Prerelease v0.200.250

[Brokengauge]

LOL what's the point of them then? "We have to connect chambers but only to annoy builders because they mean nothing in combat, give no additional depth and only represent link on an imaginary skill tree"

Good thing this was done to add 'depth', I'd be confused otherwise.

I'm sure this could be rectified at some later time.

Honestly, I can't believe I've actually pulled a 180 on power 2.0. I think when it was announced I had in my head that the design considerations which were going to be the most important was having shaped systems, and how different shapes would allow you different advantages to go along with the natural advantages that go along with certain placements.

I didn't imagine that a system would come about that forced me to make my ships mostly hollow. I know the stuff I've released om the docks is mostly hollow, with large interiors, but that's because I *wanted* to make them that way. Now, however, the game itself is forcing me to have a certain amount of space within my ships, except now they'll be even less powerful than before because of the stabilizer mechanic, which is contrary to one of the major reasons they gave to wanting to change power. I'll hunt for the quote where it was said. I'll update if I find it, or found that I misread it.

Of course, when it comes down to it, trying to get a PVP and a decorative build style to be on even footing in a competitive setting (like a pvp server...) doesnt seem like a good idea. You'll either cause the PVP guy to get fed up and quit (cuz he wants to build something quick and get to the fun part, but cant because of confusing build mechanics) or you cause the decorative builder to get fed up and quit because he can't make his scale model of serentity "just work" and he never gave a crap about playing on a pvp server in the first place...

Hopefully something else is in the works that can alleviate this. I could tolerate stabilizers if they could be placed wherever the hell I want them, and will probably simply edit the config to do that if the mechanic remains as it is.

 

[Valiant70]

The streams can now be directed individually. This isn't good news though, because it means Schema is probably going through with the current mechanics.
[doublepost=1515520108,1515519807][/doublepost]

I'm sure this could be rectified at some later time.

Honestly, I can't believe I've actually pulled a 180 on power 2.0. I think when it was announced I had in my head that the design considerations which were going to be the most important was having shaped systems, and how different shapes would allow you different advantages to go along with the natural advantages that go along with certain placements.

I didn't imagine that a system would come about that forced me to make my ships mostly hollow. I know the stuff I've released om the docks is mostly hollow, with large interiors, but that's because I *wanted* to make them that way. Now, however, the game itself is forcing me to have a certain amount of space within my ships, except now they'll be even less powerful than before because of the stabilizer mechanic, which is contrary to one of the major reasons they gave to wanting to change power. I'll hunt for the quote where it was said. I'll update if I find it, or found that I misread it.

Agree.

Of course, when it comes down to it, trying to get a PVP and a decorative build style to be on even footing in a competitive setting (like a pvp server...) doesnt seem like a good idea. You'll either cause the PVP guy to get fed up and quit (cuz he wants to build something quick and get to the fun part, but cant because of confusing build mechanics) or you cause the decorative builder to get fed up and quit because he can't make his scale model of serentity "just work" and he never gave a crap about playing on a pvp server in the first place...

Utter nonsense. You build a ship. It works. You either decorate it or not. That's how it should work. Decorating a ship should not degrade its performance.

Hopefully something else is in the works that can alleviate this. I could tolerate stabilizers if they could be placed wherever the hell I want them, and will probably simply edit the config to do that if the mechanic remains as it is.

If the mechanics are released as they are, much of the community will configure away the distance-based mechanics. The rest will be left with an absolutely abysmal meta. It's really sad. I'm starting to wonder if the whole game is going to end up falling prey to the sunk cost fallacy as a result of this mistake.

 

[Jeffenuva]

In the current dev build, shield rechargers have a constant energy cost, and shield capacitators cost no energy. I assume this is a bug? Otherwise I would fill every spare crevice of my ship with capacitators.

I like the new power meter, but I would like to see a "max usage" stat in the power stat block in build mode that shows how much power you would use if everything, including turrets, was firing / recharging at once. Still need scratch paper to power balance.

Bobby AI is missing "turret" mode? The remote firing feature is pretty cool...

 

[Top 4ce]

In the current dev build, shield rechargers have a constant energy cost, and shield capacitators cost no energy. I assume this is a bug? Otherwise I would fill every spare crevice of my ship with capacitators.

No, only rechargers cost energy, and recharge is much more important for defense. You can have a lot of capacity, but it means little if you have very little recharge.

 

[Spartan-228]

No, only rechargers cost energy, and recharge is much more important for defense. You can have a lot of capacity, but it means little if you have very little recharge.

Not nesisarly it depends on what you are going for. Small craft built for hit and run might find high cap and low gen better, as they only need the shields to last long enough for them to hit the target and then bug out. In the case of a drone or warhead missile, the shields just need to keep them alive till they hit the target. And if your ship is big enough, you might skimp on the shield gen because you know you will kill/disable your oponant long before they drop your shields.

 

[Valiant70]

Otherwise I would fill every spare crevice of my ship with capacitators.

This cracked me up, because this is exactly what the power update was supposed to prevent.

 

[Matt_Bradock]

Otherwise I would fill every spare crevice of my ship with capacitators.

Structural integrity. Do that, and watch as the moment your shields drop and the first shield block gets destroyed, so does your ship and the server due to all the chain reaction explosions inside your ship's unstable shield caps.

 

[PhiFouX]

Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum...

 

[The_Owl]

Y'know, it'd be nice to hear something from the devs right now

 

[splatthecat]

Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum...

To err is human, to foul things up completely requires a computer.

 

[Brokengauge]

Utter nonsense. You build a ship. It works. You either decorate it or not. That's how it should work. Decorating a ship should not degrade its performance.

I agree, if it's built for performance then no it shouldn't suffer any penalties for being decorated. If it's built for aesthetics first, there shouldn't be any convoluted mechanics which attempt to put it on par, performance wise, with a ship that was built first and formost to be a warship. That's the point I'm trying to make lol

 

[Jeffenuva]

Structural integrity. Do that, and watch as the moment your shields drop and the first shield block gets destroyed, so does your ship and the server due to all the chain reaction explosions inside your ship's unstable shield caps.

I didn't even notice that bit about structural integrity... Now shields and other systems have to be built in densely packed groups.

 

[OmegaGame]

Y'know, it'd be nice to hear something from the devs right now

I think we all should just start a fund raiser to come up with the money to by the rights to the game from schema so that we can roll back the game and then start working on planets, new block shapes (like wedge slabs). Along with adding some RP and flesh out the gameplay elements like should be occuring at this point... We just need to figure out how much that will take.

 

[Jeffenuva]

Playing with structural integrity values: The stat block for shields shows this, so you can build to it. The thruster stat block does not show this, so no idea if my thrusters will explode or not. I thought I only had to worry about stabilization for power but now see that it has an integrity score as well. My reactor is densely packed, but has a negative integrity score. Is this due to 25% stabilization or is power integrity an independent geometric score? The stat block for weapons is blank. I tend to build cannons in long lines, which I think will violate structural integrity.

There is a lot to keep track of here... This change is meaningful - above and beyond Power 2.0. "If any block does not touch enough other blocks of that group, it will lose integrity. If it touches enough (up to 6 max), it will gain integrity. [...] If integrity of a system is below zero, hitting that system will cause additional explosions across all groups of that same system."
[doublepost=1515561243,1515558375][/doublepost]

After playing with this for a while, I think this mechanic would work better if it only penalized non-contiguous units, and did not penalize for lines and planes. If I understand this correctly, it encourages systems grouped in cubes?

 

[Matt_Bradock]

Playing with structural integrity values: The stat block for shields shows this, so you can build to it. The thruster stat block does not show this, so no idea if my thrusters will explode or not. I thought I only had to worry about stabilization for power but now see that it has an integrity score as well. My reactor is densely packed, but has a negative integrity score. Is this due to 25% stabilization or is power integrity an independent geometric score? The stat block for weapons is blank. I tend to build cannons in long lines, which I think will violate structural integrity.

There is a lot to keep track of here... This change is meaningful - above and beyond Power 2.0. "If any block does not touch enough other blocks of that group, it will lose integrity. If it touches enough (up to 6 max), it will gain integrity. [...] If integrity of a system is below zero, hitting that system will cause additional explosions across all groups of that same system."
[doublepost=1515561243,1515558375][/doublepost]

After playing with this for a while, I think this mechanic would work better if it only penalized non-contiguous units, and did not penalize for lines and planes. If I understand this correctly, it encourages systems grouped in cubes?

You understand it correctly. Also, you understand it means that small ships that don't have the boxdims to build densely packed cubic systems, are inherently stuck with low structural integrity making them vulnerable.

 

[Dire Venom]

You understand it correctly. Also, you understand it means that small ships that don't have the boxdims to build densely packed cubic systems, are inherently stuck with low structural integrity making them vulnerable.

Thanks for the informative post.
The idea is theory seems decent, but the implimentation leaves something to be desired :/
I havn't played around with it too much myself, but I would heavily disalike a system that would penalise me for creating a ship that did not look like a box or dumbells.
I've seen someplayers have issues with putting system blocks in Star Trek Warp narnacles as the integrity is too low for system strands.

Hopefully with some changes it could acheive it's desired goal (System clumps???) without penalising creative builds that don't build in cubes.

 

[Matt_Bradock]

Thanks for the informative post.
The idea is theory seems decent, but the implimentation leaves something to be desired :/
I havn't played around with it too much myself, but I would heavily disalike a system that would penalise me for creating a ship that did not look like a box or dumbells.
I've seen someplayers have issues with putting system blocks in Star Trek Warp narnacles as the integrity is too low for system strands.

Hopefully with some changes it could acheive it's desired goal (System clumps???) without penalising creative builds that don't build in cubes.

This whole concept with the power/system reworks was ironically aimed to stop people from filling their ships completely with systems. However, it was also made to counter the spaghetti meta. Structural itegrity was there to combat spaghetti ships while the power beam between reactor and stabs is supposed to counter island ships which were the response to the power rework. Spaghetti meta meant placing the system blocks (power and shields) so thinly spread out that it was almost impossible to do serious damage to them due to most shots just missing through the gaps or even when hitting and shields by some miracle go down, there is no way a single projectile could destroy more than one block (unless missiled) as there would be no other block around it for the punch/pierce damage to carry over.

So now we're forced to place systems in dense clusters and protect the non-physical beam between the reactor and the stabiliser clusters. That also means you can no longer build the interior first in the shell you have made, replica or not, for you need to save the cubic spaces for the shield and thruster systems first and fit the interior around them, unless you want dangerously low structural integrity. Of course with large enough ships, you can negate that somewhat by sheer volume. The penalties hurt small ships primarily, 10K mass or less, as large ships can simply build reserve integrity with a few dense clusters and use that reserve to curve the systems around rooms and absorb the penalty.

 

[Brokengauge]

So...I dont understand how this is supposed to encourage me to make a pretty ship, if I want it to be effective.

Can't i simply place 100% of my systems tightly packed into an armored crucible? Even if it's not a meta way to build, would a long cubic rectangle automaticcaly be superior to any other ship equal to it's own mass now?

I think we all should just start a fund raiser to come up with the money to by the rights to the game from schema so that we can roll back the game and then start working on planets, new block shapes (like wedge slabs). Along with adding some RP and flesh out the gameplay elements like should be occuring at this point... We just need to figure out how much that will take.

Minetest is open source and written in lua....might be easier to start there and make your own space voxel sandbox. With blackjack. And hookers.

In fact, forget the sandbox!

 

[Jeffenuva]

You understand it correctly. Also, you understand it means that small ships that don't have the boxdims to build densely packed cubic systems, are inherently stuck with low structural integrity making them vulnerable.

Maybe small ships can have a black armored box underneath them, full of systems - like a display stand.

 

[Chckn Wildstyle]

Hey schema , sorry about not following through on the sketches I said I was gonna make about the shields. Thanksgiving was hectic then exams came up and right as I started to have time during Winter Break my house caught fire :/. I guess the powers that be really didn't want me to show you what I drew xD. It seems it is past the point of no return with the system now though, so oh well.

Just wanted to let you know that I didn't intend to punk you, shit was literally on fire :D