Remove Stabilizers

[happahappa]

i didn't realy follow the development of power 2.0 so far,
but does the distance requirement between reactors and stabilizers not lead to a a system design,
where the reactor is at one end of the ship and the stabiliziers at the other, given that that is the longest dimension of the ship,
so it would be a easy guess where to shoot in order to disable the power of the ship?

 

[GnomeKing]

NEW TO YOU: Welcome to the present, maybe pay attention to what your players have been talking and mocking about for well over a month in the future. It's not as if we haven't talked about this with you guys in chat and warned you about this in the dev blog threads.

WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN: When you (Schine) ignored us when we told you forcing people to have empty space in their ship with heatboxes was stupid and that people would find ways around it, and made stabilizers in 2.0 try and accomplish the same "forced empty space" idea.

...good grief ...non of this is news - dev-build and power talk has been going on for months!

 

[The_Owl]

Isn't the excuse that land takes out every time that "but if we remove distance then there's nothing to stop massive reactors"

But tbh stabiliser distance seems like a failed and really quick attempt to prevent massive ship sizes, despite medium-small ships being more of the meta anyways.

 

[Dire Venom]

Glad we could have a heart to heart with some of the dev team.

I can't bring that sentence to Schema and expect things to change. I need specifics. I want the same things you guys want. Freedom to choose a design that isn't outmatched by a single-meta-approach to building.

Thank you for responding to this thread and being constructive. We all want to power update to go as well as possible, and communication makes a big difference! They key aspecs that I have seen being discused and looking for revision are:

• The Stabilization mechanic. The most effcient tactic with a 1 dimensional system (Stabilizor effciencey is currently dependent on one axsis only) is simply an extremly long needle with bulges for systems, or even just seperated balls spaced out over a large distance so that all the stabilizors are placed at 100% effcicency and the ship can use a big reactor.
• If stabilizors are going to remain a mechanic they should not be dependent soley on distance or size for effciencey due to the builds they encourge (Most Effcient designs Avalible).

Current effcient designs that are promoted by the new power system: Spaghetti and meatballs:

We don't want this thing to become standed practice either, please help us kill it Sir Criss!

 

[RB101]

It will likely be that the empty space that the current system creates will have to be used for other new mechanics in the future. Such as crew quarters, life support, possible survival mechanics.

Just stop whining about it. Get creative and accept you aren’t going to have all stabilisers at 100% efficiency. Schema is likely working on a fix to combat disjointed ship designs like islands.

For the moment it is up to us to not use these “cheaty” designs, as well as moderators/admins on servers to enact punishment on those that do.

Try designs where the space between them is utlised, both for systems and style, (or even cargo?) Like the apocalypse from even online:

 

[Dire Venom]

It will likely be that the empty space that the current system creates will have to be used for other new mechanics in the future. Such as crew quarters, life support, possible survival mechanics.

Just stop whining about it. Get creative and accept you aren’t going to have all stabilisers at 100% efficiency. Schema is likely working on a fix to combat disjointed ship designs like islands.

For the moment it is up to us to not use these “cheaty” designs, as well as moderators/admins on servers to enact punishment on those that do.

Try designs where the space between them is utlised, both for systems and style, (or even cargo?) Like the apocalypse from even online:

Thing is it's already too easy to get full effciencey, you just have to build long and thin.
We as a playerbase do not want this 1 dimensional system to encourage these sorts of builds.
There is no such thing as a cheaty design, it is simply one of the more effective designs made possible by the power system thus players will use it. By building a regualr looking ship you are shooting yourself in the foot in terms of ship performance. Pure RPers wouldn't care, but players who do PvP would.
There are tons of ways you can exploit the new power system. It is broken and would not be good for the health of the game in it's current state.

Schema has already shown they cannot come up with suitable counters to such designs. If they do the designs will be adapted to get around them like in the past with docked chains and reactors.

The problem is a faulty and undercooked mechanic is about to be implimented. That is all.

 

[The_Owl]

It will likely be that the empty space that the current system creates will have to be used for other new mechanics in the future. Such as crew quarters, life support, possible survival mechanics.

Just stop whining about it. Get creative and accept you aren’t going to have all stabilisers at 100% efficiency. Schema is likely working on a fix to combat disjointed ship designs like islands.

For the moment it is up to us to not use these “cheaty” designs, as well as moderators/admins on servers to enact punishment on those that do.

Try designs where the space between them is utlised, both for systems and style, (or even cargo?) Like the apocalypse from even online:

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

If a system needs servers to set up rules to fix it, it's a shit system.

 

[Batavium]

For fun please don't shoot me or take it seriously.

Interstellar asteroid checked for alien technology It is just a rock btw.

From the artical:

"Researchers working on long-distance space transportation have previously suggested that a cigar or needle shape is the most likely architecture for an interstellar spacecraft, since this would minimise friction and damage from interstellar gas and dust."

So StarMade is currently the best interpretation of what some scientists think is the most likely way an alien ship would be build.

 

[GDPR 302420]

Just stop whining about it. Get creative and accept you aren’t going to have all stabilisers at 100% efficiency. Schema is likely working on a fix to combat disjointed ship designs like islands.

"Stop giving criticism about this power system and get creative" is the most non-productive, counter-intuitive and most fanboy-like response to criticisms of the way this game is designed.

Try designs where the space between them is utlised, both for systems and style, (or even cargo?) Like the apocalypse from even online:

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.

 

[Brokengauge]

Speaking as one of those people who normally spend 6 months on large pretty interiors, if Lecic wants to build a highly efficient PvP death machine, he shouldn't be forced to make something ugly and spindly in order for it to be competitive. Starmade is supposed to be about having fun. How is building spaghetti ships fun?

I'm not a fan of stabilizers at all. Trying to fit them into a design is frustrating. I assemble the systems in my RP ship like my interiors. Every block has a purpose for being where it is, nothing is filler. Stabilizers are filler.

Even though Lecic is frequently rude (sorry man lol) he always has valid points. I know it's inconvenient, but maybe try out his suggestions?

Assuming that serious PvP is still one of the development goals, of course.

 

[Adaxia]

While I still hold the opinion that the new power system isn't as restrictive as people make it out to be, I agree. The more I play around with this new system, the more annoyed I get with it. I love everything except the stabilizers, and see zero downside to just removing them completely and keeping everything else as-is.
[doublepost=1513177370,1513175448][/doublepost]To build on this a little more, something I've noticed over the years is that balancing passes for features only ever consider what's already in the game, and not what will be. We don't need the power system to encourage interiors in your ship, the crew system is the logical choice for that, as was pointed out earlier in the thread. Same thing with big reactors, you don't need to worry about larger and larger ships because a group of smaller ships will always be more effective, so worry about improving the fleet system and AI so you can effectively use them.

Think of the big picture, every system planned for the game, and balance everything together. Otherwise the same systems are going to be reworked over and over and over as new features are added, as we have seen time and time again so far.

 

[petlahk]

To build on this a little more, something I've noticed over the years is that balancing passes for features only ever consider what's already in the game, and not what will be.

I actually totally agree. It's really a pain, and I think that it's contributed to, if not caused, most of the blunders that Schine has fallen into here.

 

[Nosajimiki]

I can't bring that sentence to Schema and expect things to change. I need specifics. I want the same things you guys want. Freedom to choose a design that isn't outmatched by a single-meta-approach to building.

I would respectfully ask that this is what you need to bring to schema. There are literally dozens of threads with hundreds of posts like this about the community of this game trying everything we can do to get schema to listen to the problems with the dev build.

Schema is busy with development; so, I'm not surprised that he can't follow every thread, so he needs his team of people who are able to interact with the player base to inform him of the problems that real players actually using this system are facing. This is not a matter of the system needing to be rebalanced. It is a matter of the system itself being pointless and broken. This is not some controversial, things with two clearly defined camps of opinion. The proof is in the sheer number of agrees the OP got. [currently 23 ppl agree with this proposal, and 0 ppl disagree]

 

[petlahk]

Discussion - Removing, Improving, or Finding Alternatives to Stabilizers

 

[FlyingDebris]

It will likely be that the empty space that the current system creates will have to be used for other new mechanics in the future. Such as crew quarters, life support, possible survival mechanics.

Just stop whining about it. Get creative and accept you aren’t going to have all stabilisers at 100% efficiency. Schema is likely working on a fix to combat disjointed ship designs like islands.

For the moment it is up to us to not use these “cheaty” designs, as well as moderators/admins on servers to enact punishment on those that do.

Try designs where the space between them is utlised, both for systems and style, (or even cargo?) Like the apocalypse from even online:

"It's up to us not to use these designs"

If I ever see you on a multiplayer server in the new build, I'm going to use it, and I'm going to spawnkill you with it. This I promise you.

Telling the players not to use something because it's overpowered is a surefire way to have them do exactly that.

 

[Valiant70]

"It's up to us not to use these designs"

If I ever see you on a multiplayer server in the new build, I'm going to use it, and I'm going to spawnkill you with it. This I promise you.

Telling the players not to use something because it's overpowered is a surefire way to have them do exactly that.

This is hilarious, but also true.

 

[Spartan-228]

Well this is all very interesting, but I think there is away to keep stabilizers and fix the problems every one is having.

First lets look as the stabilizers. There very name states what they are for so I must ask, what the hell are they doing so far way from the very thing they are supposed to be stabilizing? Now reactors. No longer is it necessary to make long lines of power. Instead you can just place a large block of power down and be done with it. So What I would recommend is make it so that the reactor and stabilizers have to be meshed together. It might look something like this.

RRR
RSR
RRR

The stabilizer in this example has an an area of effect of 3x3 and is stabilizing the reactors around it, thus you have 100% efficiency. Now if you did this.

RRRRR
RRRSR
RRRRR

You would not have 100% efficiency and would need to add more stabilizers.

Edit:
Now I realize this would not stop doom cubes. To be honest I am not sure any thing can. At lest not without hurting other ship designs as well. What I would recommend for that would be to add fuel system. The bigger, heavier, and more power hungry your ship the more fuel or reaction mass it uses. Thus making doom cubes less efficient.

I think I can hear the anti fuel mob getting the torches and pitchforks ready, So I should probably start running.

 

[Lecic]

What changed to create this new meta? Before it was spaghetti. Now it's dumbbell.

I already explained to you in my post why dumbbells are one of the meta choices. Spaghetti was simply more meta than dumbbells. Spaghetti has already lost some serious effectiveness with the structure changes and this system will probably be tweaked more and more until the system as a whole makes spaghetti ineffective, especially if we get something like flak or proximity missiles in Weapons 3.0. So now dumbbells are back in front, and the reason is that stabilizers try and force you to have empty space in a "traditional" style hull, so you just build around that. I'm not sure how to explain this further.

It will likely be that the empty space that the current system creates will have to be used for other new mechanics in the future. Such as crew quarters, life support, possible survival mechanics.

If we're going to have crew quarters, why do we need reactors to force empty space? The crew quarters accomplish the same thing.

 

[Magrim]

The power a ship makes is arguably the most important stat of that ship. It is the main determining factor in a ship's capabilities and having the "length"of the ship be the basis for balancing all ships against one another is a bad move.

I don't care how you adjust the numbers in power 2.0, to combat the broken meta, there will always be a broken meta because the system is broken. Which will lead to imposing more and more restrictions to creative freedom in an attempt to combat the 'broken meta.' (See: structural integrity.)

I know you devs were trying to limit energy output relative to ship "size" but you chose a poor variable (distance) to use in the power equation. If this is actually what you are trying to achieve then mass or block count is truly the way to go. I personally prefer block count but mass is good enough. Not only will it balance ships based on size but also economics, especially when starmade's economy is fleshed out more.

The problem, as I se it, is the fact that two ships of the same length can have vastly different masses and block counts, well into the tens of thousands, yet generate the same e/sec. Are we really supposed to accept this as balanced?

 

[Valiant70]

See: structural integrity.

This combats an exploit which was technically possible in power 1.o as well, just not as prevalent.
[doublepost=1513225637,1513225513][/doublepost]

I know you devs were trying to limit energy output relative to ship "size" but you chose a poor variable (distance) to use in the power equation. If this is actually what you are trying to achieve then mass or block count is truly the way to go. I personally prefer block count but mass is good enough. Not only will it balance ships based on size but also economics, especially when starmade's economy is fleshed out more.

The problem, as I se it, is the fact that two ships of the same length can have vastly different masses and block counts, well into the tens of thousands, yet generate the same e/sec. Are we really supposed to accept this as balanced?

Check this out - it's more interesting than stabilizers and should have fewer meta issues:
Heat/Cooling as an alternative to stabilizers and reactor HP