Prerelease v0.200.250

    Matt_Bradock

    The Shrink
    Joined
    Aug 4, 2013
    Messages
    798
    Reaction score
    464
    • Purchased!
    • Thinking Positive
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    You are exaggerating, but yeah, as I said before, new power is fucked.
    Not exaggerating, that's exactly what happened to my Dagger and Archer class. Both of their main weapons now drain more power than I can produce even risking serious vulnerabilities in the ship. Haven't tried with ships bigger than 12K mass yet, because they take long to refit, but the distance and mass scales the same (except I have no aux power for big ones any more) so yea, I expect the same.
     

    Valiant70

    That crazy cyborg
    Joined
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages
    2,189
    Reaction score
    1,167
    • Thinking Positive
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    . All the other stuff doesn't matter.
    Actually it does matter if you hit a part of the ship that has no reactor in it. If you happen to disable another system, you've at least done something. If you disable a ship's engines, it's in serious trouble. It would be adrift and unable to turn. If you blast off some of the weapons, it can't kill you as fast.

    Having to blow up every block to disable a system seems odd. This is even more true of guns. They usually get split up into multiple smaller outputs, so you have one gun, get shot, and suddenly you have two little guns. I'd like to see that reworked as well.
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Mar 10, 2016
    Messages
    564
    Reaction score
    1,589
    • Likeable Gold
    • Community Content - Silver 2
    • Thinking Positive
    WEIRDNESS WITH FLYING: Does anyone else experience a change in how your ship reacts to movement inputs when the camera is detached?

    If I look at the ship from the front and press Forward it will go backwards, and so on, basically it's as if you were still in the non-detached camera mode, except you can look around the ship with the mouse, instead of turning it.

    I downloaded a completely fresh new copy, but it persists. Was this somehow an intentional change? (If yes, I don't like it)
     
    Joined
    Jan 31, 2014
    Messages
    103
    Reaction score
    90
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    WEIRDNESS WITH FLYING: Does anyone else experience a change in how your ship reacts to movement inputs when the camera is detached?

    If I look at the ship from the front and press Forward it will go backwards, and so on, basically it's as if you were still in the non-detached camera mode, except you can look around the ship.

    I downloaded a completely fresh new copy, but it persists. Was this somehow an intentional change? (If yes, I don't like it)
    Yes I have noticed this aswell, and it's bothering me because I use that camera mode to expertly park ships in space near other ships.
     
    Joined
    Dec 19, 2015
    Messages
    48
    Reaction score
    20
    Yeah, the controls in free camera mode seemed to have been altered so pressing forward accelerates in the direction the camera has pointed, and back away from it. I imagine it was done in a quick attempt to give some control while aiming turrets now that you can. That said it is....atrocious, yes.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: DeepspaceMechanic
    Joined
    Sep 29, 2017
    Messages
    39
    Reaction score
    10
    How the overheating is working now? Do I need hit only hull or I need to destroy reactor? And how it works with turrets? Can I shot off (overheat) a turret?
     

    Non

    Joined
    Nov 17, 2013
    Messages
    296
    Reaction score
    157
    How the overheating is working now? Do I need hit only hull or I need to destroy reactor? And how it works with turrets? Can I shot off (overheat) a turret?
    You have to shoot the enemy's reactor.
     
    Joined
    Nov 3, 2014
    Messages
    624
    Reaction score
    286
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Wired for Logic
    • Legacy Citizen 6
    Did read up to page 6. stabilizers still in place and spacing rules still spply i might check back at starmade at a later date.
     

    Non

    Joined
    Nov 17, 2013
    Messages
    296
    Reaction score
    157
    Shield radius is incredibly stupid considering how expensive shield regen is now. Theres no way to get good shielding anymore.
     
    Joined
    Sep 29, 2017
    Messages
    39
    Reaction score
    10
    You have to shoot the enemy's reactor.
    So what is the point of structural integrity, if I can build ship as nimle as it has positive structural integrity?

    I thought it will enable destroy nible construction more easily than dense one.
     
    Joined
    Sep 14, 2017
    Messages
    666
    Reaction score
    928
    Actually it does matter if you hit a part of the ship that has no reactor in it. If you happen to disable another system, you've at least done something. If you disable a ship's engines, it's in serious trouble. It would be adrift and unable to turn. If you blast off some of the weapons, it can't kill you as fast.

    Having to blow up every block to disable a system seems odd. This is even more true of guns. They usually get split up into multiple smaller outputs, so you have one gun, get shot, and suddenly you have two little guns. I'd like to see that reworked as well.
    When I said "the other stuff doesn't matter" is not to say it would not have a result, but that it would never affect your primary target. Disabling systems as you dig through to the reactor would just randomize ship degradation. Frankly, I think it is a GREAT idea for the structural HP system, but in a reactor HP system, it would be mostly a wasted feature.

    If this system just randomizes degradation as you core dig, it is a bad thing because it makes the outcome of a fight more prone to being determined by bad luck. This makes people less likely to want to engage in PvP/PvE, but if you can specifically and easily prioritize hitting jump drives, weapons, power, etc. and they all have similar outcomes on the ship's structure, it gives you more piloting options in which there is no one "best-target" that applies to every combat scenario. This would add to the skill based element of combat where good pilots would know when to focus on what system.

    I think the best implementation of this would be some variation of the power 1.0 system (where multiple reactors are a thing), structural HP, and the new system's sensor options. Then have a dropdown or something of that nature that you can quickly use to pick from the revealed subsystems to set as a main target
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Dire Venom

    Ithirahad

    Arana'Aethi
    Joined
    Nov 14, 2013
    Messages
    4,152
    Reaction score
    1,330
    • Purchased!
    • Top Forum Contributor
    • Legacy Citizen 8
    Not exaggerating, that's exactly what happened to my Dagger and Archer class. Both of their main weapons now drain more power than I can produce even risking serious vulnerabilities in the ship. Haven't tried with ships bigger than 12K mass yet, because they take long to refit, but the distance and mass scales the same (except I have no aux power for big ones any more) so yea, I expect the same.
    Is this for the same size of weapon, or the same amount of damage? Weapons need less blocks for the same damage and equivalent power consumption now...
     

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,105
    Reaction score
    1,222
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    Interiors on a mid-sized ship can contribute something like 20% or more of a ship's mass even if they're made entirely of hull and deco blocks.
    [Citation Needed]

    Where is all the creativity people claim this update is stifling?
    A simple ring around your ship with stabilizers works, and is something I did with jump drives way before this update because I think it looks cool. Cover it with black armor and it's hard to see, let alone hit. I'm sure if half the effort displayed here was put into designing around this new system, you guys could come up with something too.
    Congrats, you're learning the basics of spaghetti meta. Now turn all your other systems into 3x3 strands and make your ship a speed tank.

    Then find your own solution to stabilizers. For example, instead of a long stick make a triangle akin to a Star Destroyer, reactor in the front stabilizers in both rear sides. There are plenty of ways to design a ship in the new system, it's just easier to complain about it than put thought into it.
    No offense, but I think you're the one not putting thought into things. Where do you get the idea that putting your reactor at the front of your ship would ever be a good design choice?

    I think the basic problem is, that people allways build systems instead of hull or power first, and want to achieve a certain damage output or jump drive charge, or another purpose of the ship. Maybe a gun that has at least 20 blocks or something. And then they suddenly end up with stabilizer distances of 100m.
    This system is more detrimental to players who build their hull first than those who build their systems first.

    Many RPers are also PVPers. The difference is we care about how the ships look. (i.e. we don't build dumbbells or spaghetti)
    He says, while arguing with PvPers who care about their external aesthetics and put interiors in their ships...

    I don't really appreciate an underhanded insult that we don't care about how ships look because we disagree with you. Quite the contrary, a large part of why we disagree with this system is because it encourages designs like dumbbells or spaghetti.

    WE don't use them because we have a "gentleman's agreement" to not fly shitty dumbbells and spaghetti against eachother. But do you think everyone is going to agree to that in the current state, let alone as the game gets more popular?

    I'm all right with scanners and stealth being full-on chambers. Those are specific roles. Jump, not so much. Interdiction is mainly for a hunter-killer role, so it's all right for that to be a chamber. It shouldn't take more than about 25% chamber capacity though, IMO.
    I disagree. Chambers should be modifications of systems that you pick and choose based on the desired role of your ship. There are a limited number of them a ship can have, yet scanners are an absolutely essential system that every ship needs.
     

    Valiant70

    That crazy cyborg
    Joined
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages
    2,189
    Reaction score
    1,167
    • Thinking Positive
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    This system is more detrimental to players who build their hull first than those who build their systems first.
    That is true. I've pretty much always done my reactors and hull at the same time, then filled in other systems. With the new system, I'll end up doing all the systems while working on the ship's outline, then adding hull afterward.

    [Citation Needed]
    As a rule of thumb, I've found that ships need around 10-30% by volume of interior either for the interior to act as spaced armor or for the ship to have the look and feel one comes to expect from popular scifi. It's possible to minimize it more, and I've done it, but you have to heavily limit what you do with interiors. In other words, I'm speaking from experience on builds I've either made or given up on out of frustration.

    Just to clarify, the 20% mass refers to both the interior blocks and the additional skin needed to cover the extra internal volume. I think I mentioned that in my previous post but I'm not certain. If you're using standard or advanced armor, most of the weight is going to be from the extra armor. If you're using hull instead of armor on your exterior, you cut back on total weight, but you make the remaining weight useless because hull doesn't really provide any defensive value.

    He says, while arguing with PvPers who care about their external aesthetics and put interiors in their ships...

    I don't really appreciate an underhanded insult that we don't care about how ships look because we disagree with you. Quite the contrary, a large part of why we disagree with this system is because it encourages designs like dumbbells or spaghetti.

    WE don't use them because we have a "gentleman's agreement" to not fly shitty dumbbells and spaghetti against eachother. But do you think everyone is going to agree to that in the current state, let alone as the game gets more popular?
    Apparently there's a group that doesn't care (I've seen a number of builds with zero aesthetic) and a group that does. I didn't know you were part of the latter, or that the latter was particularly prominent. That actually makes a lot more sense as there's very little creativity with zero-aesthetic builds once you find the optimal meta.

    I disagree. Chambers should be modifications of systems that you pick and choose based on the desired role of your ship. There are a limited number of them a ship can have, yet scanners are an absolutely essential system that every ship needs.
    I think the intention was that jump and scanners were going to be "free" for basic functionality, but require a chamber for enhanced functions. Jump is clearly underpowered. I guess the scanner requirement depends on how much stealth your enemy uses, but if no one counters it, everyone will use stealth. What we need is a way to give stealth a drawback that leaves it usable but not as an end-all that lets you fight undetected. If stealth isn't universally desirable, maybe scanners won't be universally required. In other words, stealth is just overpowered right now. Romulans are cool, but a Titan decloaking off your stern and alpha-blasting you to smithereens isn't particularly good for gameplay.

    At one point someone brought up mass-based stealth debuffs, and I added that distance could be factored in.

    What I think would work best is a system where chance of detection is based on distance and current reactor output. The bigger you are, the harder it is to stay hidden. The more systems you're using, the easier you are to see. The current maximum distance for someone to appear on your scopes should be removed entirely. The technobabble excuse is that detection depends heavily on passive sensors to detect heat from active reactors. The more heat you put out, the easier you are to spot.

    That should have results similar to this:
    • Stealth jmakes more sense this way.
    • Large ships can be seen coming from far off. Small ships can't be seen until they get closer. Small ships thus have a better chance to escape larger ones before being seen. Trying to hunt down and kill at target thus calls for a similarly-sized ship to catch it.
    • A very large ship can use stealth and minimize power usage to get closer without being spotted, but it won't be able to get as close as a small ship could. This makes small ships better for scouting and ambush, and large ships better for attacking stationary objectives or for area denial.
    • (hopefully) Balance of small versus large ships will be greatly improved by the introduction of different strategic roles. You need big ships for heavy killing power. You need small ships for scouting and surprise. You need something in the middle to get the jump on someone while packing enough firepower to bring the target down.
    I really think if we can move stealth/detection to a strategic rather than purely tactical role, it will improve the game. Right now we're lacking in strategic options.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Lecic
    Joined
    Sep 14, 2017
    Messages
    666
    Reaction score
    928
    Apparently there's a group that doesn't care (I've seen a number of builds with zero aesthetic) and a group that does. I didn't know you were part of the latter, or that the latter was particularly prominent. That actually makes a lot more sense as there's very little creativity with zero-aesthetic builds once you find the optimal meta.
    The majority of pigeon-holed PvPers on here DO make beautiful ships which is why you keep hearing us complain about the new meta. If we just wanted OP shit, we'd be happy because this system allows for it at great sacrifice of looks.
     
    Joined
    Jun 11, 2016
    Messages
    1,170
    Reaction score
    646
    The majority of pigeon-holed PvPers on here DO make beautiful ships which is why you keep hearing us complain about the new meta. If we just wanted OP shit, we'd be happy because this system allows for it at great sacrifice of looks.
    So if you don't like your ships strength limitted by it's dimension, what would be a good attribute to equalise out ships? Would you rather have your ship equalised out to others by its mass like in the old power? Or would you rather like to have more dimensions instead of just one? Or do you have another attribute to suggest that you want instead?

    I'm just currious.
     

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,105
    Reaction score
    1,222
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    So if you don't like your ships strength limitted by it's dimension, what would be a good attribute to equalise out ships? Would you rather have your ship equalised out to others by its mass like in the old power? Or would you rather like to have more dimensions instead of just one? Or do you have another attribute to suggest that you want instead?

    I'm just currious.
    We just don't want any one aesthetic choice to be more optimal than any other. People can't be forced to make good looking ships and they shouldn't be, but the game shouldn't be actively encouraging the construction of ugly ships.

    The old system, ironically, does a much better job of this than the new system, discounting spagetti type builds of course.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Ithirahad
    Joined
    Jun 11, 2016
    Messages
    1,170
    Reaction score
    646
    We just don't want any one aesthetic choice to be more optimal than any other. People can't be forced to make good looking ships and they shouldn't be, but the game shouldn't be actively encouraging the construction of ugly ships.

    The old system, ironically, does a much better job of this than the new system, discounting spagetti type builds of course.
    So basically you want mass as equalising attribute for pvp? Then a good compromise would be, to not limit ship perfomance by its dimensions at all. The only reason pvp ships lack interior is the fact that longer ships turn slower.
     

    FlyingDebris

    Vaygr loves my warhead bat.
    Joined
    Sep 6, 2013
    Messages
    2,458
    Reaction score
    1,312
    • Top Forum Contributor
    • Councillor Gold
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    So basically you want mass as equalising attribute for pvp? Then a good compromise would be, to not limit ship perfomance by its dimensions at all. The only reason pvp ships lack interior is the fact that longer ships turn slower.
    Dimensions, generally, are a terrible way to balance things due to the massive variance in number of blocks that can be placed in similar dimensions. That's why mass is better, because no matter where you put them or in what configuration, ships using the same blocks will always have the same mass.

    Truthfully, block count might be better due to the fact that advanced armor has a stupidly high mass per return. But that's a topic for another thread.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Ithirahad
    Joined
    May 25, 2014
    Messages
    84
    Reaction score
    22
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    agreed. although i think turning should be a combination of length, mass, center of mass, and trust to mass ratio. but maybe that is too complex? but at the minimum off of mass itself.

    does anyone know if the ability to fire a weapon from inside of a weapons computer has been removed intentionally? is this a bug, or did i just miss this in a previous update?