Some Final Words on the Power Thread

[Zyrr]

Its not just weapons, but any system. More like giving you choices on how to defend yourself, limit the damage you take, maximize destruction of the enemy, also getting to the cargo of a ship, or capturing a ship? I'm not sure any of those nuances are possible with the current combat system.

It would apply to any system. We can currently do all of those - choose how and where you defend yourself, limiting how and where and how much damage you take, maximizing enemy damage, as well as ripping into cargo and capturing a ship. The problem is the last two, but that's more down to an almost total lack of features and development in that regard. Not a massive problem, imo - that's certainly a beta feature. It's still possible to capture ships and raid cargo (though raiding cargo is usually accidental or done after you overheat a ship).

 

[Scypio]

That's just part of designing your weapon though isn't it?

As well as something you can play with on your ship. On your example with the current mechanics, your 1 bloc cannon cannot destroy 10 blocs with 1hp system.

 

[nightrune]

As well as something you can play with on your ship. On your example with the current mechanics, your 1 bloc cannon cannot destroy 10 blocs with 1hp system.

Oh poor example, I was thinking DPS. 10dps per module. So for 10 blocks it's 10 modules then.

 

[Lecic]

Somewhat agree with you, but I think that's more a result of blockmass:function imbalance. An off the cuff "solution": Remember the old weapons system from the SD-BB days? How you ran sliders on your cannon arrays to do what we now do with ratios? What if "systems" were just one big fat pool, and (while docked to a shipyard) you could just "play with sliders" to do your system tweaking? Certainly would be easier

Yes, let's completely remove any importance from system construction. What a great idea.

 

[DrTarDIS]

Yes, let's completely remove any importance from system construction. What a great idea.

As a stepping-stone to find out "what actually works", yes.
Example: Regardless of what system blocks you place, they have a system HP value, correct? You get to that pool that overheats at (serversetting%), correct?
A big portion of what schea talked about in the initial post boiled down to: We need to stop "penalising pretty ships"and "Allow inteligent building"
I'm just saying being able to assign straight systems HP towards each computer or "basic system" on your ship from that pool would probably be easily balanced.
Thrusters are there soly to generate pretty plumes, weapons modules soly as emission-points, Computers as high-value single-blocks, and the rest "what you feel like"

I envision what would begin to matter is intelligent placement of your systems hp sources, and same for armor HP sources, without "one way heroics" for things like shield/power-cap. If the "SHP cost" from pool is identical to the "SHP provided" by a nominaal system, we'd at least get to start seeing some variety-builds. We'd also get some good "target values" to balance a "chamber" style evolution to gameplay.



More dense/massive blocks giving you a higher pool to play with at a cost of "eggs in basket" risk from block destructon,

 

[Lecic]

As a stepping-stone to find out "what actually works", yes.
Example: Regardless of what system blocks you place, they have a system HP value, correct? You get to that pool that overheats at (serversetting%), correct?
A big portion of what schea talked about in the initial post boiled down to: We need to stop "penalising pretty ships"and "Allow inteligent building"
I'm just saying being able to assign straight systems HP towards each computer or "basic system" on your ship from that pool would probably be easily balanced.
Thrusters are there soly to generate pretty plumes, weapons modules soly as emission-points, Computers as high-value single-blocks, and the rest "what you feel like"

I envision what would begin to matter is intelligent placement of your systems hp sources, and same for armor HP sources, without "one way heroics" for things like shield/power-cap. If the "SHP cost" from pool is identical to the "SHP provided" by a nominaal system, we'd at least get to start seeing some variety-builds. We'd also get some good "target values" to balance a "chamber" style evolution to gameplay.



More dense/massive blocks giving you a higher pool to play with at a cost of "eggs in basket" risk from block destructon,

You are suggesting the REMOVAL of intelligent building. The removal of block-based solutions from a voxel game that has tried to keep as much block-based as possible. The removal of almost any and all systems engineering from the game.

 

[DrTarDIS]

You are suggesting the REMOVAL of intelligent building. The removal of block-based solutions from a voxel game that has tried to keep as much block-based as possible. The removal of almost any and all systems engineering from the game.

mmm, "consolodation of filler blocks" anyways. And again, as a stepping stone to see what overall resource to effect to ship % to whatever ratios work well.
Let's examine the various main systems:
Weapons: "grouping only matters for output blocks", the rest (2nd efect, 3rd effect) "has no reason to be concentrated"
Shields: grouping and placement has no value other than chaff.
Thrust: Grouping and placement has no value other than thruster plumes
All passive effects: Placement doesn't matter, other than as chaff
Sensors: Placement doesn't really matter.
Jump drives/inhibitors: Placement doesn't really matter
Cloak/jam: Placement doesn't really matter (but consumed E/sec does, analogus to consuming the SHP of that reactor)

So....yeah. Why bother haing them as descrete units when stuff like "thruster outage" and "power failure" events are already tied to the total SHP pool, not the systems in question??

Let's take it another step down the chain: Thos thruster/power outages at (%):
-have each system drop offline/take penalties when the SHP Pool hits their personal value. EG 60% thrust 5% weapons 5% ion 5% 20% shield cap 5% shield recharge. that's the distribution of (arbitrary ship) systems with the current system. pritty much ALL of those values give no shits about where you place them.
Why the hell not make them "tweakable, easily, in a shipyard" without remove/replace lagbombs?Have each ship's "weakesses" show up at logical total-pool events from those values. Same result easier roll-out and balance.

 

[Lecic]

Weapons: "grouping only matters for output blocks"

You seem to say "only" here as if it isn't a big deal.

Shields: grouping and placement has no value other than chaff.
Thrust: Grouping and placement has no value other than thruster plumes
All passive effects: Placement doesn't matter, other than as chaff
Sensors: Placement doesn't really matter.
Jump drives/inhibitors: Placement doesn't really matter

"I don't think system layering is an interesting mechanic so I'll claim the placement of these systems has no value!"

The systems themselves might not have group bonuses, but they sure as hell have reasons to be placed in specific ways. Why bother having them as "distinct units"? Because the game is supposed to be about block-based solutions. That's why weapons work on the master/slave/effect system and why logic runs on blocks rather than in GUIs. It doesn't matter whether you agree with that direction or not, that's the direction the game is going. The ONLY real exception to this is thrusters, and that's just because physical thruster directions adds nothing to the game and would have destroyed every single ship in the process.

 

[DrTarDIS]

You seem to say "only" here as if it isn't a big deal.



"I don't think system layering is an interesting mechanic so I'll claim the placement of these systems has no value!"

The systems themselves might not have group bonuses, but they sure as hell have reasons to be placed in specific ways. Why bother having them as "distinct units"? Because the game is supposed to be about block-based solutions. That's why weapons work on the master/slave/effect system and why logic runs on blocks rather than in GUIs. It doesn't matter whether you agree with that direction or not, that's the direction the game is going.

IMHO that's the direction that "caused problems" ever since the replacement of SD-BB & SD-KB. It's nice when customisation matters, it really is. But the methodology is cumbersome. Do you not agree?

just a quick note on your parting shot "It doesn't matter whether you agree with that direction or not, that's the direction the game is going.":

 

[Lecic]

IMHO that's the direction that "caused problems" ever since the replacement of SD-BB & SD-KB. It's nice when customisation matters, it really is. But the methodology is cumbersome. Do you not agree?

I don't agree that completely removing systems engineering from the game is worth it because building large ships is "cumbersome." If you want to play a game where a ship's design doesn't matter, there are plenty of options out there for you. Building ships hasn't "caused problems," it's the entire point of the fucking game.

 

[DrTarDIS]

I don't agree that completely removing systems engineering from the game is worth it because building large ships is "cumbersome." If you want to play a game where a ship's design doesn't matter, there are plenty of options out there for you. Building ships hasn't "caused problems," it's the entire point of the fucking game.

Never said that, though I see where you could skim-read and misinterprit it to that level.
Do you not agree there is currently, a core-imbalance between passive systems, offensive systems, and utility systems weight:SHP:blockcount?
Can you think of a better method to address that imbalance at it's very core, and through that begin to set rules where placement of things DOES matter?

 

[Lecic]

Never said that,

Yes, you did. Don't even bother arguing this. It is literally the core of your suggestion. Remove distinct systems and replace them with sliders.

What if "systems" were just one big fat pool, and (while docked to a shipyard) you could just "play with sliders" to do your system tweaking?

I'm just saying being able to assign straight systems HP towards each computer or "basic system" on your ship from that pool would probably be easily balanced.

If you don't think that this constitutes "completely removing system engineering from the game," then I'm not sure you actually understand what those words mean.

Do you not agree there is currently, a core-imbalance between passive systems, offensive systems, and utility systems weight:SHP:blockcount?

No, I don't agree with you. There is no """core-imbalance""" here. A lot of this isn't even a problem, and anything you might actually view as a problem with the ratio of weight:SHP:blockcount of some systems can easily be solved with a little config tweaking.

Can you think of a better method to address that imbalance at it's very core, and through that begin to set rules where placement of things DOES matter?

Placement of things ALREADY DOES matter. System layering in an incredibly important measure for damage reduction and longer functionality of core systems while in combat.

 

[DrTarDIS]

Yes, you did. Don't even bother arguing this. It is literally the core of your suggestion. Remove distinct systems and replace them with sliders.

If you don't think that this constitutes "completely removing system engineering from the game," then I'm not sure you actually understand what those words mean.

you left out the second part, the rider. Perhaps I wasn't clear that they are linked?
"As a stepping-stone to find out "what actually works", yes."

Particularly in relation to Lancake mentioning that "losing shield capacity first" is just a no-brainer when it comes to having started taking actual block damage.

Also in relation to it being counter-intuitive combined with things like "outage" and "overheating" being based on discreet SHP pool-values, which can happen even if it was only a cluster of shield capacitors that was hit, AFAIK.

No, I don't agree with you. There is no """core-imbalance""" here. A lot of this isn't even a problem, and anything you might actually view as a problem with the ratio of weight:SHP:blockcount of some systems can easily be solved with a little config tweaking.



Placement of things ALREADY DOES matter. System layering in an incredibly important measure for damage reduction and longer functionality of core systems while in combat.

I think I'm aware of the placement mechanics you're talking about, though I bet we differ on "which" blocks are least-useful. I don't have to agree that what IS-BE = what SHOULD BE = what COULD BE. though.
Much like having 401 dmg Cannon arrays lined up with all their outputs in a nice-tight-line was "the build" in the "core is checkmate" days, just because "that's the way it works" doesn't really mean it's intended or "fun"
Related:
Have you tried "SHP padding" with low mass blocks vs your "functional systems" pool? You might be surprised how much this "keeps you fighting" once block-destruction starts happening and you dip into "outage" or "overheating" SHP territory. Much like balancing out your hull to armor block ratio, to allow the "real armor" to actually use it's (90% ATM) armor-pool redirects without slogging your thrust:mass.

 

[Tunk]

Yes we know each block has different block HP and system HP settings, so while you may deal 100 block HP you might only deal 25 (+penalty) (or 5hp with certain blocks) damage to the SHP pool
In other words, blocks with lower SHP will make better external buffers.

Funny enough, shield blocks provide low SHP while taking a lot of damage, and providing SHP.
Its not really critical if they get destroyed when shields go down, as in all likelyhood the ship will be scrapped post battle due to the difficulty of repair in starmade (which consists of deconstruct/reconstruct in a shipyard, or scrap and fill out blueprint without).
So might as well make shields the buffer block prior to vital non shielding system blocks, they are dead weight at that point anyway and not many if any ships can regen their entire shielding pool in a single second.

Lets take thrusters,
25 block hp.
Provide 125 SHP.
Blow it up you get 125 SHP*penalty, aka if someone gets in a position to shoot your thrusters your ship will overheat faster than a swede in the sahara.

Shield capacitor however,
75 block HP
25 structure HP + penalty

in other words, your shields will absorb 75 HP damage, and upon destruction take 25 HP+penalty damage to your AHP pool.

Of course you want your bloody shield/padding blocks outside protecting your soft gooey innards (more directed at Lancake in this case).
Actually screw this im drunk.

 

[Ghent96]

...
-System layering, which you describe in a later post as "a lack of depth" for some bizarre reason, despite it being an interesting mechanic that also has a lot of depth and requires thought from the player on which systems are more important to them...

So let me get this straight- First, you're going to describe how the systems in both (especially the medium) are laid out in a complex manner that reduces loss of essential systems and increases overall durability, and then you're going to claim that this shows a lack of depth? And how does the proposed system even fix this, exactly? "

Agreed and can't stress enough how much.
What disturbed me most about the devs' posts was this, in bold, their [wrong] assessment of a "lack of depth". There is TONS of depth in how most players build ships right now, both in systems layout and in external aesthetics. Quite frankly, after spending tons of time on a nice-looking exterior, about the last thing I ever want is to have to worry even more about a complex interior or complex systems. I want to be able to make the CHOICE to plunk down systems quickly, or to micromanage and install systems very carefully. ...lack of depth... The fact that we the players have had ZERO help or guidance from the devs or even accurate or DECENT DOCUMENTATION in-game, and have had to figure it all out for ourselves, and make our own tutorials for each other makes this even more infuriating!
The devs are contradicting themselves, and ignoring many valid arguements that the community is making. When devs stop listening to their community, then the community (and game) is dead.
[doublepost=1487396011,1487395873][/doublepost]

...Actually screw this im drunk.

Most. Valid. Argument. Ever.

(and seriously, good points in the rest of the post. Kudos for such good drunk-logic)

 

[DrTarDIS]

Yes we know each block has different block HP and system HP settings, so while you may deal 100 block HP you might only deal 25 (+penalty) (or 5hp with certain blocks) damage to the SHP pool
In other words, blocks with lower SHP will make better external buffers.

Funny enough, shield blocks provide low SHP while taking a lot of damage, and providing SHP.
Its not really critical if they get destroyed when shields go down, as in all likelyhood the ship will be scrapped post battle due to the difficulty of repair in starmade (which consists of deconstruct/reconstruct in a shipyard, or scrap and fill out blueprint without).
So might as well make shields the buffer block prior to vital non shielding system blocks, they are dead weight at that point anyway and not many if any ships can regen their entire shielding pool in a single second.

Lets take thrusters,
25 block hp.
Provide 125 SHP.
Blow it up you get 125 SHP*penalty, aka if someone gets in a position to shoot your thrusters your ship will overheat faster than a swede in the sahara.

Shield capacitor however,
75 block HP
25 structure HP + penalty

in other words, your shields will absorb 75 HP damage, and upon destruction take 25 HP+penalty damage to your AHP pool.

Of course you want your bloody shield/padding blocks outside protecting your soft gooey innards (more directed at Lancake in this case).
Actually screw this im drunk.

The difference in our SHP "padding" mindset here (not AHP) is that I'm fairly certain AI target "real system blocks" and "dig till they destroy it". I'm referring to padding from a high SHP:BHP:mass block "inside or outside the tunnel in question" reducing the impact to overall SHP% that losing say, thrusters causes.
EG Girder, 1 000 SHP:1mass, 100 volume/"penetrated blocks":1mass, 7500BHP:1mass

 

[Tunk]

The difference in our SHP "padding" mindset here (not AHP) is that I'm fairly certain AI target "real system blocks" and "dig till they destroy it". I'm referring to padding from a high SHP:BHP:mass block "inside or outside the tunnel in question" reducing the impact to overall SHP% that losing say, thrusters causes.
EG Girder, 1 000 SHP:1mass, 100 volume/"penetrated blocks":1mass, 7500BHP:1mass

Thats ecactly what I said tardis.

 

[DrTarDIS]

Thats ecactly what I said tardis.

If that's true, where's your agression stemming from?

Edit: also, do yourself a favor an open blockbehaviourconfig.xml, and search up "HpConditionTriggerList"

 

[CyberTao]

Edit: also, do yourself a favor an open blockbehaviourconfig.xml, and search up "HpConditionTriggerList"

What does that even have to do with anything regarding system layering and buffer blocks?

 

[DrTarDIS]

What does that even have to do with anything regarding system layering and buffer blocks?

th % reduction pentalties applied flat to your pool as sys hp% drops, even before overheat, which further nerf the utility of certain blocks
Kinda matters as you're taking damage.