Prerelease v0.200.250

[Matt_Bradock]

I don't think system integrity was made for that. It was made to punish spaghettis. It is a stupid backward way to do it and I called it

Enjoy patched shipdesign, fellow builder =(

And I just realised that my narrow diagonal engine pods are also a no-go because the thruster groups are in long, narrow diagonal groups that are never wider than 3 blocks... and I can't even check the structural integrity of those because it isn't displayed anywhere, despite the notes saying they do have it.

It also just dawned on me that small ships can't even have proper sys integrity in this system, since they simply cannot provide the proper dimensions for their system groups, which in return gives large ships an edge over small ones as they can endure more damage to systems before they become volatile, as opposed to the old SysHP system where large ships actually took more system damage than the small ones due to a penalty scaling with mass. Aren't the devs supposed to fight gigantism?

 

[Batavium]

Aren't the devs supposed to fight gigantism?

Schema added a fix years ago. But like so many things leaves the default setting "open"

In the file GameConfig.xml

There is a way to limit the number of blocks or mass for ships, stations and planets.

That is not a crude fix. It is called commen sence and is the way to say up yours to 500K Vaygr Despoiler server killing type ships.

StarMade needs a set default max block used set in this file. Power users who know what they are doing can always edit it to there needs.

Most users or server admins do not know what settings to use for there game or computer. Since they are all over the place and there are lots and lots of settings to take into account.

Example:

Yesterday a guy that set up a server did not even know what a buildblock was. And so he was building his Space Station block for block in astronaut mode!!!! Seriously when you spawn a new station have it spawn a BuildBlock not some stupid piece of standard armor! That is the user level you need to set the game defaults to. Everyone else can just change them since they know what they are for.

 

[Nosajimiki]

So, f*** smaller ships with higher surface to interior ratios due to having fewer large cubic system spaces? How's that supposed to encourage building full interiors?

I actually proposed an integrity function that naturally supports smaller ships and full interiors here. Haven't checked the new integrity formula they are using, but if it is based around diminishing returns and reasonable hard floors; you would not have this issue.

And I just realised that my narrow diagonal engine pods are also a no-go because the thruster groups are in long, narrow diagonal groups that are never wider than 3 blocks (...) Aren't the devs supposed to fight gigantism?

Shy of seeing your design, I'm fairly certain that those engine pods are spaghetti even if you ship does not "look" spaghetti. If they are on a ship of any reasonable size, they should be penalized because they will draw weapons fire that will either be made to miss due to firing at a tiny target or they will punch through hitting only a few blocks.

As for Gigantism, a diminishing return on integrity addresses that as well; however, any integrity function NEEDS to be configurable. Gigantism is a server level concern, not a dev concern. If one server can only handle 100k mass ships while another, more powerful server, can handle 1mil mass ships, then the better server should be allowed to be configured to include proper capital ship designs while the formula should be more punishing on the smaller size cap server to make sure that spaghettified smaller ships can't just break the function to beat out normal build large ships as per that server's conventions.

 

[beeez]

The cycle has to start somewhere.

Probably started with getting shit on any time something changes or breaks. This is the saltiest player base i've ever seen.

 

[Nosajimiki]

Probably started with getting shit on any time something changes or breaks. This is the saltiest player base i've ever seen.

Some Basic Sociology:

The way people act is naturally distributed across random populations. This game's player base is a random population drawn from the same statistical pool of people as any other gaming community you would find on steam. Therefore, if this is the saltiest player base you've ever seen, then the extraneous variables are the game and the development team, not the player base.

 

[Matt_Bradock]

Shy of seeing your design, I'm fairly certain that those engine pods are spaghetti even if you ship does not "look" spaghetti. If they are on a ship of any reasonable size, they should be penalized because they will draw weapons fire that will either be made to miss due to firing at a tiny target or they will punch through hitting only a few blocks.

It's the refit of this ship I'm trying to make functional under Power2.0: Dagger Assault Corvette
I removed the obsolete jump inhibitors and filled the pods with thrusters, trying to make them the actual engines. You tell me if that's intentional spaghetti, or just trying to look presentable and make sense.
[doublepost=1514314939,1514314795][/doublepost]

Probably started with getting shit on any time something changes or breaks. This is the saltiest player base i've ever seen.

I recommend you look at the CSGO, DOTA 2 or League of Legends playerbase. Then come back and say that again with a straight face. This is nothing.

 

[Nosajimiki]

It's the refit of this ship I'm trying to make functional under Power2.0: Dagger Assault Corvette.

Okay, that is just a tiny ship. So under my suggested solution I was referencing, its small size would naturally mitigate the smallness of those nacels, which I guess is your point: Small ships should never fall into the threshold of structurally unstable. I was picturing a much larger ship with long skinny thruster wings sticking out.

Do you by any chance know if the new system makes any stipulation to relative ship size?

 

[Matt_Bradock]

Okay, that is just a tiny ship. So under my suggested solution I was referencing, its small size would naturally mitigate the smallness of those nacels, which I guess is your point: Small ships should never fall into the threshold of structurally unstable. I was picturing a much larger ship with long skinny thruster wings sticking out.

Do you by any chance know if the new system makes any stipulation to relative ship size?

Other than structural integrity and the reactor/stabiliser distance difficulty, none so far. Those are definitely big enough on their own though.

 

[Matt_Bradock]

Alright, so anyone who wants to pick apart semi-working refits for power 2.0 in the small ship range, here you go
I tried my best to redirect the power beam to avoid hitting interior, to keep the structural integrity for shields positive, and to somewhat protect the reactor/chambers and use the new free space to my best abilities (didn't really work out, might just fill up the rest with hull)

Lancake, feel free to use them as you see fit, for testing purposes. I think this design is closer to what the majority builds than the NPC roster.
Anyone else, also feel free to try and tune the ships or fiddle with the chamber setup.

Oh, and some bugs I found:
- Long-range scanner chamber doesn't seem to have any effect yet.
- Power consumption might randomly break and go 1000% upon spawning in a blueprint.
- Reverting a chamber doesn't return the chamber blocks to the default, select clear/replace has to be still set to the specified chamber blocks in order to remove them.
- Allowing remote control on turrets disables them otherwise if set to attack target instead of "any".

 

[Zoolimar]

Alright, so anyone who wants to pick apart semi-working refits for power 2.0 in the small ship range

From the looks of it and their power generation/shielding they look like frigates/corvettes that were squeezed into fighter mass range.

 

[Matt_Bradock]

From the looks of it and their power generation/shielding they look like frigates/corvettes that were squeezed into fighter mass range.

Well... the original is up on the Dock as well so you can compare stats. I gave it the shielding it has because I literally needed that many rechargers for the bubble to cover the whole vessel. Barely. The capacity is to compensate the loss of defensive ion which I didn't wanna waste a chamber on, for I needed those on the stealth drive and the recon/jump (version dependent) so I can actually get to places and see s***.

if you compare it with the original Dagger class, you can notice I even added extra interior rooms to the power2 variant to do something with the lot of empty space freed by the compressed systems.

 

[paladin.oa]

Hey Criss, any news on what happened during the meeting a while back? I'm rather curious.

 

[Nosajimiki]

Alright, so anyone who wants to pick apart semi-working refits for power 2.0 in the small ship range, here you go
I tried my best to redirect the power beam to avoid hitting interior, to keep the structural integrity for shields positive, and to somewhat protect the reactor/chambers and use the new free space to my best abilities (didn't really work out, might just fill up the rest with hull)

Lancake, feel free to use them as you see fit, for testing purposes. I think this design is closer to what the majority builds than the NPC roster.
Anyone else, also feel free to try and tune the ships or fiddle with the chamber setup.

Oh, and some bugs I found:
- Long-range scanner chamber doesn't seem to have any effect yet.
- Power consumption might randomly break and go 1000% upon spawning in a blueprint.
- Reverting a chamber doesn't return the chamber blocks to the default, select clear/replace has to be still set to the specified chamber blocks in order to remove them.
- Allowing remote control on turrets disables them otherwise if set to attack target instead of "any".

While this is a fun proof-of-concept, I feel like anything in that size range will not be a good sample ships: it's too small. If you want something that can predict PvP ship architecture, you'd need to design something at pvp scale

 

[Matt_Bradock]

While this is a fun proof-of-concept, I feel like anything in that size range will not be a good sample ships: it's too small. If you want something that can predict PvP ship architecture, you'd need to design something at pvp scale

Considering the update hasn't even been out that long, building something at 1M+ mass would have required 24/7 presence, something I can't afford right now since I have something resembling a life. Sorry, I'll have to pass.

 

[Raisinbat]

I'm trying to branch out into memes, hows this?

 

[Cluwne]

That is... actually pretty accurate.

 

[nagygeri01]

I'm trying to branch out into memes, hows this?

LOL!!!! I do not know the numbers!!!!!

 

[Jeffenuva]

What is the size limit for non-stabilized reactors? I like complexity and this new update looks like it adds lots of deapth to ship building, but will new players be able to build starting ships at "Reactor 101" before having to jump in the deep end?

 

[Zoolimar]

What is the size limit for non-stabilized reactors?

10 blocks.

 

[Nosajimiki]

Considering the update hasn't even been out that long, building something at 1M+ mass would have required 24/7 presence, something I can't afford right now since I have something resembling a life. Sorry, I'll have to pass.

I did not mean that as criticism of you personally for not taking the time to build big ships in Dev Build, just saying that we need bigger examples to prove anything definitely because so much right now is still theoretical.