

No need to respond as of the last message I deleted the game and all content. I'm not coming back.

To all of my fellow community members, I highly recommend reading that post, schema chimes in here: You just got to love the chunk system used on vehicles. (OP's proposal here makes very little sense, and demonstrates his lack of understanding).

Basically, OP wants the game to allow him to achieve whatever he wants, without caring for the consequences of his in-game decisions. He has no care for the performance implications or gameplay aspects, he believes that sandboxes can not really have exploits when it comes to game mechanics. He likes to make garbled messes of junk that seriously impact the rest of our MP experiences. If he finds a way to seriously "exploit" the game with unintended mechanics, instead of expecting it to be patched when he mentions it, he thinks it should be kept! Throughout all of this, he disguises his exploit machines as "clever designs", attempting to make comparisons to the real world, never mind the fact that this is a game, we're here to have fun, not to simulate. I have no interest in debating programming or game mechanics with OP, I've read enough of his threads to know how that goes

I think this is relevant again (another gem from that highly recommended thread from OP).

I'll be brutally honest,

Though you think you are being clever here, its a subject most builders have known for literally years and any experienced admin will give the ship a good whap with destroy_entity_dock and hope the server survives (if you manage to load it in in the first place).
Like everything moderation is key.

Additionally please stop talking down to us, we can do the math (and have done more than enough testing), we've already done masses of testing, we know the mechanics, etc, and we know that yeah chunks occasionally get corrupt and fucked up, especially under extreme conditions.
Some of us have far more insight into the internals than we let on (as much as you like to brag about your credentials in all sorts of areas), as takethispie said decompiling isn't all that painful and quite a few of the alpha testers have enough chops to sort through the obfuscated code.
It seems you've only really recently discovered or considering this style of generator, considering I've been on hiatus for several months and it was a thing for several months before that you are pretty slow on the uptake.
Hell I remember when you were literally fumbling around the power calc and mechanics, and wouldn't take both experimental or mathematical proof of how it works and kept screwing up your experiments to try and figure it out yourself.
You might want to consider that in this instance that yes, you are doing something slightly stupid again and being pig headed about it.

Honestly you remind me of several customers I deal with, oh the system does X, lets take X to the extreme and do a completely retarded amount of X and complain when we completely nuke a server (not the reality since client instances are isolated, but you get the idea).
Then sit there going

when it screws up.

There's a good reason you don't see extreme ships like this on servers, that's because people like to play the game rather than crash the game.

 

[GRHayes]

Got a point on the no-full-auto though, this method won't work with cannon-cannon or beam-cannon very well, but in this case you wouldn't even need to entity stack, 20 regular self-powered 200k dps turrets can very nearly (computers, bobbys n rail parts...) do the same dps per mass as a single 4mil dps turret built with a rail chain.

Unless you have a sole target some of those cannons will target other stuff unless you are using fire at my target. Then add to that the larger cannon will actually keep shields down more and gets added penetration damage meaning the ships SHP drops faster thus the fight ends faster.

Then there is the issue of added effects. From testing explosive seems to be the best all around it doesn't have the high energy cost of over drive doesn't loose some of its shield penetration power, and does greater damage when it gets past armor taking out the SHP faster by destroying more of the internal blocks.

But no need to believe me. I simply set up a target 40 advanced armor thick with a massive shield system and power supply behind it to test against.

The other issue you miss is with explosive is that the extra explosive area prior to penetration is large so it destroys more blocks. If you use set one barrel back one block and use left mouse fire you get even greater penetration. That said right now beams +cannons is even faster than cannons when it comes to penetration and destroying blocks.

All you get right now out of the current stacked power system is stutter fire.

 

[Az14el]

well yeah, that's pretty much true, more per hit damage = much faster armor phase
but like, that whole phase is a joke in actual combat, purely into personal opinion now so sorry, but i don't really respect a big armor bar much

it is a weird change from my perspective that should be revisited, but I'm not expecting anything groundbreaking as far as balance changes just yet i guess

 

[GRHayes]

Ok, but this is for (at least) the second time

On Sep 22, 2016:


To all of my fellow community members, I highly recommend reading that post, schema chimes in here: You just got to love the chunk system used on vehicles. (OP's proposal here makes very little sense, and demonstrates his lack of understanding).

Basically, OP wants the game to allow him to achieve whatever he wants, without caring for the consequences of his in-game decisions. He has no care for the performance implications or gameplay aspects, he believes that sandboxes can not really have exploits when it comes to game mechanics. He likes to make garbled messes of junk that seriously impact the rest of our MP experiences. If he finds a way to seriously "exploit" the game with unintended mechanics, instead of expecting it to be patched when he mentions it, he thinks it should be kept! Throughout all of this, he disguises his exploit machines as "clever designs", attempting to make comparisons to the real world, never mind the fact that this is a game, we're here to have fun, not to simulate. I have no interest in debating programming or game mechanics with OP, I've read enough of his threads to know how that goes

I think this is relevant again (another gem from that highly recommended thread from OP).

Fine you brought up Schema's reply.
How about this line?

• Clear Segmentation of data: A chunk is a clear part of memory. That makes for a lot faster access because you can reference it with static indices in an array. You can make assumptions to it's size and apply several data structures to it for optimization I'll mention below.

I find it kind of funny. Because it seems to suggest it isn't possible to use a static index array in the system I propose. But yet some how I do.
Here is a hint I figured it out when I was implementing an Octtree for the objects.
Let me guess neither of you ever considered you could simply fill in added data as needed so you could have a specific array size so you could have a static index? Doesn't mean that data has to be usable just a space filler.

I think my old employer will find it humors that the software I made for them can't exist or run they only been using it 2 decades.

But hey be my guest keep telling yourself something isn't possible simply because you didn't figure out how.
Schema's got an excuse he may have tried an not simply made the connection happens to the best of programmers.
You on the other hand well you simply followed along with what he said. I doubt you programmed a single line of code to make the attempt.

20 years ago. Computers had no ways near the memory or performance they do now. We had to get every bit of performance out of the code to the point we still made use of inline ASM.

With the few hints above Schema should easily be able to figure out how to get it working. If not don't bother asking that chance has gone. There are plenty of others out there who can answer it though. I sure as hell wasn't the only person who solved it.

 

[NeonSturm]

Are we living in time-space or in space-time?

a_st·and·ard_ath & standard is a re·al(l) word
1_st·2nd·3rd_4th
s=space = light-seconds (about 280'000km/s )
t=time = seconds
n=360° = ~ 40'000km
r=180°; n=r+r=360° = inner/outer surface of a torus-world
d=dimension (radial between 0…1 or 0…360° or 0…2PI factored into whole numbers which are also inverse fractions)
th=time-fence, time-ladder. And because time=space, it's also a space-fence (which explains the huge distances between stars).

​

Because if we live in time-space, energy will NEVER be wasted - we would just need TIME to regain it.

 

[GRHayes]

well yeah, that's pretty much true, more per hit damage = much faster armor phase
but like, that whole phase is a joke in actual combat, purely into personal opinion now so sorry, but i don't really respect a big armor bar much

it is a weird change from my perspective that should be revisited, but I'm not expecting anything groundbreaking as far as balance changes just yet i guess

A big armor bar essentially means if you go past a point you start taking even more damage so its just another penalty.
Lets play a game count the penalties.
power transfer beam - penalty.
Shield transfer beam - penalty.
Power over 2 million penalty.
Weapons multiple groups penalty.
Big armor - penalty.
Use over drive - penalty.
Structural to high - penalty.
Missiles already had a time penalty to the point nukes exceed the combat reset time on shields allowing them to charge at full speed.

Seems the way they deal with certain types of issues seems to be one track mind set.
That worked out so well they broke the power system. ROFL
You would think they would learn from that they need to start figuring out another way to try and fix so called balance issues.

A lot of people seem to misunderstand my point of view. I don't have an issue with limits being placed. But they shouldn't be placed simply because that is the only way you can think of to deal with a problem.
If you look at my recent suggestions on changes to cloaking and other stuff. I mention a number of limits that would be place don it. One related to mass one related to speed. I describe event the types of effects that could be related to both.

 

[Groovrider]

So started building a base. I realized stuff wasn't working right.
So I started testing. Here is what I found you killed all upstream power transfer.
So you can't recharge a ship by docking, you can't charge even caps in a turret none of it.
So 99% of anything made in the past is scrap.

Why did you do this well. I know why. Because I showed you I could get 100% power transfer by chaining power systems together on the upstream. Your mentality is that if you didn't plan for it you need to put an end to it.

So you pretty much went to the point of breaking the game to stop it. Lets face it this game isn't anything without a working power system. And you want me to believe that you aren't going to apply the same mentality to the new power system. Yea, right. That heat system will be the primary way you do it. I bet power transfer then isn't fixed either to any extent so pretty much everything will need its own power supply including turrets. Now I know why you are talking about reducing power requirements on everything. Because turrets will need their own supply system a will be severely limited to what you can fit on them.

Lets add this up both direction is power transfer and shields you broke because I brought up stuff.
The beam system you guys messed with after I pointed out you were missing a tick. Distributed shield. Forward stacked power transfer, multi hull armor...

I'm done with the game. Other games are coming out. As long as you keep the mentality that every time someone does something with a tool you don't plan on well you are going to put an end to it all you are left with is the crappy game below.

This game may be in ALPHA but if you are doing this garbage now it is going to get built into the game and will carry through. I'm done. I can't believe I wasted my time checking up on this game the last 3 months then trying it out again. Should have known better.

I don't understand why you continue to do this to yourself. As every experienced gamer knows: Hoping for the changes YOU WANT in alpha or beta is a losers game. You simply deal with the changes you are given. You will never be happy here and this game will never satisfy you and the Devs will never BE you. You really should have known better.

 

[GRHayes]

I don't understand why you continue to do this to yourself. As every experienced gamer knows: Hoping for the changes YOU WANT in alpha or beta is a losers game. You simply deal with the changes you are given. You will never be happy here and this game will never satisfy you and the Devs will never BE you. You really should have known better.

Your misunderstanding my intent.
I think you and I can agree the development team isn't stupid and the game has a lot of potential.

So they wouldn't be the type of people to hand a crack addict $20 and not expect that person to go out and buy drugs. Not just once but they repeat the behavior over and over. OR another way of saying it they wouldn't create a button and expect people not to use it. After all that would be just stupid right and we just hopefully agreed that isn't them.

So does it make any sense to assume they made multiple items in this game and never actually expected anyone to use it?
1) Power transfer beam - they never expected people to use it.
2) Shield transfer beam - they didn't expect anyone to make use of that either?
3) upstream power transfer - used to power turrets, resupply ships with power for jumps... again never expected to be use?
4) blocks fitting together - they actually changed the collision boxes after the rail system so they could fit together - never expected to be used?
5) docked entities having shields of their own until they get down to 50% then the shields of what they are docked to covers them - I made use of it in the distributive shield demo to reduce shield recharge time - again not expected by them right?

So that is 5 times in a row they created something and never expected people to actually use it? I thought we just agreed they aren't stupid!

I simply think they got in a rut of trying to solve all their problems the same way. Lets put cap on it, lets prevent it....
They went to the point of actually breaking the power system simply to stop something they actually designed into the game.

What do you think will happen with this game if they keep doing the same thing further down the road. Doesn't matter what power system they create or anything because if they treat issues the same way every time they will get end up in the same place.

One of the first things taught to me by Prof Barnes was to let go of flawed program designs that do not agree with natural law. The reason simple if you create a system even in a virtual or simulated environment that doesn't agree with nature (math) it will always bite you in the ass with negative feed back. That negative feed back usually coming in the form of things like conflicts in design, unexpected circumstances, users holes ... You will end up finding yourself trying to put out fires all over the place, patch this hear, patch this there and so on. You get done fixing one problem because you did that now you have another. You tell me do we see that type of issue here?

 

[NeonSturm]

So does it make any sense to assume they made multiple items in this game and never actually expected anyone to use it?
1) Power transfer beam - they never expected people to use it.
2) Shield transfer beam - they didn't expect anyone to make use of that either?
3) upstream power transfer - used to power turrets, resupply ships with power for jumps... again never expected to be use?
4) blocks fitting together - they actually changed the collision boxes after the rail system so they could fit together - never expected to be used?
5) docked entities having shields of their own until they get down to 50% then the shields of what they are docked to covers them - I made use of it in the distributive shield demo to reduce shield recharge time - again not expected by them right?

(1+2) Maybe they expected it to only be used between multiple separately target-able ships.

(3) Maybe they expected it to lose 10% power on that way and didn't thought about increasing it when changing the soft-cap on power-regen.

(5) Maybe you are a higher-dimensional being, exploiting parallel instances of planes in space which shine doesn't know lol.
At least we can be happy that all logically-wrong systems create friction real life does not have.

4) blocks fitting together - they actually changed the collision boxes after the rail system so they could fit together - never expected to be used?

This is not clear, can you please put an example or additional sentence to it to provide context?
​

One of the first things taught to me by Prof Barnes was to let go of flawed program designs that do not agree with natural law. The reason simple if you create a system even in a virtual or simulated environment that doesn't agree with nature (math) it will always bite you in the ass with negative feed back. That negative feed back usually coming in the form of things like conflicts in design, unexpected circumstances, users holes ... You will end up finding yourself trying to put out fires all over the place, patch this hear, patch this there and so on. You get done fixing one problem because you did that now you have another. You tell me do we see that type of issue here?

That's why I thought about my own game.

You can demand a cost of up to 199% and maybe 299% if the other one is unsure about complexity but if you demand 300% of what a game is worth, the community will do it's own thing.

If you divide peoples "divide and conquer" you can increase this limit. But peoples don'T like to stay divided. Division breaks in every environment where there is a meta-choice of "not helping".


It's impossible to keep real life-forms in a stance, that only works with tools without any interacting self-similarity (Fibonacci-sequence).
If you provide 1 temporal and 2 spacial dimensions, it starts to live.
Only if you control the temporal dimension (stopping a program) or spacial resolution (number of copies), you can trap or control life.

And that's what ©opy-Restriction is doing.
It tries to control a crucial spacial dimension of a feature-collection through either "uncertainty about security"aka"fear" or untruth with "hiding the true cost".

The real cost of StarMade is that you sacrifice opportunity.
The advantage is that you connect information with truth.

The intellectual property of StarMade is worth almost nothing.
Whats really worth it is the gathering of true information by teaching peoples how to use logic/regex and connecting peoples.

Thus StarMade is mostly a service, not a product.
And via ©opy-Restriction, Schema claims sole monopoly over this service and Shine helps Schema with it.
If we make suggestions, we legally keep copy-restriction-right but allow SM to use what we post.

Now we have to make a choice:

1. Do we want to use SM-service to deliver truth and accept that SM ©opy-Restricts some truth itself uncovers.
2. Do we sabotage SM by assisting a free community-project instead.
   • And take the risk of wasting effort.
   • And take the risk of it being stolen by copy-restriction-trolls.

As you see, it's not free to play at all as long as Shine aligns with "uncertainty of security" through ©Restriction.
​

What I really want from StarMade:

1. To promote truth.
2. To ask for a single fee before providing truth
   • This can be done through bitcoin directly (or other micro-transactions)
   • credits users can earn for submissions
     (for assisting starmadedock's content-collection with qualitative content)
   • or via advertising companies
     • if users buy something and use SMDs cookie/token, Shine would get money.
     • The advertiser could offer 5% cost reduction if such a token is used.
     • This wouldn't reward ad-flooding, but useful ads such as real-life-electronic components in logic forums or pizza-services in implement-food suggestions.

But if SM is obstructing the truth or an interesting implementation so much that it's cheaper to work and buy real-life equipment, then SM will get nothing.

The only reason SM gets something at all is that real life ©opy-Restricts and (U)se-Restricts real customizable aircrafts for us.

But that may change with more common 3D printers too.
There are 2D printers for electronics out there already.​