StarMade - PvP & PvE balance, Perspective & Direction

    Edymnion

    Carebear Extraordinaire!
    Joined
    Mar 18, 2015
    Messages
    2,707
    Reaction score
    1,501
    • Purchased!
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    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.
     
    Joined
    Jun 11, 2016
    Messages
    1,141
    Reaction score
    602
    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.
    X
    [doublepost=1540221903,1540221604][/doublepost]
    could we please have our reactions back so we can give your posts love hearts:?.
    *rates your post funny*
     

    OfficialCoding

    Professional Quickfire Hater
    Joined
    Nov 8, 2017
    Messages
    404
    Reaction score
    243
    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.
    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
    Reactions: Serene-Switch
    Joined
    Mar 18, 2014
    Messages
    292
    Reaction score
    153
    • Arrrty
    • TwitchCon 2015
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    Can we get docked reactors back?
    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.)
     
    Joined
    Mar 22, 2016
    Messages
    58
    Reaction score
    269
    Restricting the build mechanics is most of the time affecting the wrong people, and a lot of times they are also not 100% effective in what they are trying to prevent. Making them more severe would put even more restriction on the whole system. Reducing them would make them completely ineffective.


    With all that in mind I came to the realization that my perspective on balance might be a bit off. In trying to put out fires, new fires are coming up while development of other things suffers. We have been focusing on fighting the extreme cases of exploits way to much.


    The conclusion of this is that I want to go back to those things that make the game fun.
    The Cat God takith and the Cat God givith back, and so we worship him.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: OmegaGame
    Joined
    Feb 15, 2017
    Messages
    21
    Reaction score
    41
    Hello Players,


    This is more of a blog post about the general direction of the game.


    With the recent updates there have been a lot of new build mechanics and restrictions that were controversial. However, they seemed necessary to solve certain problems with people exploiting certain aspects of the mechanics. Most players never plan or intent to abuse these mechanics but they were still negatively affected by them. New players are also affected by the added complexity. Even the existence of an additional number while building has a negative effect. Understandably, a lot of those players asked the question “Why is this even a thing?”.


    Restricting the build mechanics is most of the time affecting the wrong people, and a lot of times they are also not 100% effective in what they are trying to prevent. Making them more severe would put even more restriction on the whole system. Reducing them would make them completely ineffective.


    With all that in mind I came to the realization that my perspective on balance might be a bit off. In trying to put out fires, new fires are coming up while development of other things suffers. We have been focusing on fighting the extreme cases of exploits way to much.


    The conclusion of this is that I want to go back to those things that make the game fun.

    To explain it better: The game should be fun for one or a group of players that are enjoying the game without going out of their way to exploit mechanics. While there still need to be things to prevent these exploits, it will be done with a different perspective. Measures that solely exist to prevent to exploitation will be put into a rule system, so a server admin can apply them. This rule system will be quick and easy to setup, which will be explained a bit later.


    We will still be sticking with the basic premise of reactors and stabilizers but will be simplifying things a fair bit.

    The first things that will be removed from the game is integrity and the reactor stream between reactor and stabilizers. Also, while I can not promise for sure, the required reactor stabilization distance will likely be reduced.


    Server Rules

    The server rule system will work as follows:


    The server admin picks one or multiple conditions with either “all conditions must be true” or “one of the conditions must be true”. While there will be other affected areas, this explanation will be for structures. This means that these conditions will be checked while a player builds or spawns a ship. These conditions will include a reactivation of integrity, the stability stream, ship size, mass, dimension, block counts per type, weapon strength, shield strength and a lot more.


    After the admin picked a set of conditions, they can choose from one or more actions. These will range from very light “ship weapons are disabled while conditions are true” to more harsh “remove ship” or even “ban player”. It’s the admin’s choice. They will also have the option to warn players on certain actions.


    A simple rule would be:


    • “If block count is over 1 million, deactivate the ship’s power”
    The player would then be notified in their structure view in build mode that a their ship is currently triggering the rule.


    Another rule would be:

    • If integrity is in the negatives, the ship is disabled.
      The condition can be more soft like “mark ship for admins”. Admins would be able to track those marked ships in a panel, as well as the blueprints.
    This would exactly emulate how the integrity works right now.

    For normal gameplay all integrity would not be visible as long as the player is on a server that doesn’t use a rule that relates to integrity. Same is true for the stabilization stream, and other things that will be removed for simplification.


    When I make the game I think about people that have fun together player the game. Exploring, building, fighting. Competitiveness is also nice as long as I doesn't go to extremes. So I want to focus on that fun part. Unlike many games nowadays, I don't want to create an esport. If you want to play hardcore, you are welcome to do so, but you will have to make your own rules.


    With this, development can move a lot more freely and will have a lot more resources available for other things. For anything that might be exploitive, conditions will be added to help a server effectively detect and remove it from their server if they so wish. We will be also providing default options for servers to quickly setup. These default options will be based upon what rules are typically set on the different types of servers PvP, PvE, RP, Building etc


    This is all of course not a complete fix to all balance problems, but it enables us to create a balance for a specific scenario instead of doing the impossible task of coming up with a balance that works in a possible scenarios. For example, the intended vanilla balance will be based on economy also, something that currently doesn’t matter on some servers, which in turn completely changes the scenario and the requirements for any balance. By focusing on a specific scenario and then letting the admins control what kind of play they want to see on a server, we can reduce the amount of forced restrictions considerably making building and the game a lot more fun.


    The rule GUI will come equipped with a simple way to create new rules. Also it will be possible to create and export/import ruleset templates. There will also be some general rulesets available that an admin can choose from like “Creative Build”, “Restricted Pvp” or “Hardcore PvP Open”.


    List of Conditions and reactions
    There are a lot of possible conditions and actions. I’ll be compiling a list shortly with all possible conditions and actions I can come up with. Since any action will be specific to a server to use them I’m willing to implement pretty much any request a server admin has for a rule.


    Possible conditions would include

    • ship size

    • ship mass

    • block count (per type)

    • system count (specific to system)

    • integrity (which would activate the integrity GUI and stats for all peple on that server. Otherwise integrity would be completely removed)

    • Shield size

    • Reactor level

    • A lot more. Whatever we can come up with.

    Actions would affect the entity & creator/spawner of the entity and would range from hidden to severe including:

    • Mark entity for admins. This entity is then trackable by the admins in a panel

    • Mark entity for everyone in hud/name

    • Disable certain systems

    • Add an effect (like a reactor effect) to the vessel

    • Disable completely

    • Warn player for amount of time

    • Remove completely (conditions can be chained, so that would for example be after a warning)

    • Kick/Ban player (same as above)

    This would also enable servers to implement buffs for certain builds (e.g. bigger stations) by applying certain effects. This would be a lot easier than modifying the config. Also it would be compatible with most updates of the game.




    General
    In general there have been a few adjustments to my perspective as well. With the universe update coming up, I will be going moving away from trying to middleground on things that would cost extra time. Too many “you can do either this or that” choices for how the basics of the game work are not good for complexity and code. This is not directed on gameplay, in fact gameplay should be enriched with more options, but for things like having an option to use old deprecated things still (old turrets etc are a good example).


    The universe update is pretty huge in scope, but all in all I’m looking very much to 100% dive into it. The basics are already there. Most of the old systems have been overhauled internally. The few old ones that are left will be overhauled at the beginning of the update (amongst other things AI, fleets, the basic loading system and sector transitions). The universe will be torn down and recreated according to what we planned. And then it will be filled with new and interesting things, adding gameplay and things to do, as well as making the surroundings a lot more recognizable.


    Thanks for playing StarMade,

    • schema
    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
    Reactions: NeonSturm
    Joined
    Jun 1, 2015
    Messages
    156
    Reaction score
    58
    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
     

    Edymnion

    Carebear Extraordinaire!
    Joined
    Mar 18, 2015
    Messages
    2,707
    Reaction score
    1,501
    • Purchased!
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    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
    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.
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    May 18, 2015
    Messages
    282
    Reaction score
    161
    • Purchased!
    <sarcasm>
    Docked reactors? Ridiculous! Everyone knows you can only attach things to a battery! It is simply absurd to attach a battery to something!
    </sarcasm>

    <serious>
    • 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.
    </serious>
     
    Joined
    Jan 4, 2017
    Messages
    2
    Reaction score
    1
    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.
     
    Joined
    Sep 1, 2013
    Messages
    32
    Reaction score
    9
    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.
    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.
     
    Last edited:

    DrTarDIS

    Eldrich Timelord
    Joined
    Jan 16, 2014
    Messages
    1,022
    Reaction score
    279
    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.)
    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.
     
    Joined
    Sep 14, 2017
    Messages
    669
    Reaction score
    928
    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
    Reactions: NeonSturm

    DrTarDIS

    Eldrich Timelord
    Joined
    Jan 16, 2014
    Messages
    1,022
    Reaction score
    279
    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.
    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.
     
    Joined
    Mar 30, 2013
    Messages
    729
    Reaction score
    281
    • Purchased!
    • TwitchCon 2015
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    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
    Reactions: Serene-Switch
    Joined
    Sep 1, 2013
    Messages
    32
    Reaction score
    9
    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.
    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.
     

    Edymnion

    Carebear Extraordinaire!
    Joined
    Mar 18, 2015
    Messages
    2,707
    Reaction score
    1,501
    • Purchased!
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    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.
    Because some of us actually like the feel of watching a reactor slide into place?
     

    NeonSturm

    StormMaker
    Joined
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages
    5,111
    Reaction score
    617
    • Wired for Logic
    • Thinking Positive
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    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.
    This makes sense, though it could also be cool to have client-side options to enable viewing aspects which would normally be hidden by the current server rules. This could make it easier to build ships which also satisfy some rules not present on the current server (for wider use, if the build happens to have some flexibility), or to check out a downloaded blueprint and view it "as the builder intended" without having to change rules in a single-player game first.

    So if, say, stabilizer streams are disabled normally but can be enabled by a rule, a player might want to place some stream nodes if they have a few blocks of extra space. Or similar thing with integrity, if the builder has plenty of space then they may want to adapt the reactor/shields/etc. shape to make the ship more adaptable for use on other servers.

    Having the option(s) be available and dynamic in the in-game UI would be ideal, and of course would only affect the information which the local player can see and not the actual gameplay.
    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.

    Yes to the remove shield bubbles and going back to the older shield system; it was far simpler and less annoying to set up.

    No to the nerfing shields; if anything, shields need a buff, or weapons in general a nerf, because of how much disparity is between weapons and shielding right now.
    I'll place my answer after the spoiler.
    I think armour is a fun concepts, making that useless and relying on only shields as we have seen makes a boring battle, also I don't want any ship to 100% fine after a battle, more fun with some wear and tear aspects. Hell, would actually be great if shields protected and absorbed like 70% of damage, not all!
    I'll place my answer after the spoiler.
    I think it's important to add to this that defenses in general, not just shields, are outscaled by weapons
    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.

    Yes it looks allright for a few builders.

    But most of the people, including me, had troubles routing this stream. In the case that I needed to route a stream over 3 or more nodes, and there were multiple streams close to each other, it was unmanageable: On sector reload all the connections were randomly broken and all the tedious c-v work was lost.
    [doublepost=1539606548,1539606339][/doublepost]
    Please don't forget this part next time people talk about pvp mechanics. Fun > Meta. A percentage of players don't enjoy minmaxing and building hardcore pvp oriented builds (and it doesn't matter if they are majority or minority).

    Own rules means booth: server side restrictions that get checked by the code, and own rules (like for example agreeing to only use cannon primary weapons and for example only 50m/s max ship thrust. - no matter what the server dictates).
    Thanks for the idea! I have written my more refined idea above the Spoiler.

    I also found the stream good, it is logical that systems need energy... streams...
    I also integrated them into my builds and will be sad to see them go...
    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.

    See? You present the problem calmly and don't resort to name calling, and actually give 'em time to mull things over, and stuff gets changed. The devs are listening. Only thing the ranting and the name calling does is make 'em dig their heels in and double down. :)

    That said, kudos on being man enough to admit that things were potentially going in the wrong direction and backing down from some of it.

    I'm very happy to see the server side rules that will allow actual server types to be set up without needing custom configs all over the place (especially if those conditions are editable on the fly in game). Couple of things I'd like to see as conditions:

    • PC vs. NPC indicator. Specifically a flag that would allow the system to differentiate between something made by a player and something made by an NPC (such as pirates and NPC factions) so that different rules can be applied to just one group or the other.
    • Increase defenses for/decrease damage against specific groups. For example, if someone wanted a PvE server with limitations on PvP, you could simply adjust how much damage is done to/taken by PC vessels when attacked by other PC vessels. Make it so that player weapons end up doing a scalable amount of damage to other players (so the server could set it to say 50% normal damage, or 10%, etc). On the flip side, a PvP server could be set up to decrease the damage done by NPCs to players.
    • Time played should be a condition as well. That way the server could set up things like new player protections if they wanted. Like being able to say that if a player has less than X hours played on the server, increase their defenses or something so that they are harder to kill. Could give new players say 100% invincibility against other players (or even NPCs) for the first 24 hours played (and vice versa, make it so that new players can't attack other players for X hours to prevent griefers).

    Yeah, I'm seeing TONS of great ways that these rules and conditions could be used to fine tune a server. I like 'em!

    I'll also second/third/fourth the "Let us keep the stabilizer/reactor beams as decorative items". I also incorporated those into builds as decorative pieces, and I'd like to be able to keep them.
    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).

    Schema and team. Thank you for really great solutions to some of the directional problems, to really great flexibility and an emphasis on FUN.
    Starmade is a tricky game to bring together. With so many different ways to play, the most difficult thing is to balance the very diverse desires of many different players and still have the game get finished.

    [...]

    Some rules I would like to see:
    • Shield effectiveness (a percentage of how much a shield can mitigate)
    • Thrust to mass ratio (the relationship between ship mass and the effectiveness of thrust modules)
    • Chain dock depth
    • Weapon size to power requirement ratio (the relationship between the number of weapon blocks and the power draw for reloading those weapons

    Thank you.
    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.

    Cool, I'm looking toward to the updates. Will make my refiting of old ships much easier. Also, can you have someone update the tutorials and ADD more of them? Other than that I'm looking toward to the new update.
    Will you make the list which part of which tutorial needs to be fixed?

    ooh very big Schema post! So, what about chambers? Are they remaining? Seems a bit silly for things like jump drives and scanners
    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.

    I think this is a step in the right direction.

    While on the idea of server rules, it would be fantastic to include some faction creation rules and the like. For example, servers could be set up with two opposing factions (kinda like the LvD idea) where players could choose a side (or be added to the side with fewest players?)

    Being able to micro manage a server to that degree may help to make more and more diverse servers beyond build, survival, PvP (with or without written rules) and RP. Servers could be tailored to encompass two or more genres so you could have a true RP/PvP server where people build RP capable ships and be able to fight each other that way.

    If done right, and by adapting many of the mechanics that already exist in game, THIS could be huge for ALL players.

    Good Luck!
    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".

    This i like a lot. also an important one could be numbers of weapon computers as well as separate values for numbers of weapons computers / outputs for turrets & main ship

    also rule could have a mass/ block count function function. what i mean by this is for every x blocks you can have y turrets or z computers or a outputs etc etc
    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.

    Few rules useful on servers i can think of:
    • warhead blocks count as missiles for ams targetting purposes.
    • Make sure weapons range is modifiable, so servers can set stations to have 3x weapons range on all weapons, so that sieging a station mandates you get within weapons range. This would help make non-hb stations viable assets.
    • Make possible that firing on and hitting an object immediately gives it basic scan data for the attacker (visual lock at least for turrets so they can shoot back even if they cant lock) for x number of seconds.
    • Setting that gives stations permanently online scanner even without scan duration chambers. Allow this to inherit other scan chambers like strength and power efficiency.
    That should allow servers to give a more fair fight to undefended stations like for gate networks.

    At the same time though, it should be possible to make stations with a warpgate linked to another station with a warpgate to be invulnerable, which works just as well.
    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.

    I wish there would be some compatibility between servers, as of now every server has other configs for cargo, chambers, turretcount, beamgroup count . And Servers offer different Ping and most importantly online Players. It would be really nice to be able to change to another server with all blueprints not needing to update them just for making them work or beeing usefull. I suggest a Option to disable Groups and Turrets , and not the computers or whole ship or thrusters. Reduction of dps Output should also be possible, without changing blocks. Shipsize.. maybe just render outside and dont render all inside.
    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.

    Thadius Faran I legit didnt know that either, thanks!

    One more thing i think is appropriate for the rulesets is being able to define faction point gains and costs for various things like
    • Territory ownership, whether or not any players are online, number of players online, cost to host a homebase, number of faction points at which homebases, territory claims and property protection rights (like for ships) cease to function, etc.
    • Option to hide location of homebases from non members or even members dependent on certain conditions.
    • Separate territory claims from mining claims, so small factions that cant have territory can still get a mining bonus
    Then some servers who are upset about, say, too many dormant one person factions or alt account faction territory claims can implement rules that make it more or less impossible for a single player faction who is only on for a few minutes a day to host territory, but game the numbers to accomidate a player that is consistently online (like i would never ever be...)

    Also, i would vote to keep the bubble shields. [...]

    [Edit for more;]
    • Turning rate penalties should be applicable
    • Directional axis acceleration penalties (can restrict left-right, up-down or specifically forwards or backwards or only up, whatever)
    • Turret turning rate penalties based on total mass
    • Rail speed and rotation penalties
    • Apply penalties based on # of active rails (where speed is not set to zero by a rail controller and at least one entity docked to them)
    • Apply penalties not just on hard caps, but as functions of another property, like a turrets mass or a ships mass. With support for both linear and exponents, with softcaps and hardcaps applicable.
    That will let servers make rulesets like, ships over x mass begin to lose acceleration on the sideways and vertical thrust axes of up to 95%, and lose rotation speed up to 90% on all axes. That would let servers deal with the gigantic capital ships that can outrun and outmanuever fighters less than 1% their size. Which is neither fun nor reasonable. Also lets servers deal with gigantic multi thousand mass turrets half the size of their parent behaving like a tiny ams turret just because youve got mass enhancers.
    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.

    Removing integrity and conduits is the right decision.

    I believe it'd be beneficial for future updates to let the community veto certain ideas, even before they are implemented. Work done in vain is the worst kind of work.

    If integrity is going, bubble shields should be removed as well, and the shield system returned to the previous, global method.
    -They limit creative freedom in a similar way to integrity.
    -With integrity gone, they can be worked around by connecting distant groups of shield blocks
    with an 1x1 "snake" that wiggles through pretty much anywhere.
    -Thus bubble shields become nothing more than excess lines of code and unnecessary calculations.
    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.

    All salt has now been removed, could we please have our reactions back so we can give your posts love hearts:?
    Way to go Schema, sounding very positive and it has certiantly encouraged me to dive back into the game.
    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.

    Something to modify the shape of the shield would be a lot better for smaller ships and when you don't need so much recharge. The reason why shield expansion devices don't exist yet is because Schema probably wants to have separate shield generators instead of one big one which is a good thing because your ship could be be taken out easier if it has only one generator running
    I have written after the spoiler =)

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

    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.)
    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).

    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.
    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.

    <serious>
    • 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.
    </serious>
    Yes!

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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 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.
    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.

    Goals:
    ° 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.​