Given the amount of blocks currently in the game, and that this number (and the complexity of resulting combinations) is only going to grow as more and more features are implemented into the game, I was thinking that it would be nice to see some sort of progression 'unlocking' mechanic be implemented where the majority of the blocks are hidden until you've achieved certain actions/events. I know the tiered factory system does this to an extent, but with a very small amount of resources one can make virtually every block available within the first 10 mins of gameplay. It's a lack of any sort of 'pace' in the game that would result in us feeling like we're really accomplishing stuff. It can also be very overwhelming for somebody completely new to StarMade to make heads-or-tails of so many blocks suddenly at their disposal without any clue as to what the majority of them do.
Example pace:
1) Small mining ship with the initial starter blocks
2) Mine the nearest asteroid
3) Use resources to build the tier 1 factory
4) Use resources to make a slightly bigger ship
5) Crafting 30 Basic Hull blocks unlocks the tier 1 armor and a a new weapon
6) Ship is further improved
7) Crafting 30 tier 1 armor and 5 new weapon blocks unlocks the next factory (with tier 2 armor and another new weapon)
8) Ship is further improved and maybe a based is establish on a planet
9) Crafting 30 tier 2 armor and 5 of the newest weapon blocks unlocks tier 3 armor and -some- advanced block components
10) Crafting 30 tier 3 armor unlocks the next factory (with tier 4 armor, another new weapon and a few more advanced block components)
... etc
Even some sort of xp/level system where crafting certain blocks nets you given amounts of xp and more progressively unlock upon reaching particular levels would at least be -something- to constantly feel driven to achieve.
[edit] the blocks also seriously need to scale higher in cost to slow the current pace
I think that part of the point of the game design in it's current state is that it is supposed to be easy to get all those blocks. In alpha the goal is to test all the features and stress-test the system with bigger ships and stations. If we hid blocks behind walls of xp/level/quest progression then people who play the game would not be so quick to stress-test, offer tips for balancing weapons, try new features.
But before full release I totally agree that a progression should be implemented. I've been playing the game for a while and I still don't know all the weapon/effect combinations.
I think this would make the game too MMO-like. I dont think that is what the Schine team wants. However, I do agree that we need gradual progression so it's not going from shuttle to titian all the time.
I think that part of the point of the game design in it's current state is that it is supposed to be easy to get all those blocks. In alpha the goal is to test all the features and stress-test the system with bigger ships and stations. If we hid blocks behind walls of xp/level/quest progression then people who play the game would not be so quick to stress-test, offer tips for balancing weapons, try new features..
Ah, yeah I hadn't considered that and it definitely makes sense. I hope somewhere down the road, though, that we do start to see things solidifying into more of a 'game' than a 'test' environment
...There is a balance to be achieved with this, though. I don't think many people want this to move out of alpha and suddenly become "it takes years just to get a 300-meter starship." All we need are more things to encourage people NOT to go over around 500,000 mass and we're good.
While I'm all for a more in-depth tutorial, protected starter system I'm gonna hafta draw the line at endorsing any sort of level/xp/progression system. Those types of systems have no business in any variation of a FPS/shooter game where novice and veteran share the same game world/universe. Any game that starts down that path just ends up continually raising the 'level cap' to try to keep players that have max'ed out rather than make a honestly good game. The developers spend most of their time in a pointless arms race rendering most of the earlier game content un-challenging to all but the starting players, and locking out the less advanced players from the newest content. Players of those games don't get better at playing them, they just get stronger weapons and armor to make up for lack of tactics and skill.
Developers take note, players will either outpace you in gaining xp faster than you can produce new content or it will be such a grind that no-one except die-hard fanatics will play it. There is no happy middle ground here.
I used to play FireFall, then they added levels, level locked content. I told them on the forums that it was a bad decision. They went ahead and expanded on it. I started looking for a new game, found Starmade and haven't played FireFall since.
The sole objective in starmade is not to progress by enlarging/improving your ship, as the ultimate fate of every vessel is to eventually be blown into pieces.
^This.
All players share the same world and the same building components. Two players with ships of near equal mass should have the same chances of winning in a confrontation regardless of playtime.
Mmo-like-progression systems don't fit into any fps as SkaireKrough explained in his post pretty well. But in starmade it would be even worse, since you wouldn't just die you would also loose your progress by loosing your ship.
If ships are made even more valuable by some kind of progression system the gameplay would get really passive, as everybody is understandibly afraid to loose his TierXX ship that took him hours/days/months to get.
With a working economy there wouldn't be a need for any threshold, as the power softcap results in ships with about 800.000 e/sec being the most resource efficient solution.
I don't see a problem with bigger ships, since they are more valuable (so much more pain to loose), less efficient in terms of shields/power regen (even docked generators are not that efficient due to the supplybeams), more vulnerable (in terms of size/(turnrate*acceleration) ratio).
I don't see a problem with bigger ships, since they are more valuable (so much more pain to loose), less efficient in terms of shields/power regen (even docked generators are not that efficient due to the supplybeams), more vulnerable (in terms of size/(turnrate*acceleration) ratio).
Yes, but there comes a point where the drawbacks stop mattering and the ships turn into a giant, laggy, hulking entry barrier that can completely stagnate the game because nobody can get rid of them.
In response to SkaireKrough and Dragleones : I'm curious if you would also be opposed to an achievement tree.
You don't want to convert the game into a play-time-based-heirarchy, and I totally agree with that. What I think the OP was saying, though, is that when a new player tries Starmade it is easy to be overwhelmed at the number of blocks, the use of factories, the recipes for factories, controls in build mode, etc. If Schine keeps adding blocks, this is going to get worse and no one wants to have to go through a 30-minute tutorial when they already know half the information.
I personally feel that having to reference a wiki to learn about features of the game is a buzz-kill.
What if it were an achievement system - kind of like Minecraft? This way a new player could pull up a screen and see a tree:
"Build a ship using the X key"
|--> "Dock a turret by shooting a dock module with a docking beam"
|--> "Build and fire a cannon-slave system by linking two canon computers using C and V"
| |-->"Deal 1k dps with lasers"
|-->"Build and fire a missile-slave system..."
|-->"Deal 5k damage with a single missile"
But at the same time advanced players can ignore it. The achievements could give some reward to foster a sense of progression, maybe a sum of money or group of items or a +1% bonus to a ship stat when piloting.
No. And thats entirely different from what op suggested and to which I reacted in my post.
Op suggested different tier blocks and I'm strongly against that as you can read from my post above. (and i believe that is what SkaireKrough was also refering to)
Your suggestion of adding an achievement(-tutorial)-system though is definitly a good idea to help new players get into the game and to give them guidelines on how to play. Something like that is much more motivating than your usual read+click tutorial.
And there are many players who need clear objectives and rewards to keep playing a game.
As I said previously I am for any type of expanded tutorial system, even more so for one that doesn't feel like a tutorial. Perhaps the planned quest/mission system could incorporate some of your ideas, Missions could be organized by type and difficulty much like your proposed achievement system. The rewards should be the sense of accomplishment and payment for completing the mission. The idea of granting a bonus in stats however crosses the line and can and most likely will unbalance the combat system.
After the shipyard system is in place, I'll probably start work on a "tutorial earned-credit space station", where the player starts on one end, has to work at mining and crafting and other basics, and finally gets to the other end, where they have earned a basic starter ship, at which point there are some flight-based tutorials to finish off the station. That'll be a fun way to see how a game-integrated tutorial would go for this game. Kind of like the Sector A starting training area in Half Life.
I find the comparison of StarMade to FPS games very interesting, as I've played a lot of FPS games and this doesn't have the same mindless feel of running around a map shooting other players... it has more of a creative/sandbox feel. Maybe it's just a result of the way I've been choosing to play? I literally think of it as Minecraft in space lol And I love that about it. I also completely agree that levels/tiers/etc have no place in FPS games, as it should be a matter of player skill not player stats in such games... equal opportunity, like you guys were pointing out. This is not one of those games, though, where it comes down to a matter of skill. It's whoever has the most firepower/shielding, as a result of time being spent to amass the resources/funds (a form of progression).
Instead of Strength, you have 'X' amount of firepower.
Instead of HP, you have 'X' amount of armor/hull.
Instead of Dexterity, you have 'X' amount of turnrate/acceleration.
Don't kid yourselves... this is not an FPS.
When I suggested a tiered system, I wasn't suggesting something that isn't passively already in the game.
I did (and still do) suggest it being made more apparent for a newcomer, such as myself, when things start to move beyond the Alpha Testing phase. Whether it's with things being unlocked progressively or with a guided achievement system (awesome idea, btw)... goals are what keep us playing. I understand some of you guys have already been at this for a while and have maybe forgotten what it's like to be just starting to learn how the game is structured and what each block does. However, you're still setting goals for yourselves (build this, modify that, gather 'x' money) else you would have no reason to play. Even in a sandbox environment such as this, without any goals being given to us, it's simply in our nature to find a 'reason' to do something. Tutorials are goal-oriented environments, as are missions/quests, and to see them carried on throughout the rest of the game to make sure we always have a reason to come back (even when we fail to find one on our own) just seems like a logical next-step to me. It's cool if you guys have nothing left to do but shoot at each other, because you've already amassed thousands of everything... but what about us? What about the people yet to come?
[DOUBLEPOST=1426974307,1426972969][/DOUBLEPOST]
All players share the same world and the same building components. Two players with ships of near equal mass should have the same chances of winning in a confrontation regardless of playtime.
I stick to single player, so it's really just me against pirates lol
Anyways... unless you have literally identical ships, how could you have the same chances? I find it hard to believe everyone would be using 'near equal mass' with identical weapon systems, especially with all the available options and human creativity/ingenuity. I tried a multiplayer server once and there were some pretty wildly different looking ships, and I'm sure they would all perform fairly differently. I also think they had to invest in 'playtime' to build them. More playtime -> better ship. I highly doubt any ship I built right now that was of equal mass to one of yours would be anywhere near as efficient with its weapons/shields/etc. You would win, because you've learned better with your greater amount of playtime.
[...]This is not one of those games, though, where it comes down to a matter of skill. It's whoever has the most firepower/shielding, as a result of time being spent to amass the resources/funds (a form of progression).[...]
It barely ever comes down to being only a matter of skill. But in Starmade battles skill has a high influence if not the highest influence of any factor affecting the outcome of a battle.
Turrets are vulnerable and inaccurate, leaving the main firepower to the frontweapons of a ship. In simple face-to-face-style exchanges of fire more firepower/shielding definitly has the edge over less. But lets face it: Even when just fighting pirates you usually need to turn constantly due to a rather limited fire arc. Since the turnrate is solely dependant on the dimensions of the ship smaller craft tends to have much more maneuverability. A good demonstration of this is this:
->Bigger is definitly not necessarily better.
Thrust is affected by diminishing return. Same with shieldcapacity. Building shotgun arrays (not the missile slave effect) is nerfed by a additional power consumption per group. As written above turning rate is also reduced with increasing dimensions (the current hardcap will be probably changed into a softcap somewhen ( since a 500m ship is currently turning as fast as a 2000m ship)).
But the actual limiting factor of every ship is power regeneration.
A 70 meter vessel can easily reach 800000 e/sec with an actual actual powerregen per block value of about 300 (e/sec)perblock. The efficiency of power drops quickly afterwards barely reaching 100 (e/sec)perblock at 1300000 e/sec depending on the design. This value eventually reaches 25 (e/sec)perblock scaling linear. Modular Power can push this up a bit, but not much (my current calculated design works at 75 (e/sec)perblock (taking all powersupplybeams/temporarystorage/powerreactor/etc into account)).
This basically means: two corvettes 70 meter length each may have 16001320,34 e/sec in total (each with 800660,17 e/sec using 41 power stripes (67 blocks long each) resulting in 291,47 (e/sec)perblock using 2747 power blocks).
Opposing to a titan which needs in order to reach the about same amount of total energy 41 power stripes (600 blocks long each) resulting in only 65,65 (e/sec)perblock using 24600 power blocks which is actually 4,47 times the blocks of the two corvettes.
tl;dr
Power works as a limiting factor for shipsize.
Every ship above 1000000 e/sec gets stupidly inefficent in terms of value per block.
[...]
Instead of Strength, you have 'X' amount of firepower.
Instead of HP, you have 'X' amount of armor/hull.
Instead of Dexterity, you have 'X' amount of turnrate/acceleration.
[...]
Firepower doesn't converts itself into damage dealt unlike strength in your standard rpg since you need to hit first (i mean the mechanical process of aiming at a target and then hitting it (not your usual evade chance in a standard rpg)).
More firepower usually means more energy required which results into much more mass (as explicated in the energy-rant above) which results in a lower turnrate which results into you having a harder time to hit any moving target.
In its current state the analogy shieldcapacity<=>hp-pool is much more suitable. But the usefulness of hull/armor will eventually get increased in the upcoming hp-system.
But having more of "HP" (Shieldcapacity) results into an increased size, which means you are turning/accelerating slower while being a greater target.
The analogy Dexterity<=>turnrate/acceleration does work somehow. Except for the part that it actually scales inversely with the shipsize. Resulting in the smaller ("weaker") ship being the more maneuverable one.
The RPG-Stat analogys don't really work, since having more of these stats doesn't automatically result into a greater "impact".
Don't kid yourselves... this is not an RPG.
Another rant about Tier-Blocks
The reason that i wouldn't consider the three different hull types as somekind of tier system is A) without the upcoming hp system it has little effect on the evectiveness which is the reason why armor/hull is commonly used in more aesthetic ways and B) the three types are atleast different in terms of function: normal hull is insanely cheap with 50hp, standard armor has a high price with 100hp and 60%armor, while advanced armor has 250hp and 75%armor while being insanely expensive.
->The insane pricegap makes standard/advanced armor not simply a better replacement of normal hull. But rather a alternative.
I would actually love to see some tweeks to the mass of these armor types to differentiate them even further. Or for example the addition of lightwight armor with low protection but very little mass etc... .
If you referring to that as a tier system than its probably just about our differing definition of a tier system.
My understanding of a Tier systemYour usual way of progression in a rpg is by giving the player the possibility to obtain better stuff rendering the old stuff obsolete. A system of 5 different tiers of shieldblocks would motivate player to just obtaining the lowest possible amount of tier I blocks to progress to tier II and so on, until you would end up using only tier V blocks in the end to stay competitive. Even if you would want to save up ressources you would just use less tier V blocks, since lower tier blocks are just straight worse than the higher tier blocks.
This kind of system would also just eat up unnecessary block ids.
As you liked to refer to starmade as minecraft in space: The "tier system" in minecraft is imo a major design flaw, as you can see on any server with a bit playtime. Everyone just uses diamond things as soon as they are avaible as they make up the best tools and the best weapons/armor you can achieve in the game.
You actually need diamond equipment in order to stay competetive in pvp. Wooden tools are used in the first minute, Stone tools maybe even for the first hours, but in the end everyone will only use diamond tools (iron tools maybe in some rare cases), and goldtools are useless to begin with.
An Achievement System
I still can't relate some of the above suggestions concerning an achievement/tutorial/mission system like in minecraft etc. to a tier-system.
I would really welcome changes increasing the accessibility for new players.
Anyways... unless you have literally identical ships, how could you have the same chances? I find it hard to believe everyone would be using 'near equal mass' with identical weapon systems[...]I tried a multiplayer server once and I'm sure they would all perform fairly differently. [...]
I highly doubt any ship I built right now that was of equal mass to one of yours would be anywhere near as efficient with its weapons/shields/etc. You would win, because you've learned better with your greater amount of playtime.
Utilizing game mechanics int the most beneficial way (in this case building) is imo a very accurate description of skill. Someone who designs a efficient ship should be rewarded with a efficient ship.
And in the current state of the game players get rewarded for it, which gives more experienced players the edge over players with less experience in shipbuilding.
Another advantage is ofcourse, that veterans have already obtained ressources to build ships, while new players need to gather them first. But the new player has even with few blocks
A block-tiersystem would favor veterans even more, as they have more accessibility due to their playtime to higher tier-blocks.
And this is where its actually getting really frustrating for new players joining a server. As they need to acquire the
(Leaving aside that the sword<=>ship analogy isn't that suitable since swordsize doesn't equal firepower)
Currently all players are running around hitting each others using woodswords. Some might have a claymore they can barely hold, while others might just run around with daggers. Some might have used oak wood, while others might prefer the shininess of birch. But even then: all these weapons are just woodswords crafted using the same wood blocks. A new player who just obtained a simple one handed woodsword can compete with someone who is using an old mysterious katana handed down from generation to generation.
(On the other hand, ofcourse someone with a wood-needle shouldn't be able to beat someone using the ff7 buster sword.)
But lets throw in a tier system giving the players the possibility to obtain stone/iron/diamond weapons. The experienced veterans are still running around hitting each others with their diamondswords. New players on the other hand start of with woodswords and need to grind not only the ressource to build a decently sized weapon (A needle should never be a appropriate weapon). No they actually need to grind even longer in order to obtain stone/iron and diamond blocks eventually, before they can even think about competing with other players.
Someone with a high playtime might fuck up by accidently building a shovel instead of a proper sword, but is still able to easily crush anyone running around using obolete stone/wood/iron-weapons.
But it can get even more ridiculous, like when someone can walk around obliterating any wood/stone user just using a blunt butter knife. Still doesn't matter as its made out of diamonds....
As I'm reading through this again i'm realizing that its a rather accurate description of your typical mmorpg-experience. Where the only real competition occours in the endgame, since every player has already obtained the max gear.
Pilot A is relativly new to the server C. Using his indepth gameknowledge and 20years of experience as a professional shipbuilder he is still able to make the most of his tier I blocks by maximizing his powerregen using complicated patterns for the maximum sum of dimensions and by balancing his powerregen with his thrust/shieldregen/weapon-powerconsumption. After 2 hours of work Pilot A is finally satisfied with his work.
Pilot B is a old veteran on the server C. Using his(way too overpowered (nerf plx)420) tier XI blocks he finally got by grinding for the past 2 years he "carefuly" designs his ship fully utilizing the 10x10x10 tool of the advanced buildmode to throw together a few cubes of powerblocks/shieldblocks/thrusters and a few hundred cubes of Cannons (since despite consuming your full power in 0,01 seconds you can't have too many weapons. Really! ). After about 2 minutes he finished his masterpiece and is ready to ride to battle.
When salvaging an asteroid Pilot A eventually encounters Pilot B. Being in opposing factions they immediatly start fighting. Sadly for Pilot A: Having more firepower, better shields and still a higher maneuverability due to his overall superior tier XI blocks while even having the smaller craft, Pilot B is dominating from the start forcing Pilot A instantly to withdraw.
Pilot A is crying silently in a corner while his vessel is being blown into pieces. But its not a huge loss, since his ship was just made from Tier I blocks!
All this is fair, since Pilot A should have to grind for atleast 2 years too to be able to fight Pilot B competetive in a confrontation. But at that time Pilot B has probably already advanced to Tier XXIIV.
The analogy Dexterity<=>turnrate/acceleration does work somehow. Except for the part that it actually scales inversely with the shipsize. Resulting in the smaller ("weaker") ship being the more maneuverable one.
The RPG-Stat analogys don't really work, since having more of these stats doesn't automatically result into a greater "impact".
Very well explained, and I stand corrected that the RPG-Stat analogy is not a direct fit as they typically don't account for the 'size' of the player. If they did, though, I would imagine it would result in the same sort of inverse relationship. Come to think of it, I've actually coded a system like that into a game I had worked on a few years ago lol when I calculated the stats of randomly generated goblins for a turn-based-combat match I would always give the 'Large' goblins higher strength and health but much lower dexterity... so they would be more likely to get hit but less likely to hit something themselves (the Dexterity of each participant was compared to determine the 'chance of hit'). It was a balancing act to keep the combat interesting, and the framework of StarMade is now sounding very familiar as I think back to that... I still very much agree, though, that this is not an RPG.
lol yeah, that system is straight uphill and you certainly feel like you've fallen when you lose a bunch of diamond gear that took you ages to acquire.
From what I'm understanding of the 'mass' for blocks... the more advanced hull/armor blocks have higher mass, so you end up with a linear relationship somewhere like 100 Gray Hull = 1 White Standard? So the ship with better armor would have to be smaller than the other to be of equal mass, right? I'm asking because I literally don't know lol If I am understanding correctly, though... wouldn't that make the ship with better armor always have more turning/acceleration to perform better (not counting weapons/power/etc)? I'll be honest that I'm really just trying to pose an argument that using anything 'less' than the most expensive armor results in a bad idea due to much greater size in order to achieve the same armor/mass... making the cheap stuff obsolete once you have lots of the expensive. I'm admittedly just learning from your explanations, though, so it's totally your fault if I'm wrong lmao jk :p seriously, though, I wanna make sure I understand how this game works :D
[edit] It just dawned on me that I often take the stance of posing a misinformed argument to compel someone to educate me via correction lol wonder why it took me so long to realize that...
"Progression" in Starmade is by making more and better ships. It already has a natural progression by taking time to produce more blocks and new players needing to learn about optimal building strategies. No artificial progression limiters are needed.
"Progression" in Starmade is by making more and better ships. It already has a natural progression by taking time to produce more blocks and new players needing to learn about optimal building strategies. No artificial progression limiters are needed.
I definitely noticed that passive form of progression and I'm cool with it... just wanna wrap my head around what exactly makes a ship 'better' as there's seeming to be a steep learning curve here with the 'optimal building strategies' that are not explained anywhere in the game. To reiterate my original statement: perhaps it should be? The 'hp-system' sounds like it'll make things more familiar to us noobs, which is nice, but a little in-game guidance or tutorial would be nicer... especially if it means not having to scour the forums or some wiki to get a clue what we're doing.
[edit] Maybe this is why education is often linearly structured? Basic arithmetic -> Algebra -> Calculus -> etc...
From what I'm understanding of the 'mass' for blocks... the more advanced hull/armor blocks have higher mass, so you end up with a linear relationship somewhere like 100 Gray Hull = 1 White Standard? So the ship with better armor would have to be smaller than the other to be of equal mass, right? I'm asking because I literally don't know lol If I am understanding correctly, though... wouldn't that make the ship with better armor always have more turning/acceleration to perform better (not counting weapons/power/etc)?
Blockmass:
The comment about hull mass above was just some wishful thinking. (I think i wrote something like: I'd love to see^^)
I can't currently check it but as far as i know all blocks share the same mass (1 block = 0,1 mass) (this doesn't apply to natural blocks though (alias lava/rocks/etc. which are 1 block = 1 mass i recall?)
Armor 101:
Currently the hull types only differentiate in price, hitpoint and armor:
Hull: Hitpoints= 75; Armor= 0; Cost= 50; EffectiveHealth= 75; EffectiveHealth per Cost=1,5
StandardArmor: Hitpoints=100; Armor=60; Cost= 125; EffectiveHealth= 400; EffectiveHealth per Cost=3,2
AdvancedArmor: Hitpoints=250; Armor=75; Cost=1000; EffectiveHealth=1000; EffectiveHealth per Cost=1
Standard armor is pretty damn efficient in terms of effective health. But there are many other factors to include: Hull/Armor vs non explosive/non piercing/etc.-weapons
The effective health is only relevant when you are facing low damage weapons (Damage<Effective Health). When you just deal enough damage to a block to destroy it in one hit it doesn't matter if its hull, standard armor, or even a block of rock.
This is a reason many players like to push their weapons to over 1000 damage per shot, since that means that they'll destroy any block in one hit. That means when facing weapons that do less than 400[1000] damage per shot standard armor[advanced armor] gives the most protection, while you usually can just go for normal hull, as its as good as any other block when it comes to eating high damage values, except that its damn cheap.
Hull/Armor vs explosive/piercing/etc.-weapons
Now armor has an entirely different value as it also reduces the damage done to blocks behind, making the standard and advanced armor even better. Advanced armor has the edge over standard due to its 15% higher armor value. Again the effective health has really little effect, since most of these weapons are designed to be able to destroy all types of blocks with high initial damage. But the armor value definitly helps reducing the spread of the damage.
Reminder
While advanced armor might look like far superior. In many cases it doesn't really matter due to the high damage and in addition to that advanced armor is stupidly expensive. You can build 8 standard armor blocks for every 1 advanced armor block you have. Unlike in a rpg where you would still rush for the smallest gain in order to fully min/max your stats. Armor/hull doesn't protect by simply building it (unlike shieldblocks) but rather by being destroyed. If you have a all-out battle and your hull is fully intact and hasn't eaten any fire its pretty much dispensable. You would be much better off by replacing it with more shielding capacitors, etc.
Maneuverability:
Turning rate is affected by dimensions. A small ship turns faster. A massive 30x30x30 cube turns much faster than a 200x200x200 framework.
Acceleration on the other hand which depends on thrust/mass ratio, which depends on thrust is only affected by the mass.
Since as pointed out above under "Blockmass" all blocks share the same amount of mass. The smaller ships in terms of dimensions tends to have less mass and therefore both more thrust=acceleration and a faster turning speed than bigger ships.
"Progression" in Starmade is by making more and better ships. It already has a natural progression by taking time to produce more blocks and new players needing to learn about optimal building strategies. No artificial progression limiters are needed.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
