1. 15th of October, 2019: SMD is currently under maintenance, the site may go down while we are working on it. Apologies for the inconvenience.
    2. We've removed some functionality from SMD in preparation for a migration to new forum software.

    StarMade - PvP & PvE balance, Perspective & Direction

    Discussion in 'Game News' started by schema, Oct 14, 2018.

    1. Edymnion

      Edymnion Carebear Extraordinaire!

      Mar 18, 2015
      So hey, serious question.

      If we're going back to more "make it fun instead of chasing the pvp-meta around in circles" approach...

      Can we get docked reactors back?

      Things don't go flying off and causing collision checks in battle anymore, and frankly trying to re-engineer reactors is kind of a pain right now. Being able to hotswap reactors would be really nice.

      I'll admit, I kinda miss making docked reactors. Not so much because it was how you got around the power cap, but because it just felt good engineering discreet systems that you loaded into place.
      • Like Like x 3
    2. JinM

      Jun 11, 2016
      --- Updated post (merge), Oct 22, 2018, Original Post Date: Oct 22, 2018 ---
      *rates your post funny*
      • Like Like x 5
    3. OfficialCoding

      OfficialCoding Professional Quickfire Hater

      Nov 8, 2017
      Yeah problem with this is it very exploity since it removes the need for stabilizers, and that was the whole point of Power 2.0.
      Maybe make it so docked entities retain their power but can't contribute it to the entity to which they are docked
      • Like Like x 1
    4. 0ldSkull

      Mar 18, 2014
      I never understood why this capability remained in the game to being with. I don't think any other type of beam was able to hit and affect entities in its own docking chain. That power supply could only provided a means to defeat the game's designed power scaling and per-entity soft cap. Technically that would make it an exploit.

      (I had a creative mining ship in progress which would use docked power as part of a split-hull design, but I'm not broken up about losing that possibility. Basically I can roll with or without the docked-power "feature", but I think its existence needs some explaining and evaluation for consistency with other aspects of the game.)
      • Like Like x 2
    5. jstenholt

      Jul 29, 2013
      Docked reactors: never again.
      • Like Like x 4
    6. Serene-Switch

      Mar 22, 2016
      The Cat God takith and the Cat God givith back, and so we worship him.
      • Like Like x 1
    7. Swiftstone

      Feb 15, 2017
      This is a much-needed paradigm shift for the game. Also, thank you so much for getting rid of the reactor streams. My most recent builds have encountered the problem of having the streams centered on the ship core, making it nearly, or even completely inaccessible. I've had to use stream nodes to pull them back enough to make it so one can enter the ship core, but only by trial and error, on the forward, upper corners of the block. This is a huge problem for my industrial carrier ship, which is stabilized on all 6 axis. It was not easy to make it even that accessible. 20181009164942_1.jpg
      Re-balancing with the average player in mind, while offering optional protections for extreme cases seems like the best option. Right now, the constraints are so tight that to get any kind of truly effective ship built, one must constantly battle with skyrocketing block counts as you try to balance systems you thought were already finalized, but have now become build-breaking problems as you try to get the rest of your ship functional.

      As a side note here, I'd like to ask two things:
      1. Can someone please explain to me how it's reasonable that while out in space building a ship with 1.77 million shield HP, a single Isanth happens along and manages to damage the internal systems of my ship build without dropping the shields below 99.9%?
      2. When something like that happens, how is the player reasonably expected to find where that damage is, on a larger ship? Why is there no option to highlight damaged blocks on a ship? In that instance for me, it meant respawning a new ship from the last saved blueprint, costing over an hour of work, because I simply could not tell what had been damaged, or where.

      This is even more of a problem when one considers that repair ships must now have replacement blocks in inventory to conduct complete repairs. I literally had two repair ships docked to the industrial ship build I was working on, but because I could not locate the damage, they were useless. On a completed build, one might find the location of damage via the holes in the hull.

      On an incomplete build, that is not an option. Nothing is finished, everything looks rough and there's just no way to tell what you need to do.
      • Like Like x 1
    8. wanzer

      Jun 1, 2015
      yes to docked reactors
      yes to the old power system
      out with the dictators in with the fun and let the server admins chew me out when I screw up
    9. Edymnion

      Edymnion Carebear Extraordinaire!

      Mar 18, 2015
      No to old power.

      I'd just like to see docked reactors come back because I like modularity. I like being able to build discrete self contained systems and then swap them in and out. I honestly never liked the "just fill the hull with random systems" style of Starmade to begin with. Heh, hell, if I had my way it would require conduits to every system to supply them power. No more of this "energy magically transports itself through empty space" stuff.

      Which means I actually like reactors and chambers, I just wish we had the ability to swap pieces in and out easily to better create multipurpose ships that can just trade out say a weapon's module or a reactor core to make hulls more general purpose instead of custom built.
      #69 Edymnion, Oct 23, 2018
      Last edited: Oct 23, 2018
      • Like Like x 7
    10. NTIMESc

      May 18, 2015
      Docked reactors? Ridiculous! Everyone knows you can only attach things to a battery! It is simply absurd to attach a battery to something!

      • Docked reactors were used to bypass the soft power cap. The soft power cap is gone.
      • Docked reactors (and every other docked entity) could cause performance problems when undocking, primarily due to rail blocks being destroyed. Entities no longer undock when the rails are destroyed.
      There may be other technical issues with allowing docked reactors that make it sensible to not have them in the game, but from a "fun" perspective it is annoying that power can only flow one way, making modular ships non-functional unless the root entity can have a large enough reactor for all other parts.
      • Like Like x 4
    11. vaudevillian

      Jan 4, 2017
      The only thing I hated about power 2.0, distance. I don't care you needed a stabilizers beyond the first six reactors. The minimum distance thing is killer. I could not build small compact highly effective multi role ships.
    12. NuclearHolocaust

      Sep 1, 2013
      Docked reactors are no exploit anyway, since power scales linear, so it does not matter. Also a further hindrance to exploitation is the stabilizer mechanics and the required distance. So why not.

      Also bigger turret bases would have a use again. you could just like in the old days have auxiliary generators to power your turrets weapons. When additional effects from chambers on docked entities are not supplied to the mothership, i do not see how one could exploit this.

      At least an option in the config to turn on docked reactors would be nice.

      I like the new power system a lot. Also i am in favour of removing the stream(at least as it is) and the removal of integrity.
      But please do not simplify the chamber tree or something like that! I think it is perfectly understandable for one who has to learn it, less options would be a shame, since options make engineering interesting.
      #72 NuclearHolocaust, Oct 24, 2018
      Last edited: Oct 24, 2018
      • Like Like x 2
    13. DrTarDIS

      DrTarDIS Eldrich Timelord

      Jan 16, 2014
      SO wrong. I had several experimental builds tear themselves apart because their own turrets would try to shoot things through their own hull. When damage beam was first introduced it was suicide to put on any but the most carefully engineered turrets... Eventually they made it so you couldn't damage back up your own chain, but even that was broken on things spit onto separate chains from the same main. SM's always had issues with intra-entity hitscan.
    14. Nosajimiki

      Sep 14, 2017
      Hard part about docked reactors is balancing it with chambers. If you have a 50k reactor with 100k worth of chambers, but 1/2 your power is going to your turrets, then you could instead reduce your reactor to 25k with 50k worth of chambers, then you could dock 25k of reactors on your turrets at the reduction of 1/2 your chamber cost/mass.

      The chamber system would need a significant reimagining to work with modularity. The big problem now is that you can not predict the chamber layout of a mothership to design a modular turret that will contain placeholder chambers to cover the cost, and the mothership can not predict the number of turrets/docked fighters/etc for chamber buffering to make since.

      The only solution I can think of that would make this possible and unexploitable would be to remove chambers and just make RP a built in feature of having a reactor, then just let you choose your features based 100% off of your RP pool. I suppose this could be a switch in the new admin system, but it would cause some significant market balancing issues to have the option to remove the cost of chambers 100% from the game.
      • Like Like x 1
    15. DrTarDIS

      DrTarDIS Eldrich Timelord

      Jan 16, 2014
      The devs haven't even really used their own chamber system in their own NPC ships yet. Once they do I expect it to suddenly stop being as PITA as it currently is.
      • Like Like x 2
    16. BDLS

      Mar 30, 2013
      Good lord, why on earth are people talking about docked reactors again? They don’t make sense anymore, especially with cut/paste template creating. Why would anyone swap out reactors, pointless.
      • Like Like x 1
    17. NuclearHolocaust

      Sep 1, 2013
      This would require to build very specialized turrets to fit in the stabilizers since the dstance to the reactor has to be quite big if it is a strong one. also as long as power is just passed up the chain, not down, it can just power the turret(with a big weapon only to a limited extend), which is not so much of an advantage.
    18. Edymnion

      Edymnion Carebear Extraordinaire!

      Mar 18, 2015
      Because some of us actually like the feel of watching a reactor slide into place?
    19. aceface

      Jun 20, 2013
      • Like Like x 1
    20. NeonSturm

      NeonSturm StormMaker

      Dec 31, 2013
      I was checking new updates on games I played much or which I like generally even if they are too expensive.
      ° But I try very hard to not become my old frustrated self again and changed in terms of interests from building perfectly atop of systems to designing systems as good as possible and as simple as possible.

      I EVEN WROTE MY OWN BOOK 412 PAGES !!! (more on Minds.com / NeonSturm / Anju Aurora Avalons HiTek-Magic, free download)
      ° Soft terms-of-use, simple german language and some html-related wisdom for using HiTek-Magic.
      ° Inclusive: My own drawings as pictures for all languages.

      If you are intersted, I planed to update my profil page within the next 24 hours and hopefully until 2018-10-25, 5 AM, GMT.
      At first, Very great update.

      Maybe I install the child-protector protokoll from the server-admin to get warnings before I build big enough for a ship-deletion or want a ruleset which my faction can use to build ships according to roles which fit my factions idea.
      But this requires client-side rules or that clients are allowed to let the server make a custom rule-check when players agree to a PvP fight under their very own conditions.

      Secondly, I hope it will not be a cross-server mess and that you can apply rules to sector/system/ship-role-dependent conditions.
      Here are some examples which I have in mind:
      • Homebase rules
      • Highway rules (Jump gate sectors, stations and surrounding sectors) so that some pirates not come close to fortified stations.
      • Sun-Sector rules (plus nearby sectors) so that you can make Solar-Stations with varying effectiveness which produce Biofusion-Cells for your active combat modules/drones (not the passives) or power your Jump Gates more effectively.
      • Planet rules (Big ships don't like planet gravity =D )
      • Jump-Points (Jump drive buffed, maybe in a certain direction) and bonus points if scanable.
        • Scanable or if Stations broadcast "title/JPs and message/JP-notes" (or whole newspapers about more) to friendly scaning scouts.
        • Anomalies which mess with the JD like disable or override destination or distance are possible...sending someone into the sun.
      NeonSturm could be a family-tree name for "Warg NeonSturm" on the WH40k server and "Lilly NeonSturm" on another server.
      Bonus points if you can switch with which family member to play on the fly and apply different server rules to each of them, depending of them having chosen a rogue life or leading the families company, etc.

      Read this spoiler to get some insight into the thread, see my answer to your post or see where the ideas come from which I write after the spoiler.
      You could suggest a general flight-simulator within SM to test builds before purchasing them with original, adjusted and imported rules.
      I'll leave it to you to do it if you like to.

      I suggest, that the flight-simulator can also test different scenarios, which the server admin or SM-dock hosts for players, to make overall acceptable ships.

      I'll place my answer after the spoiler.
      I'll place my answer after the spoiler.
      Generally I agree. While 5 Gunships focus-firing on 1/5 enemy Gunship, it may redistribute power for weapon perks/actives to get temporarily more shield perks/actives and die slower while the allied Gunships deal damage.

      This would generally buff small ships in battles with big ships involved when they are about 1/5 (variable) the size of a big ship.
      Smaller ships don't have time to re-adjust perks/actives and bigger ships would be less flexible with ship-global settings.

      Thanks for the idea! I have written my more refined idea above the Spoiler.

      EPipes may buff a system, but distributing power over the magnetic field of a ship is nothing too implausible.

      Alternatively e-pipes would make systems more power-drain resistent or enable manual e-distribution management - a priority system.

      Very nice ideas!

      I think about Increase/dec. defenses for PvP systems and rogue/company-leader chars if my idea of a family of characters per player is accepted (using account name as family/-tree name).

      I wrote about vector shield below. Every emitter could use different "technology-settings" like being more efficient but let some dmg through or using additional power to mitigate dmg.
      They would be additional to global shields, so we would have basic protection against stray attacks, an option to better protect us while we are on the run or for a frontal assault and to survive in a damaged but still valuable ship if the enemy attacks from different directions.

      Will you make the list which part of which tutorial needs to be fixed?

      Power 2.0 is nice, but something which Carrier-ships can insert into the captains vessel to outfit it for the current mission would not work.
      5x5x20 plugins would not take as much hangar space as a hollowed out ship.

      Yup. I want a "NeonSturm family/-tree" with a Cyborg-Hitler in place of StarTreks Borgs and he would mindfuck every enemy over the chat (according to RP rules) using the Cyborg-Zombie-Nazis characters as Church-Nazi-Bell-Ship-flying assasins to convert everyone.
      At the same time, I could have a "Atlantria NeonSturm" character which acts as the Ambassador of "Deutschluft", "Deutscherde", "Deutschwasser" und "Deutschfeuer", which hate that Cyhit char created by Neonazis and try to add a bounty and kill it again and again and again ... only to see that they only got one of his followers.
      So I would have many chars on a server which are named like "Cyhit NeonSturm" or "Cykos NeonSturm" or "Atria NeonSturm" but still only one account. And you will likely be attacked by Nazi-Bells when you broke the contract with my "Orden der Verteidiger/Assasinen" organisation which acts together as Military supported by "Orden der Wächter/Polizisten".

      Stupid SM-Computers because they cannot run Beam/Cannon/Missile software simultanously =P
      I hope you have thought through the possibility of 1 heavy turret and 3 antimissile turrets, because it affects which tools for your rules you need to suggest.

      A good rule might be to buff Ships while they are in a friendly sector when there is a station around which has a certain upgrade.

      Perhaps we could use cannon-modules like cargo-crates?
      The server could then auto-adjust the number of weapon blocks which fit inside such a weapon-system, as long as all weapon-modules, which work as cargo-crates for weapon-blocks only, can hold the desired ammount.
      The user has then the option to remove some to save mass or spawn cost.

      Yup. But I prefer to use the nearest shield-emitter to define how a shield works.
      Perhaps you can even apply different rules for a turret depending on the purpose of a turret, but I don't want to suggest anything which could create massive ammounts of lag.

      I have to disagree (at least in parts)!
      Yes, bubble shields and integrity is not fun atm.
      But how does the community use their veto right? How is it policed? Some may rage about imbalance of power.
      You may have a look after my Spoiler where I describe how vector-shields tie into the new rule system.

      I'd like a 5-Star rating system. Even if you only give 1 Star, it took you time to give it.
      The stars can also be replaced by following to make it easier-to-use:
      1. Lense+Star (yes, I noticed your post)
      2. Paper+Star (good enough to post)
      3. Thumb+Star (Like)
      4. Heart+Star (Love)
      5. 3 Hearts+Star (Adore a perfect post)
      If you don't like a post/thread at all, don't do anything to boost it's occurence in the thread/forum.

      I have written after the spoiler =)

      I fully agree to a degree that I want your post in my Spoiler!

      They encourage using multiple entities which is usually good to break down massive bricks or buff defending ships around a station.
      Vs Bugs, I would make them so that they don't require a beam but use jump-drive-tech to instantly link a target object over your ships magnetic or shield field (plus GFX).

      Me too.
      Make Systems with something like cargo-crates and fill them with modules - as long as enough fit into that space you can adjust numbers easily and still use conventional blocks to create your energy links.


      I dunno why. A simple hyperlink to the master-entity to check IDs of attacker and target by comparing the master-entitie's ID would do the trick of preventing friendly fire.
      And since nothing undocks anymore when the docker is destroyed, mostly undocking on purpose should trigger the adjustments of hyperlinks of all sub-entities of the newly undocked entity.

      I agree, especially with the problem of prediction, but generally you would use modularity to add missile defense to a frighter, add a small annoying combat drone or a you-die-with-me-warhead-launcher depending on server rules.
      In case of the missile defense it may need more energy and a small included reactor would do the job, but the 1-reactor-rule forbidds it.

      The hope dies last =D
      Jake_Lancia and Gmodism Captain Skwidz
      I guess we need global shields as default and buffable vector-shields (vector=rules depending on nearest emitter and user-settings).

      Global shields would be 20% less efficient and everything fired within a squeezed bubble or the convex shape of a ship, would bypass global shields if the server-admin enables a rule saying so.

      Vector-shields use the nearest emitter and it defines which shield-battery is used - simple as that.
      ° Wings may use another battery than the main ship.
      ° Some Hull may use an empty shield battery while other ship parts have a full battery.
      ° Emitters might have different properties (some damage passes through, use extra energy to mitigate some discharge or adapt to the weapon firing on them after every hit so that rainbow weapons are more effective)
      ° They can have perks based on choosen advantages or disadvantages and you can define different settings for Federation-Factions, Klingon-Factions, Warhammer-races, etc. The NEW admin server rules may allow that.
      ° Skilled crew members would ion-enhance the shields which need it the most.

      ° Assault ships have strong frontal shielding, some global shielding to protect against stray attacks or a small agile interceptor and still options to survive damaged when being ambushed from behind.
      ° Traders may have shields which disable nearby weapon outputs (which doesn't bother a pacifist).

      FINAL Note:

      I hope that the modular rule system allows us to put some lag-producing code outside of the processing line.

      Some servers could benefit from rules to freeze all ships through an anomaly in space-time when a sector produces too much lag.

      Alternatively, a sector-admin could focus the server-resources on specific areas of the server where only small ships are allowed.​
      • Like Like x 4