Stabilizer Poll

[Lecic]

I've seen some people disagreeing with the ratings numbers of the multitude of posts and suggestions calling for stabilizers to be removed or rebalanced. They think the lack of anonymity in ratings has driven some people to not vote or to give ratings they would not otherwise give. And to some extent, I agree! So here is a poll on how you, the starmade community, feel about stabilizers.

Please do not vote if you do not know what stabilizers are. Read the dev updates and play with them in game through the prerelease first. Thank you.

What is your opinion on stabilizers in StarMade? - Poll on strawpoll.com

EDIT- Just for clarification, the "rebalance" in two of the options just means reworking in any way, from stat changes to a fundamental rework on the mechanic.

 

[Ithirahad]

There should likely be an option for whether or not they need mechanical changes. Rebalancing would probably just imply further reducing the distance (which IMO does nothing really, aside from inflate reactors a little).

 

[Lecic]

There should likely be an option for whether or not they need mechanical changes. Rebalancing would probably just imply further reducing the distance (which IMO does nothing really, aside from inflate reactors a little).

I tried to leave it as open as possible. Rebalance means reworking in any way.

 

[Ithirahad]

I tried to leave it as open as possible. Rebalance means reworking in any way.

Then I'd specify 'reworked/rebalanced'; 'rebalancing' around here seems to usually imply config changes.

 

[Lecic]

Then I'd specify 'reworked/rebalanced'; 'rebalancing' around here seems to usually imply config changes.

You can't edit strawpolls after making them unfortunately. I'm sure people will get the idea. I'll add that clarification of the op.

 

[Non]

It looks like it might be possible to vote more than once, I haven't tried, just wondering if it could affect results.

 

[Lecic]

It looks like it might be possible to vote more than once, I haven't tried, just wondering if it could affect results.

Multivoting is disabled. Of course, an unscrupulous person could always change their IP and vote multiple times, but I have enough faith in people to not do that.

 

[MrGrey1]

You're missing an option; Power v2 is demonstrably inferior to v1. Scrap it entirely.

 

[The Judge]

You're missing an option; Power v2 is demonstrably inferior to v1. Scrap it entirely.

Eh, that's debatable.
Stabilizers are the only big problem, as they enforce trashy design choices for the sake of effectiveness. Chambers are an improvement though.

 

[GDPR 302420]

121 votes, only 7 people are ok with the current balance.

 

[Batavium]

It looks like it might be possible to vote more than once, I haven't tried, just wondering if it could affect results.

The votes are per IP. Most people have at least one mobile phone so that’s two "possible" votes per person. If you travel around then you can wifi votes. But generally this should get at the very least a more clear insight in how people look at it.

You're missing an option; Power v2 is demonstrably inferior to v1. Scrap it entirely.

Yeah would have liked to have had the just scrap it all option! O well the remove stabilizer vote will have to do i suppose.

 

[Qweesdy]

Eh, that's debatable.
Stabilizers are the only big problem, as they enforce trashy design choices for the sake of effectiveness. Chambers are an improvement though.

In my opinion; currently the big problems are that shield bubbles are both too big (for some things) and too small (for other things), the "turning speed" formula is bad, half the chamber effects don't work (especially for stations), the balance between game performance and ship size is very wrong, there are a large number of bugs everywhere, "chunk load times" for larger entities (e.g. planets, which are too small to be realistic but also too big for performance) is excessive, fleet AI is dodgy at best, all of the assets (NPC ships, NPC stations) still use "power 1.0", all of the tutorials still describe "power 1.0", and the wiki is about to become unusably out-of-date.

Stabilizers are just a minor problem that could be fixed by the developers in less than 5 minutes (by tweaking a few number in the default config file that comes with the game).

 

[Scypio]

Then I'd specify 'reworked/rebalanced'; 'rebalancing' around here seems to usually imply config changes.

People are supposed to be educated so they should be able to understand it clearly.

The votes are per IP. Most people have at least one mobile phone so that’s two "possible" votes per person. If you travel around then you can wifi votes. But generally this should get at the very least a more clear insight in how people look at it.

Or simply reboot your internet box. Your IP address isn't something that can't be changed, depending on your internet provider of course. But today there is none to my knowledge that still use fixed IP address for their customers.

 

[The_Owl]

5.6% for keeping stabilisers the way they are out of 125 votes (at time of writing)

I think that counts as something being decisively wrong then.

 

[GDPR 302420]

But today there is none to my knowledge that still use fixed IP address for their customers.

A lot of ISPs all over the world still use static IPs as opposed to dynamic IPs.

 

[Lecic]

You're missing an option; Power v2 is demonstrably inferior to v1. Scrap it entirely.

The poll is exclusively for whether you think stabilizers are good or not. This is not a full power 2.0 opinion poll. If you want a "2.0 vs 1.0 poll" go make it yourself.

 

[Ryuusei]

Before I start, I will say this: Truthfully, I have not tested the new power system extensively. I did, however, attempt to build a test ship with the blocks you start with in survival mode. And, to say the least, attempting to make a decent starter ship with good mining capabilities for it's size, was basically impossible with the new system. The ship ended up being one long stick with no substance, looked ugly, and STILL wasn't able to perform at the rate it's power v1 counterpart was able to.

Yes. I do realize that my statement is that of someone with a lack of understanding on the subject, and I accept that I know much less than those here to look at the systems with a critical eye. Moving past that, I think I know enough to make an opinion about the stabilizer subject at hand.

A lot of what people say is true. The way the stabilizers are current forces design choices that does not give the player the freedom in ship building that one would expect from the sandbox game. If anything, the current state of stabilizers actually ELIMINATES the whole purpose of a sandbox game, and that is the play the game how you want (granted, some people play in sub-optimal ways, but that is their choice. That is the beauty of a sandbox game) without having others dictate how you are suppose to, in the case of starmade, build a ship, or a station, or link your weapons, etc. etc.

But, to get back on topic: I voted that stabilizers can probably stay, but their mechanics needs a major overhaul. As it stands right now, they are little more than a hindrance when building ships or stations.

Because, as they stand right now, the only really viable designs are long sticks (vertical or horizontal) with the reactor on one and the stabilizers on the other, or a doom cube with the reactor in one corner, and the stabilizers in the opposite corner diagonal from it.

 

[NTIMESc]

So, as it stands now, with ~140 votes, most everyone agrees stabilizers are imbalanced, and it's split pretty evenly between remove, keep, and don't care.