Prerelease v0.200.250

[Magrim]

Dev Response:
"Mind you all, I personally have no problem changing stabilizers or removing them. I get the concern and if what you are saying is true I will find myself in a world of hurt when we get to renovating our assets. I will see what's up tomorrow."

If he is talking about reducing the distance requirement, then he does not get the concern.

There is no way to balance stabs based on distance and maintain creative freedom. There is no perfect distance and crew or no will have little positive effect.

 

[Dire Venom]

If he is talking about reducing the distance requirement, then he does not get the concern.

There is no way to balance stabs based on distance and maintain creative freedom. There is no perfect distance and crew or no will have little positive effect.

He did say removing the distance would be possible and discussed.
They just want another space mechanic to replace it, with crew being the top propossel.

Hopefully Schema will take note and make some changes now that it has been communicated to him.

 

[Criss]

What does this even mean?

If there was a more readable information panel that displayed everything, it'd be more accessible to all players.

Thing is 90% of combat ships in fiction have multiple reactors to combat exactly that problem where your ship goes down after one penetrating shot.

I have no problem with multiple reactors. I very very much disliked the old power system. I thought it was stupid to wrap power lines through a ship. Maybe it would make sense if they were cables and they needed to connect or be near systems to power them, but that isn't the case. It's just how the reactor worked. I'd be annoyed if I shot at the cargo bay of a ship and the reactor took a hit because power lines were drawn near it.

I can prove it if you'll listen.

.. Listening? Although honestly I don't really want proof at this point. It's clear why stabilizers aren't working.

Maybe the Blitz, Kontos/Xyston, or the stations? Pioneer possibly?

If I have time I will mess around with them.

id like to know if removing this kind of thing is the direction the games headed in from a company perspective.

Removing what?

There is no more need for NPCs in this game than the occasional pirate wave.

I disagree. Maybe in a MP server, but SP needs something to do as well. We are 100% interested in the PvE side of things. I think that is where StarMade can really shine. Of course we want combat to well tuned so that PvP works well and is fun. Similar titles kind of just stop there, or rely on mods, and then never explore the possibility of creating a universe with actual stuff in it. They feel empty and not worth exploring.

A new player is just going to be confused why their ship needs these weird stabilizers at the front of their ship, and they're going to get annoyed by a giant power beam going through everything.

I can ask to remove them, not a problem. I don't know what their response will be honestly. It will be met with quite a bit of reluctance I am sure. I don't think the energy beam is anything more than a bandaid. I can't really imagine will ever work well with our builds and I am NOT redesigning those ships to accommodate that.

As for the meeting today, well it's christmas eve so it will have to wait till maybe next week. I don't expect we will be working on the game much over the next week anyway.

 

[Magrim]

Listening?

An imbalance arises when a characteristic of a ship can be exploited to gain an advantage over another ship. In the case of power 2.0 it is the distance requirement of stabilizers. To someone who doesn't care about distance, it can be used to gain a considerable advantage over someone who does.

Take two ships of the same length; both of these ships have the same maximum capacity for energy generation in the new system. Ship A uses 100k blocks, ship B uses 250k blocks. The player that built ship B spent more than double the resources and has the larger ship, so why wouldn't it's capability potential be more than that of the smaller ship?

If what you want is to bridge the gap between pvp and rp, then you need to do away with this dimensional based power system because, as I said, some players wont care about dimensions and use them to the detriment of players that do. The shape of a ship should never impact its performance to this extent if you want to maintain creative freedom. Players concerned with performance will build a certain shape while others that don't build that shape will be disadvantaged for not doing so.

Also, if you want to limit energy output to a given size of ship and thus limit systems filling ships, then you need to find an alternative to gauging ship size. The length or height or width of a ship is an extremely poor measure. There will be no way of balancing this because of the extraordinarily vast range of ships that players create. Instead, consider some other way of judging ship size.

If you want an inherently balanced system, then energy output needs to be tied to ship mass or ship block count. If this is done, then ship B (the larger ship) will have a higher capacity for energy output and consequently a higher capacity for offensive and defensive capabilities, which naturally should be the case anyway. Players that dedicate more resources to ship construction will then be rewarded with better ships because the "strength" of a ship is tied to those resources and not to some inconsistent variable that's easily manipulated.

 

[Dire Venom]

If there was a more readable information panel that displayed everything, it'd be more accessible to all players.


I have no problem with multiple reactors. I very very much disliked the old power system. I thought it was stupid to wrap power lines through a ship. Maybe it would make sense if they were cables and they needed to connect or be near systems to power them, but that isn't the case. It's just how the reactor worked. I'd be annoyed if I shot at the cargo bay of a ship and the reactor took a hit because power lines were drawn near it.


.. Listening? Although honestly I don't really want proof at this point. It's clear why stabilizers aren't working.


If I have time I will mess around with them.


Removing what?


I disagree. Maybe in a MP server, but SP needs something to do as well. We are 100% interested in the PvE side of things. I think that is where StarMade can really shine. Of course we want combat to well tuned so that PvP works well and is fun. Similar titles kind of just stop there, or rely on mods, and then never explore the possibility of creating a universe with actual stuff in it. They feel empty and not worth exploring.


I can ask to remove them, not a problem. I don't know what their response will be honestly. It will be met with quite a bit of reluctance I am sure. I don't think the energy beam is anything more than a bandaid. I can't really imagine will ever work well with our builds and I am NOT redesigning those ships to accommodate that.

As for the meeting today, well it's christmas eve so it will have to wait till maybe next week. I don't expect we will be working on the game much over the next week anyway.

Thank you for this Criss , we really appreciate this sort of response!
I hope you have a relaxing and peacful Christmas!

 

[Adaxia]

I will ask in the meeting tomorrow if we can reduce distance then. What I meant is that crew can be the alternative to adding interior space to ships instead of the stabilizer mechanic.

+1, that is a big step in the right direction.

 

[Arcaner]

Scientific Study on Systems:
What is intended:
Taking the case of a ship builder who chooses looks and interiors vs a lazy brick builder, it should be possible for both ships to have more or less the same tactical skills for the same mass. I talk not of extreme RP builders, but of people who want their ship to be pretty to an extent as well as good in combat.

How that can be achieved:
It is obvious that at least some systems should be spaced out. The thought follows that those who want interiors can fill it up (since interiors=space and ships with more inner space for same mass=a bigger target) and those who don't care can leave it....empty? NO. Mass is always a negative effect, there is a further change needed here, but we'll come to that in a minute.

Spacing out just one system (Power, currently) doesn't work well. People will just space that out and fill the middle with other systems. This also favors one-dimensional ship expansion. Not desired for a multitude of reasons. Keep in mind, no ship shape must be preferred over any other.
So, the conclusion follows- Systems must be spaced out- All of them, not just power. (By a much smaller amount of course). Each system creates a bubble (visible in HUD) depending on it's group size. No two bubbles should overlap. In case of overlapping, lesser the distance between the groups, lesser both their efficiencies. (Quite similar to the stabilizer distance mechanic currently in-game). Pretty straightforward. Take the example of a chain- Right now, the ships are like a stick, rigid. Simply because both the endpoints of the stick are defined. But, if we space out ALL systems, (by a little...not as much as stabilizers and reactors :P), ships will be like a combination of smaller sticks, hinged freely. (Each small stick represents small spacing between systems). This will mean they can acquire ANY shape with almost equal efficiency. (Like a metallic chain, although made up of rigid metal parts, links in such a way as to allow maximum freedom in movement.

Spoiler: Image for concept representation

I made this representation to better explain what I am talking about...

Above image represents different systems and their spacing out bubbles...
(Yes, I know that's a horrible image, but I had to make that in hurry)

Now, we come to the second hurdle: Addition of mass. Additionof mass must not be a negative thing. (up to a certain point of course). Why? Simply because brick builders will leave their ships empty in the middle whereas aesthetic builders would like interiors and the such. Yes, interiors are light but still, not enough. Addition of mass will mean slower ships. But what about increase in armor? This has got to be a joke. Armor is damn useless right now, unless you build layers of well thought out stuff. The only possibility is if the older HP system came back. Don't get me wrong- the new Reactor HP sure could mean some cool stuff but, it simply is not meant to be.

Salvaging the current code to apply these modifications:
The system "bubbles" can be created and will be displayed on the same code developed for shield systems. (And yes, shield groups will display two bubbles now)
The code developed to calculate reactor efficiency based on stabilizer size and distance will be now used to determine efficiency of all systems.

 

[Lecic]

Scientific Study on Systems

What is intended: Taking the case of a ship builder who chooses looks and interiors vs a lazy brick builder, it should be possible for both ships to have more or less the same tactical skills for the same mass. I talk not of extreme RP builders, but of people who want their ship to be pretty to an extent as well as good in combat.

How that can be achieved:

It is obvious that at least some systems should be spaced out. The thought follows that those who want interiors can fill it up (since interiors=space and ships with more inner space for same mass=a bigger target) and those who don't care can leave it....empty? NO. Mass is always a negative effect, there is a further change needed here, but we'll come to that in a minute.

• Spacing out just one system (Power, currently) doesn't work well. People will just space that out and fill the middle with other systems. This also favors one-dimensional ship expansion. Not desired for a multitude of reasons. Keep in mind, no ship shape must be preferred over any other.

• So, the conclusion follows- Systems must be spaced out- All of them, not just power. (By a much smaller amount of course). Each system creates a bubble (visible in HUD) depending on it's group size. No two bubbles should overlap. In case of overlapping, lesser the distance between the groups, lesser both their efficiencies. (Quite similar to the stabilizer distance mechanic currently in-game). Pretty straightforward. Take the example of a chain- Right now, the ships are like a stick, rigid. Simply because both the endpoints of the stick are defined. But, if we space out ALL systems, (by a little...not as much as stabilizers and reactors :P), ships will be like a combination of smaller sticks, hinged freely. (Each small stick represents small spacing between systems). This will mean they can aquire ANY shape with almost equal efficiency. (Like a mettalic chain, although made up of rigid metal parts, links in such a way as to allow maximum freedom in movement.

Spoiler: Image for concept representation

I made this representation to better explain what I am talking about...

Above image represents different systems and their spacing out bubbles...
(Yes, I know that's a horrible image, but I had to make that in hurry)

• Now, we come to the second hurdle: Addition of mass. Additionof mass must not be a negative thing. (up to a certain point of course). Why? Simply because brick builders will leave their ships empty in the middle whereas aesthetic builders would like interiors and the such. Yes, interiors are light but still, not enough. Addition of mass will mean slower ships. But what about increase in armor? This has got to be a joke. Armor is damn useless right now, unless you build layers of well thought out stuff. The only possibility is if the older HP system came back. Don't get me wrong- the new Reactor HP sure could mean some cool stuff but, it simply is not meant to be.

Salvaging the current code to apply these modifications:

Let's see what we got here...

• The system "bubbles" can be created and will be displayed on the same code developed for shield systems. (And yes, shield groups will display two bubbles now)

• The code developed to calculate reactor efficiency based on stabilizer size and distance will be now used to determine efficiency of all systems.

Authors-Arcaner
End notes- Merry Christmas folks

One word- Islands.

 

[Kelpaz]

I was figuring out ways to use the stabilizer streams as armor but then found a way to make the stabilization streams disappear instead.
So the new stream things have new exploits, shots don't always pass through, and you can make the stream go into itself and disappear.

 

[Matt_Bradock]

I disagree. Maybe in a MP server, but SP needs something to do as well. We are 100% interested in the PvE side of things. I think that is where StarMade can really shine. Of course we want combat to well tuned so that PvP works well and is fun. Similar titles kind of just stop there, or rely on mods, and then never explore the possibility of creating a universe with actual stuff in it. They feel empty and not worth exploring.

Sorry guys, I'm with Criss on that, we need PvE content. Single player is boring as hell, and even on multi, there should be a chance for who PvP players gladly call "carebears" to find something to do.

 

[Dire Venom]

Sorry guys, I'm with Criss on that, we need PvE content. Single player is boring as hell, and even on multi, there should be a chance for who PvP players gladly call "carebears" to find something to do.

Totaly agree!
If anything, a living, dynamic universe is what Starmade needs to be "whole".
Selling it off as a PvP builder simply isn't going to work. The game needs all types of players, and if there is a solid PvE Experiance, it just gets improved by PvP.
The most fun I've personaly had is exploring the Starmade Universe with other players.
If the mechanics and balance is solid, then PvP should easily follow.
Ship combat should be fun, engaging and thrilling. Personaly I find it a bit dull, even though I love planning out ships for combat, the actual combat doesn't feel quite there yet.

 

[Matt_Bradock]

Totaly agree!
If anything, a living, dynamic universe is what Starmade needs to be "whole".
Selling it off as a PvP builder simply isn't going to work. The game needs all types of players, and if there is a solid PvE Experiance, it just gets improved by PvP.
The most fun I've personaly had is exploring the Starmade Universe with other players.
If the mechanics and balance is solid, then PvP should easily follow.
Ship combat should be fun, engaging and thrilling. Personaly I find it a bit dull, even though I love planning out ships for combat, the actual combat doesn't feel quite there yet.

Gotta say tho, a PvP builder isn't a bad idea either. Why not both? I mean, it's the server owner's discretion whether NPC factions are enabled or not, but I might as well go further one step and take a look at the old, neglected, outdated battlemode and subject it to renovation.
For inspiration, take a look at Minecraft. It started as a building-exploring game and nowadays the most popular multiplayer servers are the unique PvP or co-op gamemodes like UHC, SkyWars and Hunger Games, where things end relatively quickly. Then take a look at games like Robocraft and Dreadnought, and you'll see the appeal of entering matches with pre-built ships and duking it out to see whose design works best or whose piloting skills are superior. That is what I'd expect from a Battle Mode, giving PvP players an arena with different scenarios to jump right in, without having to worry about grinding resources for the ships or the consequences of losing them. It would also serve as a live fire testing area for the newest designs.

 

[Kelpaz]

Better AI would improve PVE, the changes to the systems doesn't change the fact that AI loves to speed away to another sector in combat.

The old AI despite being simple felt much more interesting to fight, they stayed in the same sector flying around your ship.

 

[Non]

Honestly a better pve experience is the best thing for us pvprs. If players who pve are challenged more by the ai and the ai ships, theyll have to spend much more time optimizing their ships which makes them able to compete better in pvp, its really what this update should have been instead of power.

 

[starhaiden]

Instead of the current way stabilisers are where all of them have to be a certain distance away to achieve 100% what if instead a certain amount of stabilisers are 100% a certain distance away from the reactors. e.g.
The amount of stabiliser that are 100% could work like y=d+ 1.5^d where y is the number of stabiliser and d blocks away.
If d=1 than y=2.5
d=2 than y=4.25
d=3 than y=6.375
d=4 than y=9
d=5 than y=13
d=6 than y=17
d=7 than y=24
d=8 than y=34
d=9 than y=47
(rounded)

 

[Batavium]

V0-200-269

Default server.cfg

PROTECT_STARTING_SECTOR = false //null

Seal clubbing 2.0?

DEFAULT_BLUEPRINT_ENEMY_USE = true //null

User build turret bases as Pirates 2.0? Or a few storage boxes to a core to gain massive loot for free.

PLAYER_MAX_BUILD_AREA = 10 //null

10 is really small please up this to 30 or so. There are to many servers with 10 as default.

MISSILE_DEFENSE_FRIENDLY_FIRE = true //null

Why?

ONLY_ALLOW_FACTION_SHIPS_ADDED_TO_FLEET = false //null

Seriously? He I am thief it is cool!

 

[Matt_Bradock]

Criss , schema , anyone in particular, can I get a bit more in-depth explanation about structural integrity in shielding? Currently, seems like I'm incapable of reaching positive integrity on my shield rechargers despite trying to have them in a single dense group - looks like another of my previous worries came true. Namely, my ship's current interior layout makes it impossible to put a single dense blob of shield rechargers and capacitors in the center of the ship - and it's a relatively small, <3K mass craft. I would literally have to move the core to do so and still have my entire vessel covered in the shield bubble, btw the radius of which also seems to have been nerfed. Having an interior room in the middle of the group makes it impossible to bring the integrity in the positive range. Ironically, I don't have enough space to fiull with systems because the space between the interior and the ship's outer hull is relatively small (less than 10 blocks). So, how is this supposed to encourage interior? Again, we have to place the systems before we even start building interior if we want stuff to function? That's not how it used to work and it hurts creative freedom, AGAIN.
[doublepost=1514296934,1514295606][/doublepost]

V0-200-269

Default server.cfg

PROTECT_STARTING_SECTOR = false //null

Seal clubbing 2.0?

DEFAULT_BLUEPRINT_ENEMY_USE = true //null

User build turret bases as Pirates 2.0? Or a few storage boxes to a core to gain massive loot for free.

PLAYER_MAX_BUILD_AREA = 10 //null

10 is really small please up this to 30 or so. There are to many servers with 10 as default.

MISSILE_DEFENSE_FRIENDLY_FIRE = true //null

Why?

ONLY_ALLOW_FACTION_SHIPS_ADDED_TO_FLEET = false //null

Seriously? He I am thief it is cool!

How not to make any sense, by Schine, 2017

 

[HerrColonel]

, seems like I'm incapable of reaching positive integrity on my shield rechargers despite trying to have them in a single dense group[/USER]

Try to think it this way: blocks buried inside the system blob = bonus. blocks at the blob's surface = malus. If you make a big square and extend it in the remaining axis you'll get more and more bonus from inside blocks, that'll make up for the surface malus. When you have a shitload of integrity piled up, you can be more creative with the shape of your systems.

 

[Matt_Bradock]

Try to think it this way: blocks buried inside the system blob = bonus. blocks at the blob's surface = malus. If you make a big square and extend it in the remaining axis you'll get more and more bonus from inside blocks, that'll make up for the surface malus. When you have a shitload of integrity piled up, you can be more creative with the shape of your systems.

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?

tfw you actually have to delete a major room in your ship so you can place your shield rechargers the way the new system that encourages building interior, works.

 

[HerrColonel]

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 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

It's going to go on over and over until the mechanics are so dumb that they even penalize the designs you wanted to promote in the first place

Enjoy patched shipdesign, fellow builder =(