StarMade - Devblog May 22nd 2017

[Sgtwisky]

This is not a good thing. Imagine if we decided cannons/cannon or punch passive was completely immune to damage to the reactor of the ship unlike every other system for no real reason. Turrets should be treated like every other system. Full shield sharing, full armor sharing, mothership power only.

I disagree with your comparison here. From what I have seen (Although anecdotal) is that turrets are more or less for spot defense, anti missile, and anti fighter. Most ships that I have seen, do not have turrets that have the same kind of firepower as the main guns. To me that comparison is not equal.

If you want to talk about oversized turrets, I think having a proper mass related turn speed modifier should help solve that. And if a ship has a massive turret on it, where someone put all their guns, why wouldn't you target that before their other bits? If it looks like their main damage is from turrets, kill the turrets first. After all... in that case you just need to destroy the one block that holds the turret in place.

 

[Andir]

This is not a good thing. Imagine if we decided cannons/cannon or punch passive was completely immune to damage to the reactor of the ship unlike every other system for no real reason. Turrets should be treated like every other system. Full shield sharing, full armor sharing, mothership power only.

So completely contrary to every turreted device in every Navy on this planet... you're saying that once an engine is taken out on a battleship or destroyer, the guys on board may as well just scuttle the ship and let the salvagers take it for scrap because why should any of the guns still work...

The one reactor per ship thing only helps those players looking to PVP and or gank other players since they only need to concentrate on one aspect of the target. Power. They can ignore turrets and focus the alpha strikes of all ships to the most likely location of any reactor part and disable a ship in a few seconds. Dumb.

I can only imagine it will infuriate new players looking for epic battles where the main reactor shuts down, the turrets takeout that pirate force, and they are stuck adrift repairing the ship to hobble home for full repairs.

 

[Lecic]

I disagree with your comparison here. From what I have seen (Although anecdotal) is that turrets are more or less for spot defense, anti missile, and anti fighter. Most ships that I have seen, do not have turrets that have the same kind of firepower as the main guns. To me that comparison is not equal.

It's really easy to spot people who either have no PvP experience or only have experience in the small scale. Nearly every major faction invests a decent chunk of their damage potential into turrets, because turrets are powerful and effective for lower block count, can operate effectively even if you have a potato 1 FPS computer, and can turn fast.

If you want to talk about oversized turrets, I think having a proper mass related turn speed modifier should help solve that. And if a ship has a massive turret on it, where someone put all their guns, why wouldn't you target that before their other bits? If it looks like their main damage is from turrets, kill the turrets first. After all... in that case you just need to destroy the one block that holds the turret in place.

Your turrets do not need to be oversized to be effective. Only idiots put all of their turret firepower into one large turret.
A turret boat only needs maybe a dozen 2k-4k block [cannon or beam]/cannon/<block damage effect> turrets with a self powered base (maybe 1200 blocks max) to rip through any unshielded target up to a decent size, meaning the main ship only needs a relatively low block count alpha shield weapon, like a beam/beam/ion, to take down shields, at which point the turrets get to work.
Thus the large ship can dedicate a much larger percentage of its mass that would have gone to providing aux to power a 12 output block DPS array to other systems, like having more shields or thrust or simply having more DPS for its size and weight.

So completely contrary to every turreted device in every Navy on this planet... you're saying that once an engine is taken out on a battleship or destroyer, the guys on board may as well just scuttle the ship and let the salvagers take it for scrap because why should any of the guns still work...

Almost all turrets on boats, planes, tanks, buildings, etc, draw their power for turning and (if they have one) autoloader from the main structure's generator and not from their own personal generator, though...
And no, they don't immediately abandon ship if the main generator is disabled or destroyed, they switch to backup generators, keep fighting, and attempt to repair the main one or escape the combat zone. Kind of like having a second backup reactor in the new system to limp home or try and finish off an equally wounded enemy with in the new proposed system.

The one reactor per ship thing only helps those players looking to PVP and or bank other players since they only need to concentrate on one aspect of the target. Power. They can ignore turrets and focus the alpha strikes of all ships to the most likely location of any reactor part and disable a ship in a few seconds. Dumb.

Have you ever played FTL: Faster Than Light? A common rookie mistake is targeting what you THINK is the most important system in the game 100% of the time, leading to your demise as a result.
You might think it's a good idea to only target the reactor of the enemy ship in this new system, except, whoops, turns out they "wasted" some extra mass on a "pointless" second reactor which they activated after you poked a hole through the first one, and now they've destroyed the "insta kill" alpha turrets you had while they were recharging, and you're a sitting duck with no weapons. Or perhaps they invested in strong EWar systems and what you thought was their reactor was actually the mess hall. Or maybe they heavily up armored their reactor and tanked the hit?

 

[Sgtwisky]

Just for reference Lecic, what do you consider a normal sized war ship? I've personally never completed a ship over about 350m. Current build at about that size has a rough hull design Only about 40% filled) of around 7k mass. Just wondering where this would land on your scale.

At that scale I have not in fact built turrets of the size your talking about. Though I have used smaller turrets to aid my ships capabilities.

 

[Lecic]

Just for reference Lecic, what do you consider a normal sized war ship? I've personally never completed a ship over about 350m. Current build at about that size has a rough hull design Only about 40% filled) of around 7k mass. Just wondering where this would land on your scale.

At that scale I have not in fact built turrets of the size your talking about. Though I have used smaller turrets to aid my ships capabilities.

Anywhere between 20k and 200k is roughly a "normal" mass. The example I gave is near the middle to upper end, but you can scale down turret counts for smaller vessels. 7k mass is pretty small.

 

[GalactusX]

My question now is: "Power core + Stabilizer module" need to have a empty space between themselves, ok, thats ok.. but that "area or space" interact with other power+stabilizer systems? I mean, can one of that power systems be near of others? and is that correct, it gives any penalty?

 

[Lecic]

My question now is: "Power core + Stabilizer module" need to have a empty space between themselves, ok, thats ok.. but that "area or space" interact with other power+stabilizer systems? I mean, can one of that power systems be near of others? and is that correct, it gives any penalty?

Reactors and stabilizers do not need empty space between them. You can fill the space between the two with whatever systems you want.

 

[Dire Venom]

Thanks for the update! Theres some interesting discussion circulating about it as well.
On the topic of of reactors and turrets, isn't the added size a detriment (by installing the reactor) and if reactors are explosive that could mean a well placed missile could knock out an entire turret instead of leaving it running at 50%.

Also, on the topic of docked entities, why not add a 'layering' feature to ships? E.g changing the build layer you build on, each layer is treated as a docked entity and the rest of the blocks not in that layer are greyed out/shaded/transparent. The more layers a ship has relative to its mass penalties could be introduced to prevent 100+ layer ships or something ridiculous.
This could allow docked shields/armour but in a balanced way without suffering from immense lag.

 

[Sgtwisky]

I meant the hull itself was 40% filled, not the inner part of the ship. But once I fit systems it would likely be around the 20k range. That aside, if what you say is correct (I will assume it is) then I don't have an issue with no self powered turrets. Though I am biased toward keeping them in.

Setting aside the power change discussion for a moment, I'm glad to see we will have multiple version installs, and all of our options in one place. Could see multiple versions being useful to anyone that wants to mess around with config values without breaking anything in their main SP universes. Would have made my playing with warhead config values a bit easier (don't have to backup my .config files).

 

[DrTarDIS]

My only hope is that once this new system starts taking shape, they actually graph-out the important dataponts and INCLUDE DEPENDANCIES in said graphing.
EG:
Damage/mass (weapons modules +minpower req = minmass req) + modifications "chambers" make to it
thrust/mass (thrusters + minpower req = minmass req) + modifications "chambers" make to it
Shielding/mass (shield blocks +minpower req =minmass req) + modifications "chambers" make to it
Etc..

A good portion of the "exploits" Shine is QQing about seem to stem from simple lack of actual balance planning while players invest time in examining that same balance. Eg When it's "worth it" to add passive ion effect vs more rechargers and caps in the current system, or how passive "overdrive" is relatively worthless on anything a player would actually pilot.

 

[alterintel]

Regarding Tech Points:
What if Tech Points weren't limited to per Entity or per Ship. What if instead they were limited to per Player?
When you're in the Captains Chair you have a finite amount of Tech Points (or Skill Points) that you can use to operate a limited number of Chambers at once. This would also encourage players to work together on one ship to increase the number of Chambers that can be activated at once. And... While Players could have "Universal" Skill Points that could be applied to any Chamber, NPC Crew would only have specialized Skill Points that can only be used to activate Chambers in their specialty.
(Edit: Not sure how many Skill Points a Bobby AI would have.)

Regarding Chamber Size:
Also I know it's simple to have Chamber size dictated by Reactor size, but it's not necessarily the most logical setup. This also leads to having to fiddle with all the chambers when you make an adjustment to power. Instead Chambers should be linked via conduits to the systems they are affecting, and it will be the size of those systems that determine the size required for the Chamber. So if you have Over-Drive hooked to your engines, then the Chamber size would depend on the size of your engines, not the size of your Reactor.

 

[Toshiro]

A specific anchor block for turrets with different properties of the docking rail for ships could not be envisaged?

 

[Gmodism]

Greetings, citizens ~



Here’s another weekly devblog.



What are we working on right now?


We are currently finishing off a redesign of the chunk request system which will make requesting chunks over multiple entities a lot more controllable. This means that chunks close to the player can be requested a lot faster resulting in a much better overall experience with loading times for objects (as e.g. asteroids that are far in the back get less priority over closer objects). Prioritisation did exist in the previous system, but it was more local to the entity.

Also, a few prototypes to test out if our plans for the reactors are viable implementation wise have been implemented. One example is a system which can create a convex hull (Convex hull - Wikipedia) of an arbitrary amount of blocks has been implemented. This system’s focus is to be as fast as possible and to provide a variable amount of precision to simplify complex structures. This is then not only usable to make the distance between stabilizers and main rector actually viable, it can also be used graphically to outline ship systems.

Furthermore, Terra has been working on a rather significant launcher update. See below for details!

Launcher Update
While most of the work is done, the UI isn’t quite finished yet, so you’ll have to rely on imagination instead of screenshots for now. (Sorry about that!)

This update consists of two major changes:

Firstly, we’ve merged all of the settings popups into a single dialog. This both drastically improves ease-of-use, and gives us unlimited space to add more settings later, for example logging. (Implementing this required extensive changes throughout the codebase, so the thorough QA required for this will delay release somewhat.) We’ve retained the settings gear icons, but instead of opening their respective popups, they now act as shortcuts into the new settings dialog; this should help with transition. The architecture behind the consolidated options also allows us to implement more complicated and/or settings-dependent features, of which this release’s second feature is a good example:

The second is something that people have been requesting for ages: official support for multiple StarMade installs! Adding them is straightforward and easy, and you may have as many as you like. There’s also a dropdown on the main window that allows switching between them quickly. No more manually changing the path. No more version/branch mismatches. No more multiple launchers. Everything just work

There have also been minor tweaks throughout; some visible, some not.

Power feedback
Thank you for the large amount of feedback on our new power proposal. So far it seems that we need to iron out some key issues and tweak the system here and there.

The major concerns so far seems to be:

• Restrictive rules that contradict several goals (Simplicity, Logical):
  • 1 active reactor per entity | 1 active reactor for entire ship
    
    
  • Minimum block count for chambers
• Tech points are too abstract
  
  
• Bad terminology for power related functionality such as Tech Points, Chambers, Skill trees, ...

These are definitely valid concerns. In the next few days we’ll work try to work on resolutions to as many issues as we can and try to improve the power system so that doesn’t have to compromise on build creativity that much yet also not open up for exploits.

As a side note, with the power proposal we are of course planning a responsive and informative GUI that will come with the system, which will indicate exactly how the system is functioning so that it’s easily understandable just from that without having to read one word of explanation.

Making things work with docked entities
Perhaps an interesting topic to talk about and why it’s not that easy to find a solution for it that still follows the goals we’ve set up.

With the current in-game power system, the main reason why people use docked reactors, is to bypass the softcap limit that is set per entity. It gives you more favorable power production per block by spreading it out over multiple entities. Anyone that doesn't do this, such as just sticking with a single big ship, will be at a severe disadvantage.

In this proposal, we have power reactor blocks scale in a linear fashion, there’s no way to get more power per block by splitting them over multiple entities…

But there's still something related to power that can be bypassed which is the minimum distance required between the reactors and stabilizers. That distance scales differently depending on reactor block count. It only influences the amount of volume your ship needs to get more power out of it but it comes down the same exploit but most likely just less severe.

There’s a possibility where the distance can scale linear just like the power blocks do, it depends on preliminary playtesting to figure that out.

If that was the case, docked reactors would already have a big chance of coming back.


There are also power related things we have to care about when talking about docked entities such as chambers, but you can simply disable those from working and it will be just fine from a ship perspective.

However, when investigating what exactly is wrong with this, we noticed that there are plenty of other inconsistencies when it comes to docked and undocked ships. Both examples could literally be the same ship yet as soon as you dock one of them, it becomes part of another ship and it loses a part of its systems and functionality.

The docked power allowing you to bypass the softcap is far from the only issue StarMade has with inheriting systems and functionality. It’s just the most severe one which is why it’s being focused on so much.

Just a few examples that we can bring up:

1. Only the main ship, the one at very bottom where everything is docked is too, can control movement.
   
   
2. Rail connections are weak points, if you combine 2 of the exact same entities with each other through a rail connection, and someone manages to destroy your rail. Your ship that you still control, suddenly lost half of its mass. As if the experimental feature “break off” was enabled.
   
   
3. No full 2-way inheriting.
   
   1. Shields are inherited from the parent entity
      
      
   2. Thrust and mass, are inherited from the child entities
      
      
   3. Rail enhancers, rails only enhance their 1st level child entities <=> entities only care about the enhancers of their parent
      
      
   4. Mass is inherited 1- way, the bottom ship will be the sum of its own mass, and the chains above it.
      
      
   5. On top of all this, most of these systems use power, yet power either inherits only from the parent, and/or it uses its onboard power.

There are 2 distinct cases here:

Docked entities should be fully independent from their parent and children
This would be the safest option when it comes to exploits and amount of work to be done, it would also decrease complexity and make StarMade easier to learn. Yet it comes at the price of limiting creativity a lot and reduce the amount of advanced structures you can make later on. Modular ships would not be feasible with this system.

Docked entities should completely merge with them when it comes statistics.
This would be the best option gameplay wise, allowing as much creativity but also risk opening up the system for exploits. It could also be too complex for new players to get into this although that’s more of a progression problem than

As for some of the advantages of turrets versus fixed weaponry, we can always balance those through AI accuracy, swivel speed or some other system that does not add special rules to the inheriting of systems.

We’ll be looking at more feedback of course.


As always, thanks for playing StarMade!

~ The Schine Team

If 2 rail tracks are identical, cant they be docked to both at the same time?

If docked things don't share anything turrets will be to hard to build... To make them share everything is the only logical option.

What about effects now, will they disappear or... I personally think effects are great for modifying weapons, maybe they should be changed and also a weapon should not be limited to only one, but effekts can add a lot of fun weapon customization that the reactor never can, maybe have effects affecting accuracy and range would be nice also?

/Regards

 

[AlabasterJazz]

Why reinvent the wheel? Modded Minecraft has figured out balanced power (and item) production/transportation as well as component upgradeability ages ago. The options are many, take a look at Buildcraft, Thermal Expansion, Industrial Craft, Applied Energistics, Extra Utilities, Ender IO, Draconic Evolution, etc for examples and then just tweak them for use in Starmade. Perhaps ask the developers of those mods for advice? They have certainly been around the block and have already dealt with large communities of users in regards to balancing, UI, exploitability and so on - and there is good reason that these mods are still popular after millions of downloads.

The basic solution is each power generation block should generate a certain amount of power determined by it's base ability + upgrades - there can be several different options with different fuel types, production values, requirements, waste products, and vulnerabilities - and these can be multi-block structures. That power should be transported via conduit or wireless transmission - usually with some loss for distance traveled - and at different rates based on the type of conduit. All other systems require this energy and need to tap into it via conduit or wireless receiver. Many systems have additional inputs or upgrades to function at all, alter its basic functionality with advanced options, or increase efficiency. Excess power production is either lost, or built up as a waste product with undesirable effects. It shouldn't matter if the energy is on the main ship or docked entities, the effects are the same regardless. Having docked entities adds complexity but also redundancy, which may or may not be desirable, there is no exploitation as the function and efficiency is maintained regardless of where it is located

The new proposals seem to have all the same issues that these mods worked out long ago. Reinventing the wheel will take a lot of time, and I feel we will eventually end up with similar result at the end of the day... Let's skip the headache and move to the most logical solutions from the start.
[doublepost=1495647097,1495646731][/doublepost]

From what I understand, the goal is to start making StarMade more of a "game" than just a "sandbox/ship building simulator"... please correct me if I'm wrong. While I personally see this as an incredibly good thing to do, there's two big problems here:

1) The community/veterans only know StarMade as a sandbox and wish to keep it that way. Being able to jump in and have full creative freedom without needing to do much IS StarMade, and is what makes the game stand out from what they perceive to be the competitors (i.e. Space Engineers, Empyrion, etc).

2) Games are built on rules, limitations and obstacles/problems to overcome for a sense of achievement, whereas a sandbox is the lack of these (an emphasis on creative freedom).

There is inevitably going to be backlash as StarMade gains more limitations/obstacles/rules to go from "sandbox" to "game", and there seems to be a serious need for the developers to discuss this with their community to ease some of the pains/confusions/conflicts-of-interest.
.

There is always Creative Mode, or even using the Shipyard functionality to design ships. You can save the ships from creative "sandbox" mode and upload them into the "game" mode. Those who only want to build have no "gameplay" restriction, those who only want to game have no "creative" restriction, and those that want to bridge the gap by using both are free to do so.

 

[Matt_Bradock]

Why reinvent the wheel? Modded Minecraft has figured out balanced power (and item) production/transportation as well as component upgradeability ages ago. The options are many, take a look at Buildcraft, Thermal Expansion, Industrial Craft, Applied Energistics, Extra Utilities, Ender IO, Draconic Evolution, etc for examples and then just tweak them for use in Starmade. Perhaps ask the developers of those mods for advice? They have certainly been around the block and have already dealt with large communities of users in regards to balancing, UI, exploitability and so on - and there is good reason that these mods are still popular after millions of downloads.

The basic solution is each power generation block should generate a certain amount of power determined by it's base ability + upgrades - there can be several different options with different fuel types, production values, requirements, waste products, and vulnerabilities - and these can be multi-block structures. That power should be transported via conduit or wireless transmission - usually with some loss for distance traveled - and at different rates based on the type of conduit. All other systems require this energy and need to tap into it via conduit or wireless receiver. Many systems have additional inputs or upgrades to function at all, alter its basic functionality with advanced options, or increase efficiency. Excess power production is either lost, or built up as a waste product with undesirable effects. It shouldn't matter if the energy is on the main ship or docked entities, the effects are the same regardless. Having docked entities adds complexity but also redundancy, which may or may not be desirable, there is no exploitation as the function and efficiency is maintained regardless of where it is located

The new proposals seem to have all the same issues that these mods worked out long ago. Reinventing the wheel will take a lot of time, and I feel we will eventually end up with similar result at the end of the day... Let's skip the headache and move to the most logical solutions from the start.

Minecraft, even with its greatest modpacks (I have played quite a lot of them. FTB Lite/Unlimited, SkyFactory, Tekkit, TNFC) falls behind Starmade in scale. And has a completely different purpose. The sole purpose of the entire power grid in IC2, Thermal Foundation/Expansion, AE, EU, Draconic etc. is to power a static processing, manufacturing and storage complex, some static defences at best. Not an up to 10 million block (or bigger) starship or space station with all its propulsion, shielding, weapons, and turrets. While I wouldn't mind SOME aspects of modded Minecraft (like reactor systems resembling BigReactors' multiblock structure that scales in size and internal component types) there are simply too many blocks to be connected to the reactor by power conduits unless you want to turn everything into a controller block system including thrust and shielding, and hook the control computers to the grid. That would work but also create terribly vulnerable ships where the desctruction of a single block can power down the entire shield grid.

Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[petlahk]

The basic solution is each power generation block should generate a certain amount of power determined by it's base ability + upgrades - there can be several different options with different fuel types, production values, requirements, waste products, and vulnerabilities - and these can be multi-block structures

As much as I too like the idea of having an applied energistics, or industrialcraft, or even reactorcraft like system in Starmade, I'm not sure that requiring players to wire everything together would work. The first and obvious issue is, with so many many blocks and systems, how are you gonna get players to have fun wiring all these systems to a main generator? What about the amount of processing, and number of updates required to constantly check up on the power in a wire to see if it should be losing power? Isn't having to deal with your hundreds of wires, and the voltages of each one hard to figure out?

Also, multiblock structures were effectively proposed in the last proposal and they were decided against by the community, largely based on how the proposal as a whole forced empty space, but also because the structures were complex, and not really in the spirit of Starmade.

Yes, *maybe* this power system doesn't solve the issues of the old one. Maybe it will be just more of the same. But, if you take the time to read some of the posts its possible to start to see how it begins to solve some of the current power issues. I think that either way it needs to be tested, and tried, because as far as I can tell, it's a pretty solid proposal.

 

[AlabasterJazz]

If 2 rail tracks are identical, cant they be docked to both at the same time?

If docked things don't share anything turrets will be to hard to build... To make them share everything is the only logical option.

What about effects now, will they disappear or... I personally think effects are great for modifying weapons, maybe they should be changed and also a weapon should not be limited to only one, but effekts can add a lot of fun weapon customization that the reactor never can, maybe have effects affecting accuracy and range would be nice also?

/Regards

I think under the proposal effects would be moved into the Tech Points functionality. I'd personally prefer to control effects from the weapons main system - perhaps with "upgrade" items so you didn't have to pair main blocks up with secondary blocks via ratio, but could control the effect type, effect potency, fuel/energy consumption directly from the computer
[doublepost=1495648289,1495647587][/doublepost]

Minecraft, even with its greatest modpacks (I have played quite a lot of them. FTB Lite/Unlimited, SkyFactory, Tekkit, TNFC) falls behind Starmade in scale. And has a completely different purpose. The sole purpose of the entire power grid in IC2, Thermal Foundation/Expansion, AE, EU, Draconic etc. is to power a static processing, manufacturing and storage complex, some static defences at best. Not an up to 10 million block (or bigger) starship or space station with all its propulsion, shielding, weapons, and turrets. While I wouldn't mind SOME aspects of modded Minecraft (like reactor systems resembling BigReactors' multiblock structure that scales in size and internal component types) there are simply too many blocks to be connected to the reactor by power conduits unless you want to turn everything into a controller block system including thrust and shielding, and hook the control computers to the grid. That would work but also create terribly vulnerable ships where the desctruction of a single block can power down the entire shield grid.

Thanks, but no thanks.

It would absolutely require work to make it feasible for Starmade, but I think the idea is sound. They are talking about conduits - Ender IO's seem to work OK. They are talking about Tech Points, Individual item upgrades could fill the same function and seem easier to use and tweak to specific requirements. The single block destruction would have to be addressed for sure - but it does make sense that if your shield generator is destroyed that you would lose shields - you would have to have redundant systems or take the risk of 1-hit KO - or build heavily protected rooms capable of withstanding a few hits. This way would also make boarding ships and disabling specific systems feasible. Finally, the tiered tech progression I feel would fit Starmade nicely - start with basic fuel generators for small ships, and work your way up to massive multi block reactors for larger ones

I wouldn't discount alternate options so easily, there is potential there for sure, and variations of other popular ideas should be considered.

 

[petlahk]

Individual item upgrades could fill the same function and seem easier to use and tweak to specific requirements.

This doesn't make sense. Having players manage hundreds or thousands of tiny items in a game built around massive mutli-block systems such as weapons, shields, and power is a horrible idea. Think of the micro managing that would require. Think of the tediousness of it all. Think of how much stress managing thousands of items puts on a game server. Only the highest-tier minecraft servers can handle the stresses of tech mod packs, and even then many of them have to impose extra restrictions to deal with thousands of items all over the place. Also, not only would a system based around items be a terrible idea in an of itself for starmade, it would require a complete rework of the systems already built, and a complete re-optimization of the game.

Not to mention this:

Finally, the tiered tech progression I feel would fit Starmade nicely - start with basic fuel generators for small ships, and work your way up to massive multi block reactors for larger ones

Tiered tech progression completely defeats any ability to build a system that is easy to understand, and easy to build with. Both of which are necessary to having new players be able to build decent ships quickly and intuitively. Again, not to mention that this would also require a complete rework of Starmade as a whole.

As Matt_Bradock said above:

The sole purpose of the entire power grid in IC2, Thermal Foundation/Expansion, AE, EU, Draconic etc. is to power a static processing, manufacturing and storage complex, some static defences at best.

Static. In minecraft buildings are static, it's possible to build a mod in minecraft based around items and complex power grids because minecraft itself is a game built around items and large immovable structures. There aren't dozens of systems you have to keep track of in minecraft in order to keep your house standing. Not to mention the fact that minecraft is already designed to handle the creation and deletion of hundreds of floating objects. And, also, not to mention the fact that minecraft has a static, stable world where everything falls in one place.

The systems that minecraft and starmade are built around are, while both are built around blocks, completely different, not just from a gameplay perspective, but also from a coding perspective.

Some interesting things could be done with conduits and chambers, and reactors. But, a system as you propose it simply isn't feasible. And, besides, this system needs to actually be in the game before we can start even thinking about making it more complicated with conduits connecting to multiple systems, so it makes no sense to me why you're trying to shoot down this proposed* system and replace it with your ideas without even seeing it first.

Anyway. Sorry for getting a bit ranty. I hope you understand. Have a good day.

 

[AlabasterJazz]

This doesn't make sense. Having players manage hundreds or thousands of tiny items in a game built around massive mutli-block systems such as weapons, shields, and power is a horrible idea. Think of the micro managing that would require. Think of the tediousness of it all. Think of how much stress managing thousands of items puts on a game server. Only the highest-tier minecraft servers can handle the stresses of tech mod packs, and even then many of them have to impose extra restrictions to deal with thousands of items all over the place. Also, not only would a system based around items be a terrible idea in an of itself for starmade, it would require a complete rework of the systems already built, and a complete re-optimization of the game.

Not to mention this:



Tiered tech progression completely defeats any ability to build a system that is easy to understand, and easy to build with. Both of which are necessary to having new players be able to build decent ships quickly and intuitively. Again, not to mention that this would also require a complete rework of Starmade as a whole.

As Matt_Bradock said above:



Static. In minecraft buildings are static, it's possible to build a mod in minecraft based around items and complex power grids because minecraft itself is a game built around items and large immovable structures. There aren't dozens of systems you have to keep track of in minecraft in order to keep your house standing. Not to mention the fact that minecraft is already designed to handle the creation and deletion of hundreds of floating objects. And, also, not to mention the fact that minecraft has a static, stable world where everything falls in one place.

The systems that minecraft and starmade are built around are, while both are built around blocks, completely different, not just from a gameplay perspective, but also from a coding perspective.

Some interesting things could be done with conduits and chambers, and reactors. But, a system as you propose it simply isn't feasible. And, besides, this system needs to actually be in the game before we can start even thinking about making it more complicated with conduits connecting to multiple systems, so it makes no sense to me why you're trying to shoot down this proposed* system and replace it with your ideas without even seeing it first.

Anyway. Sorry for getting a bit ranty. I hope you understand. Have a good day.

I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to address various options to a proposed change to the current system prior to implementation.

I understand that there would not be a 1-to-1 way to implement a Minecraft system directly into Starmade. I'm saying that Minecraft mods have already worked out a lot of the balance issues that we are facing with the new proposal, and have done so in a way which seems to resonate with users considering their continued popularity. Having item upgrades doesn't mean having thousands of items; For simple designs of every ship size it would be 1 or 2 items for each main system - power gen, power storage, thrust, shields, weapons. Yes, complex ships would use more items - most likely for redundancy or very specific needs, but the current system allows dozens of complex weapons arrays and other remote access blocks using logic already, it would replace that with a much more intuitive system. You don't even need items, you could use Tech Points to do the same thing with similar effect - but then the question is how do you track and manage Tech Points in an intuitive way that scales to every ship design? Item specific upgrades easily addresses this issue.

I get that a Minecraft world is static, but it seems to be that a single Starmade ship could be thought of as a static instance in and of itself, while it can move through space, it itself is still made of of static blocks in relation to the core. In a way this might make it more efficient than Minecraft as only each ship needs to be chunkloaded, and you have some consideration to keep your ships a reasonable size within possible rendering distance, as opposed to an infinite Minecraft world with multiple infinite dimensions. As for server considerations, well those are already in effect on most Starmade servers today, in terms of maximum ship size in any direction, and maximum number of docked entities, etc. Reducing overall block count with more intuitive single-block systems, or intelligently designed multi-block designs only serve to increase performance, not diminish it

Finally, tiered progression is not a difficult concept. Use cheaper (but less effective) item A until you gain access to or can afford more costly item B, until you can afford more costly item C, and so on - why would it be hard to wrap your mind around this in Starmade? Almost every game ever made uses this concept, it gives a continued sense of progression and achievement, a reason to explore and find rarer materials, or trade with those that have them; and it adds possible sources of conflict if someone has a monopoly on a given resource. If you can just make the end-game reactor on day one, why play longer than one day? Creative building only? That might be OK for some, but not for everyone; this is meant to be a game in the end, not just a creative building sandbox, and tiered progression is a staple of game design

Anyway, this proposal IS a rework to how Starmade is currently built as a whole, if I don't speak up now, my voice certainly won't be heard after thousands of hours of new development are put in

 

[Drakkart]

Greetings, citizens ~

The major concerns so far seems to be:

• Restrictive rules that contradict several goals (Simplicity, Logical):
  • 1 active reactor per entity | 1 active reactor for entire ship
    
    
  • Minimum block count for chambers
• Tech points are too abstract
  
  
• Bad terminology for power related functionality such as Tech Points, Chambers, Skill trees, ...

These are definitely valid concerns. In the next few days we’ll work try to work on resolutions to as many issues as we can and try to improve the power system so that doesn’t have to compromise on build creativity that much yet also not open up for exploits.

As a side note, with the power proposal we are of course planning a responsive and informative GUI that will come with the system, which will indicate exactly how the system is functioning so that it’s easily understandable just from that without having to read one word of explanation.

Making things work with docked entities
Perhaps an interesting topic to talk about and why it’s not that easy to find a solution for it that still follows the goals we’ve set up.

There’s a possibility where the distance can scale linear just like the power blocks do, it depends on preliminary playtesting to figure that out.

If that was the case, docked reactors would already have a big chance of coming back.

However, when investigating what exactly is wrong with this, we noticed that there are plenty of other inconsistencies when it comes to docked and undocked ships. Both examples could literally be the same ship yet as soon as you dock one of them, it becomes part of another ship and it loses a part of its systems and functionality.

The docked power allowing you to bypass the softcap is far from the only issue StarMade has with inheriting systems and functionality. It’s just the most severe one which is why it’s being focused on so much.

Just a few examples that we can bring up:

1. Only the main ship, the one at very bottom where everything is docked is too, can control movement.
   
   
2. Rail connections are weak points, if you combine 2 of the exact same entities with each other through a rail connection, and someone manages to destroy your rail. Your ship that you still control, suddenly lost half of its mass. As if the experimental feature “break off” was enabled.
   
   
3. No full 2-way inheriting.
   
   1. Shields are inherited from the parent entity
      
      
   2. Thrust and mass, are inherited from the child entities
      
      
   3. Rail enhancers, rails only enhance their 1st level child entities <=> entities only care about the enhancers of their parent
      
      
   4. Mass is inherited 1- way, the bottom ship will be the sum of its own mass, and the chains above it.
      
      
   5. On top of all this, most of these systems use power, yet power either inherits only from the parent, and/or it uses its onboard power.

Hi schema,

thank the schine team for listening and sharing their conflict with us.
I will just state what i feel it should be like just trying to put you in the right direction.

Actually the decision you guys are making now also influences something that is very dear to me, the planned "logics and rail update".
Issue here is that the actual state hinders us to build extendable docking arms because we can not control ship movement while utilising a camera or controling a rail docker on a docked entity "of our ship".
BUT we really want to! Before you shove this away by "the hirarchical structure of the railsystem will not allow for such..." - now is the time to do things right. we did not ask for a hirarchical solution we wanted a working one.

Now as i see it, i really think we should abandon the hirarchy and instead have a seperate rail docker to dock to different entities not part of the ship. i.e. ship to ship or ship to station. Like every ship needs a ship core every ship also has to use this new docker to dock to other ships whereas turrets or docked entities use the raildocker we have already. I know new block and hassle and .. but think about it, this would solve so many issues at once.
We could have extending docking arms and we could define the rules for power without haveing to worry about a ship docked to an docked entity of a docked entity of a station and how to handle it now if the two docked entities get seperated by blowing up the railconnection. this way the railconnection would still be the stations issue and the ship still being intact just being docked to a now afloat part of the station that suddenly lacks power and such, no big deal - for the ship at least.

ok regarding the other points.
- Docked entities can inherit power from their parent entities, they will add their mass to the parent entity.
- When being blown off, this will not substract their hp from the parent entity hp pool, as it is a docked entity that has decide for itself if it's core explodes or it is still good. yes docked entities can overheat while being docked if damaged enough.
- docked entities also inherit shield (or just to a given percentage? i never liked this "only as long as the host has 50% of it's shields"-rule why not make it like you shoot the turret and the turret has no more of it's own shields then as long as the host has shields the host takes the damage.).
- The ability to carry mass only works down one childlevel as mass enhancers work now. But mass enhancers require power being generated in the same entity should the entity be in need for power then mass enhancers are going to get deactivated untill they can be powered again.
- Chamber effects only apply to the entity the chamber is part of and chambers require a reactor powering them. The moment the reactors energy is not sufficient to sustain the chamber and other demands and it would pull energy from it's host, first the chamber deactivates and will reactivate as soon as there is enough power to do so.
- Ships can utilize thrust on docked entities as long as those entities can power the thrusters. As soon as power is going to get pulled from the host the thrusters deactivate first to safe power and will reactive once enough power is produced by the docked entity itself again.

Now there should be the option of building AMS turrets with just the railsystem pulling power from the host to move and fire. Also small turrets should be possible without having to think about power mass enhancement and such. Regarding an extendable docking arm tunnel whatever that thing also should work without requiring additional mass enhancers to keep it's titan docked to a station - one childlevel down rule.
Think of it this way such a docking arm does not need to hold the the entirety of the ships mass in place, it just has to deliver a docking point to another entity for the ship still holds it's course according / alongside to the docked entities course.

Did i miss something? hope not, and i also hope you get the idea.

- Let the players decide if they want to use an active reactor on their docked entity or use the parent entity's (but make it an either/or, if the docked entity's reactor is online it can in no way get power from the parent entity) Move this setting to the AI settings (checkbox: Always use onboard reactor)
- Make turret swivel speed scale downwards with dimensions and mass just like with ships, but upwards (to a certain cap, like 50%) with additional mass enhancers. This adds to realism as well, and gives the option to builders that if they want anti-fighter turrets, they can make them turn faster through extra enhancers but that costs more space and power.

i would not put the limitation on it... either local or supported by host... i would prefer dynamics. Also a turret might still be able to fire getting powered by it's host ship but turret movement and defenive effect of turret base might be missing due to a broken reactor of the turret base.

Nope as long as the mass is supported no downscaling of turning speed, for arbitary reasons. Turrets must be possible to be badass, also big ones. i again would suggest not going for linear scaling if the effects described by his post were desired and instead use curves...

i hope that we can build a small ship which operates with a single reactor block as well as we see titans with turrets bigger as some fighters and still be agile. also i hope for defensive effects not just scaling with mass.
the new chambers should really focus on those values which actually matter... i.e ion shield should depend on total shield. movement speed enhancement should depend on mass and thrust to mass ratio.
piercing should depend on the Entities hp total... I think you get where this is going. basing everything on a stat that might not even relate just does not work.

Again thanks for reading this far.
[doublepost=1495653889,1495653652][/doublepost]

Has anyone thought about just not letting docked entities share power with the main vessel, and removing the power and shield transfer beams from the game completely? It really isn't like the power and shield transfer beams were useful for anything other than getting around power caps in the first place. Or, is there something more complicated that I'm missing? If there is something that I'm missing, please explain.

Hold on a second please do not mix the usefullness of the idea with the viability of the actual implementation. two seperate things under a diffrent new power system i would again see such "weapons" having their purpose.
[doublepost=1495654068][/doublepost]

Turret effectiveness cannot be balanced using AI accuracy as long as:

• Turrets fixate on targets even when a target is no longer able to be fired at (out of firing arc, even out of range in some cases)
• Some weapons still aim for ship cores

Only after these issues are dealt with can AI accuracy be used as a reliable method of changing AI weapon effectiveness

absolutely agree on this one...