Some Ramblings About Balance (poll)

[Commodore]

I'm making this thread with the goal of discussing longer term balance plans for Starmade, particularly the small ship vs large ship issue, linear vs logarithmic scaling (and which systems should use each). Linear scaling would be nice, but Starmade would become a race to build the biggest ship, and your ping would be over 9000.

This is not a thread for whining about the current placeholder system. Try to add to the discussion.

Firstly, the old system (pre 0.15 / last year in case of thrusters):

Power Generators: Increase based on box dimensions up to ~1m regen, then 25/block from then on.

Power Tanks: Storage = N tanks ^ 1.75 This meant that in small quantities they were useless, but large numbers of power tanks could store crazy amounts of power.

Thrusters: Sum Of Dimensions - 3 + Blocks^1.125 So thrusters could be built efficiently for small ships with long lines or crosses, and also scaled very well for large ships.

Shields:

Capacity: (shieldBlocks*3.5)^0.66666)*350
Recharge: ((shieldBlocks*4)^0.48)*50 (with lower recharge under fire)
Shields became less efficient as more were added. As they are so important, many large ships consisted of >50% shield blocks.
​

Weapons: (very roughly)

AMCs: Power drain proportional to block count (with increase for shotguns later on), damage proportional to sqrt(block count)
This means that AMCs got worse as you added more blocks, on a damage per second or per shot basis, and on a damage per power basis.

Missiles: No power drain. Damage scaled badly. Small groups (more) = more damage, Large groups = faster missiles.
Missiles were pretty bad, especially on small ships. On large ships, sufficient quantities of missiles could do a lot of damage, but would often miss the target.​

What it all meant for gameplay:

Power Generators:

The way that power generators basically stop (still do) at 1m regen, was a significant balancing factor stopping large ships being far stronger than smaller ones. This caused some issues though, as large ships could exploit docked ones to be far stronger than they would otherwise be.

Turrets could be given power generators and made self sufficient, giving a capital ship DPS per block close to that of a little ship.

Power generator "ships" could be docked to a large one, and energy taken from them with power drain beams. A ship like this could expect to get power ~5 times more efficiently than one without.
​

Power Tanks:

Small ships would not be able to store power, while large ones could store huge amounts. Massive capital ships were able to mount weapon systems using power far faster than they could generate it, and fire for minutes, before spending a long time recharging.
​

Shields:

The ^0.6666 and ^0.48 caused diminishing returns, but everyone was desperate to maximise shields, and avoid having to repair their ships. Lots of capital ships were giant blocks of shields.​

Thrusters:

Small ships usually needed a lot of thruster blocks, large ships could use small amounts, and still go quite fast (however, they tended to drain power in the process).​

Weapons:

They basically matched shields with their diminishing returns.
​

In order to avoid the server killing race to the biggest, large ships need to have disadvantages. Up to this point, the disadvantages have basically been diminishing returns, very slow turning speeds and high costs. (and lag).

I like linear systems, so most of my ideas will revolve around everything being linear, except one or two ship systems.

Here are some diminishing returns ideas, and discussion:

• Power: Currently, in super big ships, power is linear, and increases slowly, needing a lot of blocks. As everything needs power, making the power formula similar to the old shield formula would hurt the big ships. They would be firepower limited, shield regen limited (if shields take a significant amount of power), and movement limited. This would make small ships better for everything except sitting still slugging it out with big guns.
• Thrusters & turn rate: In this idea, thrusters would use power in a linear manner, but produce less thrust / block as more are added. This would make big ships slow (with friction on) or really unwieldy. They would be very dependent on turrets for everything except bombarding stationary objects. Edit: This would basically mean that acceleration is nerfed at the same rate as turning speed currently is. (Thanks EFL for that explanation)

Here are some other mechanics, that could allow for linear scaling, while ensuring players stick to reasonably sized battleships:

• Fuel: Every 1000 (random number) of power could require 1 fuel unit to produce. Fuel could be extremely cheap, but once you are using tens of thousands of it per second of flying, it would become a major problem. Large ships would simply be too expensive to use regularly. Fuel has problems though, as it discourages exploration and fighting, and also may result in running out and being stuck. Infinite but less efficient power generators like we have could be used in parallel with the fuel based systems.
• Limits on FTL/hyperspace capable ships: If ships bigger than 1 - 5 million blocks couldn't get into hyperspace, they would be far less viable as battleships. It would probably need to be implemented as a server.cfg option, and would likely lead to everyone building ships that just scrape under the limit.

I'm done for now, see anything you like?

TL;DR? This is not the thread you are looking for, use the back button:p

 

[ToyotaSupra]

Maths are hard. Me no understand.

Just kidding. I agree with the parts I can understand, like the fuel system. This would make people think twice about bringing in capitals. Right now it's just 'blah forget about fighters, GIGANTISM GO!'

 

[rece ktore leczo]

The best way would be to give players an ability to change not only block configs, but also formulas for systems.


To have much freedom with customization and modding ability, we could have a formulas config file, where we could adjust 3 things in each formula:

1. how the value of the specific system is counted
   • i.e. number of blocks in current system, dimension of the system/block group, mass/size of the ship
2. requirements which must be fulfilled for the system to be running
   • i.e. power usage per some outgoing value (like 1 energy per 1 shield regen), using some blocks in order to run the
     system (fuel, ammo)
3. effects of using the system
   • i.e. shooting certain gun, pushing/pulling our/targeted ship (right now thrusters, tractor beam), generating power, FTL jumping, scanning ships/planets, sending a message, and plenty more

There would be premade variables and effects of using systems, but we would be completely free to make equations with them which fits to us the most. Also in this formulas we could use block id's, so we could create new blocks for already existing systems but with different requirements and output (i.e. generators using fuel to create energy or new hulls adding some shield value but using energy).

Block config file right now give us some degree of customization, but not as much and as easy as this idea (imo).


I don't know if it's possible or if it would require too much time to implement.

 

[AtraUnam]

• Limits on FTL/hyperspace capable ships: If ships bigger than 1 - 5 million blocks couldn't get into hyperspace, they would be far less viable as battleships. It would probably need to be implemented as a server.cfg option, and would likely lead to everyone building ships that just scrape under the limit.

On this point I'd say it would be more interesting to make any kind of FTL take such huge amounts of power that only massive ships would be capable of jumping a useful distance. This would make carriers a useful and important part of a fleet, though they would have to sacrifice a lot of firepower in order to create enough energy to jump.

 

[Tomino_sama]

You should be allowed to make a big ship if you want. People complained about diminishing returns before. Servers have limits anyway.

With the Old system it was a Race to see who could build the biggest ship. You all know how large they got, so obviously diminishing Returns simply led to Giantification, because brute forcing makes them increasingly larger. If someone asks to bring a 2000m warship onto our server in 0.152 - they won't be allowed in. By setting a max size, you control the problem effectively. I agree there could be a better way to measure than simply box dims or mass, but linear scaling allows true sandbox building.

On a server with no limits you will see bigger ships, we have larger universes (sector size) and better performance to handle that now.

With a Linear System and mass/dimensions limits on public server, the best shape is a Cube. NoobCubes are ugly as sin in 9/10 cases. Builders quickly step up their game when shunned for build these Monstrosities.

The New system means no more One Hit Kills or Battles from outside view distance. You actually get to play the game now and have time for fleet tactics and role specialisation. This was previously irrelevant with many 400 long ship instakilling anything they choose to fight against.

Persaonally I have been doing one to one tutorials with players and am finding that consistently people build too big for their power systems, this stems from a basic misunderstanding of how to approach Power reserves and how that plays out in battle.

1. Using LOTS of power Tanks

^ this is why ships are so large.

2. Tuning power requirements to be inside the power regen soft cap

^ this seems to work better right now.

If you look at the performance in a NASCAR vs. an F1 Race car, the difference is not much, when considering the $$$ put into development and maintenance.

In Starmade if you go too big, you waste power, which leads to increased mass, and so on into a snowball that quickly runs away.


Literally out of the last twenty ships I have looked at with Players, all had 10x too many Shields / Power Tanks / Weapon Blocks for the power system in use. Adding more power is the Rookie play. Too simplistic.

DPS is not what I build for, but if you accept the longer time to kill (as explained by the devs) then you can scale your design down to a level that works in keeping with that new system. The DPS is always over the expected Shield Recharge, so 1v1 it takes 4 mins to kill itself.

Try it out, I love building inside the framework we are given.



On topic - Configs
They could have some more comments to explains what the functions are, Calbiri has already added many of them as they are not Hard Values (as many seem to believe)

On topic - FTL
This is being worked on and of course there will be fair limits imposed. It is on the list and there are only 30+ posts on this with Reddits included. Please don't beat the Horse too hard, It might get left till last :D haha

 

[Lecic]

Another thing that keep could keep people to reasonable ships is warp gates, as they'd probably be extremely expensive to build and maintain, so people would keep ships smaller so that they could fit through.

 

[LordJason]

Although my ideas may not all be feasible when considering server performance, and some may have already been suggested in the past... Ill just post them here anyway. And yes, linear is almost always better if possible. Since OP already covered that I won't bother.

#1 suggestion. Please do away with box calculations for energy etc. Or at least do what rece ktore leczo said and make it optional. This doesn't actually balance the game. It just forces people to build mostly one way. A simple total would be better imho. But my suggestions below could be even cooler.

Heat gradients and upgrades:
Power blocks and the like should be upgradable, with it's own set of pro's and con's.
For example, it would generate more power, but perhaps overheat more easily, and even violently explode on damage.
But every active system on your ship should generate heat.
Every normal (especially hull) block should have a bit of 'heat absorption', along with a slow dissipation. (like a battery that drains over time)
Don't worry about heat, and you will find your massive blocks of shields and power generators are so inefficient they are near useless.
Add in blocks that are dedicated radiators, and you have a creative/somewhat realistic way to balance the game more.
TLDR, the bigger your ships systems are, the more heat it will produce. The more heat you can dissipate, the more efficient your systems will be.

Cable blocks:
Energy cables, data, and maybe heat pipes. (preferably able to occupy the same space/block)
I'm thinking they could act as scaffolding as well. Perhaps just slightly less strength than normal armour blocks with less mass.
This would allow you to make dedicated generators for systems. For example, a few power blocks that only connect to thrusters and are never drained by weapons or anything else.
If a cable is severed, the systems it bridged no longer communicate/share energy.
Power cables would have a power loss, so that would be more incentive to make efficient instead of massive ships.
Add to that a power routing computer, and ships can have less overall blocks, but still be formidable design with a competent crew.

On the subject of "crew":
Please for the love of (insert whatever here) improve upon the way multiple people can occupy and control systems in one ship.
That alone would cut down on the number of ships. I have friends who currently don't play the game with me because it's too hard to pull off a StarTrek like multi-person responsibility over the ships functions. And that's all we really want to do.
Give them easy access to any weapon/salvage/etc computer , any cockpit view, and any turret. Cockpit views imho are basically cameras, and I think they shouldn't be restricted to one user at a time. Also, re-enable the AI when a person switches away from a turret.
DISCLAMER: I haven’t tested in recent versions so please don't yell at me if some of this is already possible.

Add fuel systems in parallel:
With all the focus on shields, power, weapons, etc... let us not forget the planets.
Why not have resources on planets that can be refined into fuel. No need to add different thruster. Just add a power generator that can make use of fuel. It should be able to generate a lot more power than the standard blocks. I think people would use that in place of huge systems, reducing the block count, but still permitting a balance through fuel efficiency and rareness. Of course I would understand the argument about not wanting all the planets torn up... I have no suggestion for this.


Also:
Teleporters please!

 

[Keptick]

You say that but I've actually noticed a return to smaller, nimbler ships.

My theory as to why this happens: ok, you have a big ship with 10x the stats of mine. But can you hit me? Your turrets can't aim for shit and there's absolutely no way you're going to turn onto me. Big ships (past a certain size) are fairly useless right now.

 

[Sven_The_Slayer]

You say that but I've actually noticed a return to smaller, nimbler ships.

My theory as to why this happens: ok, you have a big ship with 10x the stats of mine. But can you hit me? Your turrets can't aim for shit and there's absolutely no way you're going to turn onto me. Big ships (past a certain size) are fairly useless right now.

I find it amusing that before .15 everybody complained about turrets being too accurate, now the complaints have reversed and nobody is happy with how bad they are. IMHO 99%@10M is way to low an accuracy, I personally like 99%@1000M

 

[Malacodor]

I find it amusing that before .15 everybody complained about turrets being too accurate, now the complaints have reversed and nobody is happy with how bad they are.

Welcome to the real world where people are different and have different opinions. I, for instance, never had a problem with the AI's accuracy.

 

[Sven_The_Slayer]

Welcome to the real world where people are different and have different opinions. I, for instance, never had a problem with the AI's accuracy.

I know people won't agree but in this case I am not even if it's different sides of the fence arguing, I think some of the same people who complained about it being too accurate may be now complaining about them being too bad. I do want a high degree of accuracy especially with the new system. I'll have to wait for more balanced systems before I find a good AI accuracy balance I like.

 

[Lecic]

I think AI accuracy should decrease as the target is nearer or closer.
A target at range ≤ 100m would have 90% accuracy, at range ≤ 200m would be 80%, at range ≤ 300m 70%, ect. This way, we don't have the issue old AI had (coring smaller ships as soon as they entered range), ships can still defend against fighters at close range, and it doesn't really matter in large ship battles because they're too big for the turrets to miss, for the most part.

 

[Sven_The_Slayer]

I think AI accuracy should decrease as the target is nearer or closer.
A target at range ≤ 100m would have 90% accuracy, at range ≤ 200m would be 80%, at range ≤ 300m 70%, ect. This way, we don't have the issue old AI had (coring smaller ships as soon as they entered range), ships can still defend against fighters at close range, and it doesn't really matter in large ship battles because they're too big for the turrets to miss, for the most part.

I think the whole point of the shield buffs was to combat instant kills like that, also the planned HP system will make coring not a thing so there is no game mechanic reason not to have AI accurate.

 

[Lecic]

I think the whole point of the shield buffs was to combat instant kills like that, also the planned HP system will make coring not a thing so there is no game mechanic reason not to have AI accurate.

Coring won't be an issue, but turrets insta-killing small ship will still be. Just because the HP system isn't implemented doesn't mean a ship can't still be ripped to shreds by super turrets that can shoot the fighter from a over a kilometer away, before diamonds even start appearing on screen to give them a warning.

 

[Sven_The_Slayer]

Well .153 brings shield balances. I can finally break the shields of my target isanths (although it took forever to kill 10 Isanth-VII ships because the missiles are still useless, they fire but cannot hit small ships) dog fights are now possible... well a little more possible, I am probably going to have to scrap all my fighter designs because they cannot power their guns. There is just no way to jam that much power into such a small frame.

 

[Commodore]

On this point I'd say it would be more interesting to make any kind of FTL take such huge amounts of power that only massive ships would be capable of jumping a useful distance. This would make carriers a useful and important part of a fleet, though they would have to sacrifice a lot of firepower in order to create enough energy to jump.

I agree that is probably more realistic (as far as FTL goes :p ), but it is a game, and small ships need advantages. (as they will basically always lose a battle with a larger one)

On AI accuracy, here's an idea: AI shoots at current position of target, with high accuracy. A moving capital will get hit still (20-100 blocks from where shot was aimed), but a small fighter moving perpendicularly to the projectile will be missed. (AI seems to swap between deflection shooting and current position shooting as patches come out)

Edit:

Coring won't be an issue, but turrets insta-killing small ship will still be. Just because the HP system isn't implemented doesn't mean a ship can't still be ripped to shreds by super turrets that can shoot the fighter from a over a kilometer away, before diamonds even start appearing on screen to give them a warning.

With bigger sectors, we can see much further. New weapons don't have the same extreme scaling range as old AMCs. Hopefully when we run into an enemy capital ship we will see it from further away.

 

[Malacodor]

On AI accuracy, here's an idea: AI shoots at current position of target, with high accuracy.

This would make beams and missiles the only usable weapons.

 

[AtraUnam]

I agree that is probably more realistic (as far as FTL goes :p ), but it is a game, and small ships need advantages. (as they will basically always lose a battle with a larger one)

I thought the advantage of small ships was that they are smaller, faster (Excluding FTL) and cheaper, a single small ship should never be able to beat a much larger ship in a 1 on 1 fight but easily beat one in a 20 to 1 fight. This gives ships of all sizes a roll as carriers are needed to get fighters into battle which in turn are needed to defend larger ships against enemy fighter, with medium sized ships bridging the gap.

 

[Lecic]

This would make beams and missiles the only usable weapons.

No, then beams and missiles are the only viable weapons against well maneuvering smaller ships at long ranges. Bullets still travel fast enough to be accurate against small ships at close range, and big ships are too big to be missed at long range, even by AI who don't lead.

 

[Malacodor]

No, then beams and missiles are the only viable weapons against well maneuvering smaller ships at long ranges. Bullets still travel fast enough to be accurate against small ships at close range, and big ships are too big to be missed at long range, even by AI who don't lead.

I wouldn't call holding 'A' all the time (which would be godmode for smaller ships against AMCs) "well maneuvering".