Remove Stabilizers

[Shaker]

Every server will likely dial the stabilizer distance down to almost nothing.

completely agree

 

[RB101]

"
Not every single StarMade player plays the way you do, some players want to spend 6 months building large roleplay ships that look like they are straight out of a AAA game, if they want to do that sort of thing in this game then thats great! However don't force your subjective preferences on gameplay onto the rest of us who don't share you preferences.

This game isn’t a triple A game. If you wanna role play accept the game will not line up with the source material for that role play. People can still play this game for free atm so the amount of complaints and self entitlement from players who have OCD issues is just unwarranted. It’s not even out of alpha yet if I’m up to date on that.

Besides I do think that the distance required for stabilisers is a bit much. I’d reduce it by about 30% current and make the minimum stabilisation 25% when below the optimum distance.

I do have gripes with some of the new features but all I’ve seen are people wanting straight out with it instead of a compromise.

 

[Valiant70]

This game isn’t a triple A game. If you wanna role play accept the game will not line up with the source material for that role play. People can still play this game for free atm so the amount of complaints and self entitlement from players who have OCD issues is just unwarranted. It’s not even out of alpha yet if I’m up to date on that.

Besides I do think that the distance required for stabilisers is a bit much. I’d reduce it by about 30% current and make the minimum stabilisation 25% when below the optimum distance.

I do have gripes with some of the new features but all I’ve seen are people wanting straight out with it instead of a compromise.

There is a compromise: making stabilizers do something fun and interesting, or at least making them multi-dimensional to get rid of the needle meta.

 

[RB101]

There is a compromise: making stabilizers do something fun and interesting, or at least making them multi-dimensional to get rid of the needle meta.

The needle meta has two ways to be easily dealt with. Both have the same effect but effect performance differently.

1. Block decay & systems disabled for blocks or segments that are not connected to the ship main core body
(This will effectively murder the needle meta, as well as spaghetti & island, as well as put enphasis on stronger structure building as opposed to exoskeleton shells filled with systems)

2. Section break offs if disconnected (This one is already implemented in game but is disabled due to performance requirements). This has exactly the same effect as the 1st but is instant. Very effective on paper. A knightmare for real world performance.

There are other ways to fix such problems. 1 dimensional thinking and just hating on the most recent change will not solve this issue in the long run.

Edit: I may update this post with new ideas as I reconcile them.

 

[Spartan-228]

This game isn’t a triple A game. If you wanna role play accept the game will not line up with the source material for that role play. People can still play this game for free atm so the amount of complaints and self entitlement from players who have OCD issues is just unwarranted. It’s not even out of alpha yet if I’m up to date on that.

Besides I do think that the distance required for stabilisers is a bit much. I’d reduce it by about 30% current and make the minimum stabilisation 25% when below the optimum distance.

I do have gripes with some of the new features but all I’ve seen are people wanting straight out with it instead of a compromise.

As someone that dose role play on this game. I find the game will line up with what you want relatively well. How well depends on four factors.
01. How much work you are willing to put into your builds.
02. What the rules of the server you are playing on are.
03.How well are the server rules enforced.
04. The people you are playing with.

As for people's complaints, it dose not stem from OCD issues.
Wile it is quite possible for server owners to tweek the stats to better suit the players on their server, a problem arises when every one is changing the way their servers handles something as important as power. This would lead to it becoming difficult to use ship designs from one server on another without doing a complete refit. And wile this would be frustrating to individual ship builders, amagen what this would do to community content ship and station builders.
So you can see why fans might be a little concerned when an interracial part of the game, IE the power system. Has what could be seen as glaring design flaws.

 

[Dire Venom]

The needle meta has two ways to be easily dealt with. Both have the same effect but effect performance differently.

1. Block decay & systems disabled for blocks or segments that are not connected to the ship main core body
(This will effectively murder the needle meta, as well as spaghetti & island, as well as put enphasis on stronger structure building as opposed to exoskeleton shells filled with systems)

2. Section break offs if disconnected (This one is already implemented in game but is disabled due to performance requirements). This has exactly the same effect as the 1st but is instant. Very effective on paper. A knightmare for real world performance.

There are other ways to fix such problems. 1 dimensional thinking and just hating on the most recent change will not solve this issue in the long run.

Edit: I may update this post with new ideas as I reconcile them.

Unfortunately due to rails, logic, docked entities etc the first option really isn't possible and would cause more issues than it would fix.

 

[RB101]

Unfortunately due to rails, logic, docked entities etc the first option really isn't possible and would cause more issues than it would fix.

Block decay would only be tracked on a primary grid basis. And if that grids rail decays with a turret or ship docked, then it simply undocks, the turret grid itself would not suffer block decay due to the motherships status. The same being true the other eay around, the mothership will not suffer block decay due to a docked entities status. That being said if the turrets docker become disconnected from the turret grids core then the docker will probably decay and the turret will undock as a result, the same goes for ships.

That is not really a problem. Schines terrible collision physics are. Why they didn’t just use unity for this is beyond me... their engine really is crap.

 

[boomchacle]

I think that its better to have a ship with two concise power generators than having to fill the entire ship with them. just my opinion, but I dont like having to make a power reactor a spaghetti strand a kilometer long to be efficient.

 

[Lecic]

I think that its better to have a ship with two concise power generators than having to fill the entire ship with them. just my opinion, but I dont like having to make a power reactor a spaghetti strand a kilometer long to be efficient.

I don't see why removing stabilizers would require players to fill their entire ship with generators. Power that isn't being used is pretty worthless.

Without stabilizers, players will fill their ships with systems and enough generators to use those systems. Does this not sound right?

I'm not sure where you're getting kilometer long spaghetti strands from this. I'm not proposing we go back to the old power system, just that we remove stabilizers from the new power system.

 

[boomchacle]

lol WHen I build ships, the main limiter is the power. I mean, if you are gonna fill it to the brim with weapons, shields, and thrusters, what else would limit it.

 

[Kelpaz]

lol WHen I build ships, the main limiter is the power. I mean, if you are gonna fill it to the brim with weapons, shields, and thrusters, what else would limit it.

In the old system with capacity the limits of a ship would be power gen vs power capacity.
You could make a trade off on a ship by having more capacity to fire high yield weapons or use alot of your power gen for shield recharge.
To me this was pretty well balanced I was making some really great ships even when not reaching the 2M soft cap

Now the "trade off" is mostly just distance to stabilizers.
It's too easy to end up with empty space now and all systems take power even when not used like the weapons "standby power".

 

[Valiant70]

Not sure really, but I suspect there's a mechanic being considered that prevents stabilizers from forcing a specific shape for ships.

 

[Dire Venom]

Not sure really, but I suspect there's a mechanic being considered that prevents stabilizers from forcing a specific shape for ships.

The mechanic is called Common Sense.

Seriously though, I hope they've consided using it.

 

[Valiant70]

Work in recent dev builds has debugged and improved the current stabilizer mechanics. I can't find any evidence of mechanics changes.

 

[Mered4]

Ender here.

The goal of all ship systems (we have 8 separate systems, not including the individual effects and weapon types) should be to reduce complexity and leave players free to build what they want.

I went back to the original post from schema concerning the new power system, and would like to post a quote of his. It concerns the perceived issues with the old power system.

1. Forced design choices
2. Lack of complexity
3. Too many blocks involved (number, not types)
4. Focused on regen

Let's review. Based on a view of the exact nature of the changes as they have evolved and how schema originally proposed them, it should have been immediately clear that Point 1 will be made worse by these changes, especially for smaller weight classes. Point 2 is the exact WRONG direction to go in, as more complexity will make building more difficult and time consuming. Point 3 is completely moot - big ships have inherent, natural advantages and disadvantages, and they always will unless artificial systemic limitations destroy those advantages. If he was referencing the percentage of a ship that was power regen, a balance adjustment would have sufficed. Point 4 is again, completely moot - more regen means more dakka and a more capable ship, whether you use alpha weapons or not.

Rationally, the solution is to standardize the system to a base 10 or 100 power, then build mathematical formulas for each system (linear, logarithmic, etc) and adjust the constants to fit any balance concerns.

This new power system is literally designed to make things more difficult for everyone, and thus should be thrown out in favor of a simpler, more rational system, that makes building, maintaining, and using ships straightforward and fun. The inherent complexity should be in the interactions between systems, not baked into the systems themselves.

Also he really should stop trying to FORCE design choices, and instead look to give players as many options as possible. (Large drone carriers, fleets of medium ships, large dreadnought, a few large ships, a swarm of tiny fighters, etc.)

 

[9specter528]

Ender here.

The goal of all ship systems (we have 8 separate systems, not including the individual effects and weapon types) should be to reduce complexity and leave players free to build what they want.

I went back to the original post from schema concerning the new power system, and would like to post a quote of his. It concerns the perceived issues with the old power system.

Let's review. Based on a view of the exact nature of the changes as they have evolved and how schema originally proposed them, it should have been immediately clear that Point 1 will be made worse by these changes, especially for smaller weight classes. Point 2 is the exact WRONG direction to go in, as more complexity will make building more difficult and time consuming. Point 3 is completely moot - big ships have inherent, natural advantages and disadvantages, and they always will unless artificial systemic limitations destroy those advantages. If he was referencing the percentage of a ship that was power regen, a balance adjustment would have sufficed. Point 4 is again, completely moot - more regen means more dakka and a more capable ship, whether you use alpha weapons or not.

Rationally, the solution is to standardize the system to a base 10 or 100 power, then build mathematical formulas for each system (linear, logarithmic, etc) and adjust the constants to fit any balance concerns.

This new power system is literally designed to make things more difficult for everyone, and thus should be thrown out in favor of a simpler, more rational system, that makes building, maintaining, and using ships straightforward and fun. The inherent complexity should be in the interactions between systems, not baked into the systems themselves.

Also he really should stop trying to FORCE design choices, and instead look to give players as many options as possible. (Large drone carriers, fleets of medium ships, large dreadnought, a few large ships, a swarm of tiny fighters, etc.)

THIS.

Just. Fucking. This.

 

[timmymorrison1]

honestly multiple power each with there own downfall sounds like the best option to me, even 2 to 3 is fine. maybe have some advance end game power just for the engineers, and a basic one just for Lazy and noobish until they get there. I mean if stabilizer werent the only option I would be okay with them.

 

[MacThule]

I am fine with reactors, I just strongly dislike the stabilizer distance settings and now the new beams and blocks to make that block work. Which, sadly, is probably an indicator regarding Schine's level of attachment to stabilizers - notice how quickly new blocks and dynamics are being implemented to make stabilizers work? Yet how long have we waited for fixes in other vital systems like shipyards, which are not contingent upon waiting for a power reboot?

Frustrating & confusing. Apparently every single ship containing a huge, problematic river of liquid hot magma is more vital to making this game fun and playable than making sure players can spawn, scrap, and repair their ships (magma river or not) without constant problems. I enjoy solving complex engineering puzzles... but the priorities baffle me.

 

[jayman38]

honestly multiple power each with there own downfall sounds like the best option to me, even 2 to 3 is fine. maybe have some advance end game power just for the engineers, and a basic one just for Lazy and noobish until they get there. I mean if stabilizer werent the only option I would be okay with them.

I would disagree with the advanced end-game power, because that would be the new requirement. All other power options would probably be inferior and discarded as suicidal. Multiple equivalent power options would be fun, and could promote different optimum ship layouts.

 

[Valiant70]

schema I see your stable release and raise you a suggestion thread.

You've painted a masterpiece and stuck a big line of black gorilla tape across the middle. Just remove the one bad part so we can focus on all the good things, and the things we've wanted for a long time like manual turrets.