StarMade - Devblog May 22nd 2017

    Discussion in 'Game News' started by schema, May 23, 2017.

    1. Ithirahad

      Ithirahad Arana'Aethi

      Joined:
      Nov 14, 2013
      Messages:
      4,071
      Could this be used to create internal volume calculations and surface area calculations for new balancing possibilities and things?
       
    2. petlahk

      Joined:
      Jul 30, 2013
      Messages:
      190
      I'm not sure that splitting things up in this somewhat arbitrary way actually solves the problems of turrets and massive pieces of docked ablative armor and the like. Also, I think it's a bit convoluted. I see what you're getting at... I think. I think you're trying to say that there ought to be some way to distinguish between turret and another ship, or turret and a large piece of ablative armor. I think I saw a really elegant solution of just having different rules between what things docked to turret docks can do, and what things docked to rail dockers can do. And, I think(?) that solves the thing you might be worried about. I think that also having some kind of mass limit to help distinguish between what is turret sized in relation to the ship, and what is another complete ship in relation to the ship might help in some way as well.

      Also. I don't think changing turning speed of a turret based on the turret's mass relation to the parent ship is arbitrary. I think that by doing this it would help to balance out mega turrets, and would help balance out the possibilities of a fighter/bomber actually working, due to being able to weave through the larger turret's fire, but still being susceptible to smaller guns and point defense. I don't think this would make turrets any less badass. And, the new power system is actually based on linear relationships, it's been said several times.
       
    3. kulbolen

      Joined:
      Jan 4, 2015
      Messages:
      613
      i think turrets turning based on mass would be cool. gives a reason to vary your styles and not just settle on each turret being max size/dps efficiency, and gives reasons to properly maneuver larger ships to help keep turrets on track. i already mix in smaller turrets for anti fighter, but its not because they need to be smal lto turnfast, just that they dont need to waste mass and be large to kill little warhead ships.
       
      • Agree Agree x 2
    4. Lecic

      Lecic Convicted Lancake Abuser

      Joined:
      Apr 14, 2013
      Messages:
      5,096
      Reactors do not take much space in the current system and will not take much space in the proposed system either. If reactors are explosive enough to take down the turret they are powering, they will also definitely be taking out a huge section of the ship they're docked to, and if your main reactor gets hit the entire ship would suffer similar damage.

      Why would you treat them like docked entities? A layer system would be useful for building, but making it like this would be dumb. Just make them act like part of the main ship but intangible and with a low opacity when building. Why would you want to encourage docked armor/shields?

      Effects for weapons are saying, effects for passives on the ship are being replaced with the chamber system.
       
      • Friendly Friendly x 1
    5. TrainDodger

      Joined:
      Jul 17, 2013
      Messages:
      94
      I just had another idea. If players could exploit the stabilizer distance bonus on docked entities, and this is a problem, then why not have docked entities inherit the stabilizer bounding box distance from the largest reactor on the lowest entity in the chain, regardless of whether or not it is active? Same thing for multiple reactors at the same chain level, too. Rather than basing the stabilizer distance on the active reactor, it could be fixed to the size of the largest reactor. The cool thing about this is that it is dynamic. If, for instance, the largest reactor is damaged or destroyed, this reduces its block count. Therefore, the stabilizer requirements are reduced. So, if a backup reactor is activated after the main reactor's destruction, it will now be the largest reactor in the system and the stabilizer requirements will be based off of it, instead.

      So, let's say you have a powered turret. It would have to be almost the same length as the ship and have stabilizers at both ends in order for its own reactor to be functional, because its reactor would be behaving as if it were the size of the largest reactor on the parent. Lore-wise, we could call this effect, with stabilizer requirements being transmitted down the docking chain, "reactor interference".
       
      • Creative Creative x 1
    6. Fenius

      Joined:
      Apr 14, 2014
      Messages:
      18
      The only way to truly fix the power problem is to add fuel. Everyone will hate it but it can and will provide the balance everyone wants to see.
       
      • Like x 1
      • Agree x 1
      • Funny x 1
      • Informative x 1
      • Friendly x 1
    7. kulbolen

      Joined:
      Jan 4, 2015
      Messages:
      613
      lol
       
      • Funny Funny x 3
      • Agree Agree x 1
    8. Oblivionburn

      Joined:
      Mar 16, 2015
      Messages:
      19
      While I completely agree StarMade needs a fuel system, I think it would also need multiple fueling options (i.e. Fossil, Solar, Nuclear, etc) with varying degrees of risk/reward as well as tiers of energy output for scaling.
       
      • Like Like x 1
    9. Jolly Roger

      Joined:
      Jun 29, 2013
      Messages:
      95
      Who are straw men who are complaining about the way power and shields are in relation to each other with docked entities. Why does the development team insist on "fixing" problems that do not exist? If you want to change the power system to make it simpler, then do so. Nobody is complaining about the shields, or docked entities, why make it more complex, or more simplistic than it needs to be with those 2 options? Why is there even a power cap when ship size and mass determines how slow it moves? What are we preventing here? How many more iterations of this game and how many more years is this going to take to come out with a final version of the game after all of the updates and continued feedback/ adjustments with all of the changes that keep going on? Was the power and shield system not from earlier feedback? The development cycle for this game is just like the updates. With every change, more problems are born, and even problems that were initially fixed are brought back to life again for no apparent reason. Why is it so difficult to keep track of everything, and learn something or fix something to keep it from coming back again and again?

      None of this makes sense.
       
      • Funny Funny x 2
    10. Drakkart

      Joined:
      Nov 3, 2014
      Messages:
      617
      The idea would be cool with an ai more clever and KNOWING what it's primary secondary tertiary... targets are.

      The issue with the powersystem suggested is that it favors builds going along one axis. whenever you can put stabilizers far away from reactor cores you are golden. now with smaller reactors this distance is shorter right. if the rule should apply that pretty much all ship designs should be viable without forcing one to be weaker by the ships shape. then i do not see this! picking an example captain futures ship vs a borg cube or a tie fighter. Captain futures ships is 2 balls conntected by a stripe and around the first 1/3 of the length of the stripe 4 gun arms reach out sideways. so reactors in the front stabilizers in the back stripe filled with other systems and the gunarms do their thing perfect. vs - borg cube ok we shove the reactors in one corner problem is the maximum distance is the diagonal opposing corner, damn that is so close they'll never work - we are screwed... except we could but multiple reactors along one side and the stabilizers on the other side because all the reactors could be small and thus not require so much distance to the stabilizers.
      I think that is the exact scenario schine is worried about, being exploited with docked reactors or multiple of them. See the thing is with multiple reactors in the ship you do not need docked reactors.
      and still, schine should make reactors disable stabilizers in their area around them regardless of which entity holds them to prevent turret reactors sitting right next tho ship stabilizers. hell sending over minibrawldrones to just mess with the enemies stabilizers just below hull would be actually cool.
      versatility could even come up with stabilizer core and reactors placed around closer to the hull to prevent that. so yeah that is the issue i have wih this single reactor concept you either build long wide or tall ships or you are screwed...
       
      #50 Drakkart, May 25, 2017
      Last edited: May 25, 2017
      • Like Like x 1
    11. Matt_Bradock

      Matt_Bradock The Shrink

      Joined:
      Aug 4, 2013
      Messages:
      777
      No. Freaking. Fuel. Just don't. Especially not these silly things. Fossil fuel, lol. You want to run a futuristic starship or space station on what, coal? This topic has been discussed a couple times and the devs said no, and I agree with them. A fuel system only adds more annoyance, not gameplay.
       
      • Agree Agree x 3
    12. Toshiro

      Joined:
      Aug 29, 2015
      Messages:
      25
      No one spoke of "fossil fuel" but the hydrogen or the deuterium isotope is not irealist, and moreover it is ecological.
       
    13. Fenius

      Joined:
      Apr 14, 2014
      Messages:
      18
      First off the power system is broken in a sense that it is unbalanced from a build and operation perspective. Hence why they are trying different methods to eliminate the liner build path one must follow. Secondly I do not think everyone understands what I mean by fuel. So I will provide an example. A Nuclear reactor requires fuel rods in order to generate power via heat. Over time these rods degrade and become less efficient and need to be replaced. Typically one could use the same reactor setup they are planning with a simple change. Make a fuel rod block that generates power in a linear fashion. However, a bonus to power generation could be provided by provide by using Reactor blocks as a moderating medium. Thus scaling power generation by spacing fuel rods between the moderator blocks. At the same time increase the power per generation tick of the fuel rod blocks.

      As a side note can the Tech point and add it as a function of a ships computer core system.
       
    14. Matt_Bradock

      Matt_Bradock The Shrink

      Joined:
      Aug 4, 2013
      Messages:
      777
      The first thing everyone does in Modded Minecraft power grids is devise an infinite loop scenario or grind to solar panels and wind turbines to get sustainable automated power that doesn't need manual maintenance. The first thing everyone does in Empyrion is put a hydrogen generator down and an autominer on a prometheum deposit so they aren't forced to hunt for fuel (still forced to check the devices and craft those fusion power cells every single goddamn day because if it runs out while you're offline, your offline protection goes out and you won't have anything by the time you come back unless you built in a PvE zone.) Fuel and replenishing it, is an annoyance. A BIG freaking annoyance. Something you have to do every now and then but other than the annoyance it adds nothing to your gameplay experience.
       
      • Agree Agree x 4
    15. GnomeKing

      Joined:
      Feb 21, 2015
      Messages:
      209
      I tend agree with Matt > fuel, as a primary resource, in the kinds of proposed power/game mechanics, would add nothing. The game is an abstracted world of blocks - quests for 'realism' are not really needed. There are already 'resources' of various kinds which structure game-play and universes.

      Perhaps in a system with multiple types of reactor, where some need 'fuel/rods' but are powerful/compact, and others (eg solar) do not. In reality (lol) theories of developed spaceflight and advanced multi-planet species can not avoid the energy potential of suns as an essential element in achieving such stages > ultimately leading to Dyson Spheres.

      My own ships are powered by psychic energy waves interacting with the underlying space-time skein > hence no 'thrust' at all, just displacement and reconfiguration of energy grids in local 3-dimensional space ...

      (although a steam powered space ship could also be fun... )


      To get back On Topic:

      RE: docked entities ect;
      never mind the power issues, there are some difficult views to reconcile there maybe >
      Instead, could we implement something to calm down effect of shooting off turrets ? > eg, once designated as a turret, then that entity will not detach, but just become fixed in place > having turret-bits flying everywhere gets annoying for the player (and silly, as they act like chaff for the AI), and even huge menacing AI ships get spun around in prolonged and totally daft and helpless fashion as their turrets fall off... so much so that its an easy exploit. (in fact an AI ship in 'turret-loss' spin seems to rotate faster than it would be able under direct control :/)


      RE: power 2.0, in general i am non-too sure on the various proposals, many of which could work. However I did not have huge issues with XYZ reactors per se in the first place. 30k would be a very big ship for me, but i am happy to see people build their 300k ships if that's what they want, but i don't want the game to be optimized for such mega-structures. I think there are other issues impacting negatively on game play (i might start a new thread just for that), resolving some/all of which would also help with balance by generally improving game play.

      Scale/Power is always relative anyway, and what tends to upset multiplayer games is more often the attitudes of some of the players, regardless of how finely balanced the mechanics. In the end, one finds similar dynamics of play on a very size limited server as one does on servers full of titans...
       
      #55 GnomeKing, May 25, 2017
      Last edited: May 25, 2017
      • Like Like x 1
    16. AlabasterJazz

      Joined:
      Jun 29, 2013
      Messages:
      22
      I hope they do add fuel, and various forms of it. It would make the game more interesting for me. In fact I hope they add tiered progression in all of the systems. That being said, it could be a simple config option to modify the amount required up to and including "0" That way both camps are satisfied.
       
      • Funny Funny x 3
    17. Pacific_Jim

      Joined:
      Jul 15, 2014
      Messages:
      500
      Even taking the time to implement fuel would be a waste of dev time in a game that's already troubled in that regard.
       
      • Agree Agree x 3
    18. Ithirahad

      Ithirahad Arana'Aethi

      Joined:
      Nov 14, 2013
      Messages:
      4,071
      How would this work? This is, after all, a multiplayer game. If you for some reason were prevented from puling up the recipe for higher-tier blocks in a factory, someone else could just make them for you. And furthermore, why? What's the point? Is it an attempt to create more gameplay? If so this is one of the worst ways of going about that. Structured progression like this seems awkward to try and force on a game where you're supposed to be able to do whatever you want. The trick to making more stuff to do in a sandbox game is, quite literally, just to make more stuff to do.
       
      • Agree Agree x 3
      • Like Like x 1
    19. petlahk

      Joined:
      Jul 30, 2013
      Messages:
      190
      Go for it. I think that at the very least there needs to be a post consolidating the pro/cons and what has already been discussed about the new proposal.


      Ignoring the fact that fuel is a tedious thing that we don't need that shouldn't be added. I think that config options that change major parts of gameplay need to be options only in times of testing and refining, they *should NOT* be core pieces of the game or code. Making large changes effectively optional in this way not only completely negates the point of the change, but is a waste of programming time and resources.
       
      • Agree Agree x 2
    20. wizardoftrash

      Joined:
      Apr 26, 2017
      Messages:
      32
      I like where this is going, and I really hope that all this feedback doesn't force you folks to go back to the drawing board again.

      I'd like to get a chance to actually play around with this system, it'll be an improvement for ship building for sure.
       
      • Agree Agree x 2
    Loading...