StarMade Ship Systems 2.0

    Matt_Bradock

    The Shrink
    Joined
    Aug 4, 2013
    Messages
    798
    Reaction score
    464
    • Purchased!
    • Thinking Positive
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    Lancake Does the "No active reactors on docked entities" also mean that turrets can no longer use weapon effects? (as they will be integrated into the chamber system and therefore require an active reactor to work?)
     
    Joined
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages
    73
    Reaction score
    17
    Lancake Does the "No active reactors on docked entities" also mean that turrets can no longer use weapon effects? (as they will be integrated into the chamber system and therefore require an active reactor to work?)
    Where did you get that? Only passive effects will be chamber-based. Weapon effects will stay the same
    ---
    Or maybe I understood you wrong
     
    Last edited:

    Chckn Wildstyle

    Design Head of Cabal Weapons/Technologies (CWT)
    Joined
    Feb 8, 2014
    Messages
    133
    Reaction score
    54
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Competition Winner - Small Fleets
    • Legacy Citizen 8
    Lancake Does the "No active reactors on docked entities" also mean that turrets can no longer use weapon effects? (as they will be integrated into the chamber system and therefore require an active reactor to work?)
    I have always made self powered turrets so that the ship does not need to supply their power as to minimize stress on the main ship. If all turret reactors will be non-functional, that is a very big red flag for me. I always create my turret bound ships to be more like carrying vessels with the turrets as the self contained units.

    Literally none of my turret designs require power from the main ship, and I have turrets that are 200+ meters long and very thick.
     
    Joined
    Oct 15, 2015
    Messages
    55
    Reaction score
    72
    I think there is only one thing you went over very lightly in this post: what exectly did you mean with 'restart from scrap'? Will the old power system no longer work? Will the community builders, who spent blood, sweat and months and maybe even years of work into making these masterpieces, be forced to restart from scrap as well?
    Another question: will this update be any more memory-intensive for my pc? Because I am currently litteraly running this game at the maximum of my computers strengt.
    And no offense, maybe you could acctually answer me this time?
     

    Chckn Wildstyle

    Design Head of Cabal Weapons/Technologies (CWT)
    Joined
    Feb 8, 2014
    Messages
    133
    Reaction score
    54
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Competition Winner - Small Fleets
    • Legacy Citizen 8
    I think there is only one thing you went over very lightly in this post: what exectly did you mean with 'restart from scrap'? Will the old power system no longer work? Will the community builders, who spent blood, sweat and months and maybe even years of work into making these masterpieces, be forced to restart from scrap as well?
    Another question: will this update be any more memory-intensive for my pc? Because I am currently litteraly running this game at the maximum of my computers strengt.
    And no offense, maybe you could acctually answer me this time?
    Yes, from scratch. Its an Alpha game, I have over 300 ship blueprints, get used to the idea of game balance before your feelings.

    *EDIT* 300+ blueprints I have made myself.
     
    Joined
    Nov 3, 2014
    Messages
    624
    Reaction score
    287
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Wired for Logic
    • Legacy Citizen 6
    Checking on the goals.
    1. Predictability: Placing a block leads to predictable outcomes - YES!
    2. Simplicity: The game should only describe the rules to the player, not telling the player exactly what to do - Hell YEAH!
    3. Make every block matter without losing its importance with different ship sizes - phew yeah sure ok why not. i think that might be tricky though
    4. Depth: The system needs to have equally viable choices within each possible situation, creating additional gameplay possibilities where possible, keeping complexity unchanged. - Hmm, a fine goal indeed but does it have to be like this? like would it ruin the fun otherwise - i doubt that but ok
    5. Performance: Game limits must not be avoidable, using the least amount of these limits is better to minimize any potential exploits - Well put all for it!
    6. Performant: Must perform well from a game engine perspective - You are aware that normally concept comes first and game engine then adapts? you ask me i'd scrap this point entirely and go like well if the game demands it and the engine does not deliver rewwrite the engine for we need a fun and appealing game not a shadow of what it could have been with a "better" engine - But, ok you set these goals so...
    7. Creativity: Allow as much creativity as possible - YES PLX
    8. Logical: Needs to make sense to the player - ABSOLUTELY!
    9. Solution focused: Must solve any current game issues with that particular system - PLEASE!
    Now looking over the proposal i am like - nice try but nope! Let me elaborate:

    - The first thing that strikes me is the additional abstract techpoint currency, that contradicts point 8 for you are aware that we have the same
    stuff right now, just paying energy for such "passive/active" systems right? - what is wrong with using energy instead of techpoints, every kid
    understands the concept of energy why introduce another abstract thing? And hell - you better not try to take the effects and stuff away from
    us you were supposed to fix the power system, not smash stuff that actually has kind of a working balance, admitedly not every choice is as
    valid as any other, as point 4 claims but! I do not see how you would overcome these balance issues with the new system either.

    - Weapons now have their own capacity - erh you know that sounds good in theory but lets say we have big rapid firing guns... which were supposed to burst through stuff. And we spend lots of blocks for the fast firing part and now with the new system the power regen can not recharge this burst damage strike weapon, for it was supposed to drain an energy pool that is no longer present...contradicts the points 1,2 kinda, 3, 7, 8 - means you would not only have to rebalance effects, you would have to REBALANCE THE ENTIRE WEAPONS SYSTEM - which actually is one of he few parts in starmade that really provides options and all... sure not every combination is as valid as any other and we are still waiting for the minelayers *cough* But i think most people like the system as it is - at least it is a promising concept and people after years still explore it's possibilities if you ask me you rather want more than less of such stuff in the game stuff that keeps people trying something else...
    Personally i am all for it, i can calculate how much power regen i require to run everything in my ship constantly but you might consider taking away the headroom of an energypool from the not so nerdy playerbase carefully.

    - Biggest reactor counts and only one reactor can be active contradicts 2,4,7,8,9 Why?
    Why would you even want to limit a ship to a single reactor? As long as the reactors do not screw over the stabilizors why this rule? Or how would this solve anything better than the core drill system we had? or be better than the actual mechanic? why should a big ship not have arrays of reactor cores in it's belly all powering different stuff. Why are we forced to build one big one for max effeiciency and anything else is subpar?

    - Reactor and Stabilizers - i was thinking about this for a while and wondered why? - still do but ok, for me it contradicts strongly point 2 and 8
    the thing that worries me the most is the vague description of distance between the two... Where is the damn formula? and you areaware that such a system restricts building to max out one dimension to be most effective either length width or height but with anything more ballish you might have distance issues with rectors and stabilizers esspecially if you thought putting the reactor in the center of the ship for safekeeping m8 that was a horrible idea... Why would this be a gamesystem that would add something to the game and spark creativity or fun?
    I could make it work sure but it again feels like put in place because there are no real natural logical occuring restrictions we could possibly add to our game that everyone would grasp at an instant. - Heat and routing heat away from the core, what was wrong with that, i liked this, it made sense... That thing is kinda - ok whatever - what again is the stabilizers function why should i not just add more reactors? Sorry can't relate to that concept.

    If i would grasp what your intended purpose was for putting it in i might get an idea but right now it is just there and i wonder why.
    NOW: There for sure will be a INDICATON system where to put the stabilizers to be efficient right? Or do you intend to let us figure that out as well as the minimal distance to suns in solar systems to not get fried?
    THAT STILL SUCKS REALLY HARD!
    A "no go" without imho (same for the Default sun deal damage setting, while not providing a indication system. GET proffessional will ya?!)


    - Priority Queue, Awesome, sold, WE NEEDZ! But how exactly would that only be cool in the new system and not already?

    - Chamber system - Naw sorry... WHY not just power stuff with power as it is now? do not see the point. Why not force module blocks to be more effective when put together with the actual system so people buid "chambers" with them if that was your intention? Really one of the coolest deco blocks now needs a new purpose? - oh well go ahead but how would this add something to the beliveability of a build or the fun or ... i did write about the weaponssystem and passive effects already i likethem you might disagree. but i do not see how these changes would be batter - different yes, but better? i don't like the TP thing stated already why...

    - Conclusion
    I like how the ship and it's areas was presented in the video i also would go with look we need to redo a lot more in starmade whatever right. But i do not see the new proposal fxing the issues we have now, it sems to me we will run into the same amount of new problems and some of the old ones are not even fixed. Maybe the though process behind your proposal would give more insight into what you were trying to achieve and thus giving a better angle to judge the new system accordingly but right now i just can not see how this would make for a "better" game in the sense of a real improovement to what we have now.

    Thanks for reading this far.
     
    Joined
    Oct 15, 2015
    Messages
    55
    Reaction score
    72
    Yes, from scratch. Its an Alpha game, I have over 300 ship blueprints, get used to the idea of game balance before your feelings.

    *EDIT* 300+ blueprints I have made myself.
    * I hope one of the mods reads this*

    Well, if that is so, then goodbye StarMade. I enjoyed ever second of this game the last 2 years, but this, no, sorry, I can't do it. If you with your 300+ bleuprints can do this then I show all my respect, but me with only 50 + blueprints can't see them all become useless.
     

    Matt_Bradock

    The Shrink
    Joined
    Aug 4, 2013
    Messages
    798
    Reaction score
    464
    • Purchased!
    • Thinking Positive
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    I'm already preparing to accept the thought that I'll have to hollow out to the level of empty armor shell and interior only, every single ship I ever designed, and refill them with the new systems once they are in. And I gotta say, it seems doable. True, I built no multi-million-block titans, for hardware reasons and for no-fun reasons.
     

    Chckn Wildstyle

    Design Head of Cabal Weapons/Technologies (CWT)
    Joined
    Feb 8, 2014
    Messages
    133
    Reaction score
    54
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Competition Winner - Small Fleets
    • Legacy Citizen 8
    * I hope one of the mods reads this*

    Well, if that is so, then goodbye StarMade. I enjoyed ever second of this game the last 2 years, but this, no, sorry, I can't do it. If you with your 300+ bleuprints can do this then I show all my respect, but me with only 50 + blueprints can't see them all become useless.
    To answer you: Yes, I'm okay with all of the blueprints I have made becoming obsolete if it is for the purpose of making the game better.
     
    Joined
    Sep 18, 2014
    Messages
    621
    Reaction score
    448
    The top-off rate is a percentage of the weapons max power draw. For big weapons that require a lot of internal capacity to fire once, there will be a large enough power consumption that you need a large enough reactor to fire them at least once.

    Even if you use a reactor that is just big enough for the top off-rate, you’ll only fire it once which is a concern if you miss that shot or fail to hit anything vital.

    If it is a concern during testing, we could implement a form of power penalty that increases the % top-off rate depending on reactor vs weapon size ratio.
    Please no. As long as the information warfare is balanced it become a ship's doctrine. Scanning hit and run ships vs defensive and reliable ships. It's only a problem if we know where to hit too easily.
     
    Joined
    Nov 3, 2014
    Messages
    624
    Reaction score
    287
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Wired for Logic
    • Legacy Citizen 6
    It does, but it also still circumvents any balancing measures on ship power that Schine might put in place down the road, and... really, now that there is no power capacity, I don't see any particularly valid use for the things. Turrets should just be main ship guns that swivel.

    EDIT: Allowing reactors on turrets also inflates the size of turrets... and the last thing we need are big moving docked entities to bloat up collision calculations.
    But nearly all of the biggest balance problems with the current power system come from docked, self powered weapon and shield systems. We should strike preemptively and just get rid of them now. Turrets should be treated as mobile parts of the main ship, not drones locked to a bigger ship. It would also make defense station designing require more thought.
    Self powered turrets exceeding the limits of the actuall powersystem is a good thing
    docked entities creating lag because of collision checks is a bad thing
    Still this does not make turrets neither self pwoered nor power by host ship a bad thing
    the bad thing is that the game engine slows down because of collision checks and that is something the devs need to fix.
    Turrets are a game element one of the few that actually provide room for tinkering which is one of the core mechanics why some people actually play this game for it is a engaging feature that can keep you playing for long hours and creating loads of fun for those into this stuff.
    Stop calling stuff bad because their implementation is not optimal. It still could be an awesome thing but sure it needs proper development to not be annoying anymore.

    This just...looks so much more complicated than what we have in game now to me, and it may be my end, which is fine ive had fun for 3-5 years, i forget exactly. If the majority likes it though, then so be it :)

    Still though, 1800 hours isnt to bad in a game for 5$ xD
    i agree the "simple" thing got lost

    I'm a little skeptical of this idea but I kinda like it. If done right, this could very well be the balance we've been looking for.
    Target their weapons systems Mr. Worf.
    View attachment 41867

    If implemented poorly... Well... May whatever Cat God you believe in... heh... Have mercy on your soul...

    View attachment 41868


    I STRONGLY agree that multiple reactors should be allowed. Seriously; why the hell not?

    Also, someone needs to stop tip toeing around popular sci-fi lingo and send their Star Trek/Star Wars/BSG/Babylon 5 techno jargon into over drive. Names other than tech points...

    - re-route power - allocate power - power distribution - system override - divert power - system bypass - power coupling
    - grid enhancement - phase induction - maglev cohesion - energize - system augmentation - system tuning - capacitance
    - ...mix and match from the above
    Agree it again depends a lot on the implenentation on top of what got criticised already.

    How did schine manage to make this proposal even worse than the first one. You are making pointless simplifications that remove the challange for players. The only reason there is a playerbase is because the game is complicated enough for people to spend years innovating and still not reach perfection. You are removing many players point to playing this game all in the name of "intuitive simplifaction". And what the fuck is this tech points thing. Ok the reactor design is shit, but might be the only way to move forward. But this techpoints thing, what the fuck is even the point, you are removing complicated and calculated decisions in the ships manufacture, such as what effects to use and how much and how big your jumpdrive is and what size scanner and inhibitor and replacing is with a completly made up out of your arse system all in the name of simplification. If you want a simple game, go and play minecraft
    Thank you for pointing out that lots of the fun comes from the "hard to master" aspects of the game i also agree the new proposal seems to lack such stuff
    [doublepost=1495051177,1495050536][/doublepost]--- by Lancake ---
    Clarification

    One active reactor per entity

    At first there was no limit on here. Each entity would have a fixed number of Tech Points, let’s take 100 as an example.

    Those Tech Points would distribute over all reactor groups respecting reactor size:

    Example, 3 reactors on ship:
    • Reactor 1: 100 blocks => 66.67% of total Tech Points = 66
    • Reactor 2: 25 blocks => 16.67% of total Tech Points = 16
    • Reactor 3: 25 blocks => 16.67% of total Tech Points = 16
    Problem here is that adding more reactor groups or changing their size, will also change how many TP they have and require you to redo most of your chambers.


    Another problem is, since power is scaling linearly, that there are no group related bonuses and only the need for chambers would stop you from making 1000 reactor groups with lots of empty space in between.

    A ship without chambers is still completely functional though, so you could still do this but just not have any chamber because of the large amount of reactor groups.

    If you’re able to put this many groups down, you would stumble upon performance and gameplay issues. Information warfare for example, falls apart completely if there are 1000 green dots to aim for, and destroying enough reactor groups to disable the target would take a large amount of effort and time (and luck).


    There are variations on this, like a form of power penalty/inefficiency the more groups you add but we decided to opt for the current solution of 1 active reactor per entity. It also adds more opportunity to use logic controlled systems that automatically switch (using sensor input).
    ---
    how about we use power instead and allow multiple reactors, problem solved...
    also why not wire a reactor to a module directly? that could be fun...
     

    Lancake

    Head of Testing
    Joined
    Aug 20, 2013
    Messages
    794
    Reaction score
    560
    • Schine
    • Tester
    Lancake Does the "No active reactors on docked entities" also mean that turrets can no longer use weapon effects? (as they will be integrated into the chamber system and therefore require an active reactor to work?)
    Turrets will inherit the chamber effects of the parent as if there was no onboard reactor.
     

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,115
    Reaction score
    1,229
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 11
    Please stop. Docked power cells are just straw mens that we agitate to scare people. Docked power cells are not efficient, and reliable. Except with clipping but hey, that's something else.
    Being able to completely bypass EMP for weapons and at least partially for shields while also removing the need for aux, while also being substantially better than aux, is not "efficient and reliable"?

    I have always made self powered turrets so that the ship does not need to supply their power as to minimize stress on the main ship. If all turret reactors will be non-functional, that is a very big red flag for me. I always create my turret bound ships to be more like carrying vessels with the turrets as the self contained units.

    Literally none of my turret designs require power from the main ship, and I have turrets that are 200+ meters long and very thick.
    You say that like this is a good thing. Turrets should be part of the ship, not drones glued to a bipod. Self powered weapons are busted as hell in the current game by letting you mostly ignore EMP and make you only need enough aux on the main ship for thrust and shields.

    I think there is only one thing you went over very lightly in this post: what exectly did you mean with 'restart from scrap'? Will the old power system no longer work? Will the community builders, who spent blood, sweat and months and maybe even years of work into making these masterpieces, be forced to restart from scrap as well?
    Another question: will this update be any more memory-intensive for my pc? Because I am currently litteraly running this game at the maximum of my computers strengt.
    And no offense, maybe you could acctually answer me this time?
    There will be a config option to stick with the old power system. If you still want to use it, you'll be able to, just like how you can still use the old docking system or the old core drilling system.
     

    Chckn Wildstyle

    Design Head of Cabal Weapons/Technologies (CWT)
    Joined
    Feb 8, 2014
    Messages
    133
    Reaction score
    54
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Competition Winner - Small Fleets
    • Legacy Citizen 8
    Turrets will inherit the chamber effects of the parent as if there was no onboard reactor.
    So the entity and all child entities are considered one and use the parent for the distribution of the chamber effects?

    Do turrets have the ability to have an on board reactor that is running when they are docked? Yes/No
     

    Lancake

    Head of Testing
    Joined
    Aug 20, 2013
    Messages
    794
    Reaction score
    560
    • Schine
    • Tester
    how about we use power instead and allow multiple reactors, problem solved...
    Could you elaborate on that part? How exactly would power work here with multiple reactors, without allowing the player to use a large number of quantity of separate reactor groups and work with the Tech Point system?

    So the entity and all child entities are considered one and use the parent for the distribution of the chamber effects?

    Do turrets have the ability to have an on board reactor that is running when they are docked? Yes/No
    Yes they use the parent.
    Yes turrets could do that, if there was no other active reactor down the chain. In all other cases the onboard turret reactor would disable since it just inherits from any active reactor down the chain then.


    EDIT: As a side note, I would prefer to answer questions in bulk, as this results in less back and forth conversation that clutters a thread and only helps those that read every post. Do not be surprised if it can take a day or 2 to get updates :)
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: Lecic

    Chckn Wildstyle

    Design Head of Cabal Weapons/Technologies (CWT)
    Joined
    Feb 8, 2014
    Messages
    133
    Reaction score
    54
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Competition Winner - Small Fleets
    • Legacy Citizen 8
    Yes turrets could do that, if there was no other active reactor down the chain. In all other cases the onboard turret reactor would disable since it just inherits from any active reactor down the chain then.
    Specifically:

    (1)
    Main Ship Reactor: ON
    Turret Horizontal Traverse Reactor: ON
    Turret Vertical Traverse Reactor: OFF (Forced Off)

    OR

    (2)
    Main Ship Reactor: ON
    Turret Horizontal Traverse Reactor: OFF (Forced Off)
    Turret Vertical Traverse Reactor: OFF (Forced Off)
     
    Joined
    Jul 22, 2013
    Messages
    76
    Reaction score
    27
    LoSboccacc said:
    no let's make a game about space and cool ship a quest trough menus to figure out why adding 3 more block to a secondary reactor broke the jump drive.
    That won't happen.
    > However that does require you to make your chambers at least larger than the minimum size or else just increasing your reactor size a little could make all of your chambers invalid.

    boy do i hate being right all the time
     

    Lancake

    Head of Testing
    Joined
    Aug 20, 2013
    Messages
    794
    Reaction score
    560
    • Schine
    • Tester
    Specifically:

    (1)
    Main Ship Reactor: ON
    Turret Horizontal Traverse Reactor: ON
    Turret Vertical Traverse Reactor: OFF (Forced Off)

    OR

    (2)
    Main Ship Reactor: ON
    Turret Horizontal Traverse Reactor: OFF (Forced Off)
    Turret Vertical Traverse Reactor: OFF (Forced Off)
    (2), and both the turret horizontal and turret vertical would inherit the Main Ship's reactor chamber effects.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Lecic
    Joined
    Oct 15, 2015
    Messages
    55
    Reaction score
    72
    Being able to completely bypass EMP for weapons and at least partially for shields while also removing the need for aux, while also being substantially better than aux, is not "efficient and reliable"?



    You say that like this is a good thing. Turrets should be part of the ship, not drones glued to a bipod. Self powered weapons are busted as hell in the current game by letting you mostly ignore EMP and make you only need enough aux on the main ship for thrust and shields.



    There will be a config option to stick with the old power system. If you still want to use it, you'll be able to, just like how you can still use the old docking system or the old core drilling system.
    Happy to hear that. I would realy hate to lose all of my work. You just made my day!