1. We've removed some functionality from SMD in preparation for a migration to new forum software.

    StarMade Ship Systems 2.0

    Discussion in 'Game News' started by schema, May 16, 2017.

    1. MrFURB

      MrFURB Madman of the Girders

      Joined:
      Jan 31, 2013
      Messages:
      1,117
      Er, call me slow, but I think I'm misunderstanding you.
      As I understand it, so long as your reactor has enough regen to support the number of weapon modules being used it doesn't really matter what configuration the turret has. The only problem I could see with switching out turrets is the priority system shutting off systems if your total turret load is too much to bear for your reactor.
      Am I misreading something?
       
      • Agree Agree x 1
    2. Chckn Wildstyle

      Chckn Wildstyle Design Head of Cabal Weapons/Technologies (CWT)

      Joined:
      Feb 8, 2014
      Messages:
      132
      If a ship is being made then the turrets that WILL be mounted have to be taken into account from the beginning in exact number.

      Example:
      Ship has power priority set that turrets are the #1 thing to get power first. (For simplicity's sake I am saying #1, I'd do Thrusters -> Shields -> Weapons/Turrets, but that is just me)
      Your reactor produces 100 energy and the turrets will take 66 of it in your first variant.
      That leaves 34 for all else.

      Now, if you switch turrets and they take MORE power to run, even if they are the same size as the other turrets, then you will suddenly have less power for everything else. Say, now the turrets take 75 power, now only 25 is left for all else. Now your ship needs a complete reactor redesign for all the other systems to work the way the did with the first turret configuration.

      Now, lets go the other way. You now mount turrets that take LESS power to run, even though they are the same sized turrets. The turrets now take 50 power to run instead. All other systems have 50 power to use, but that is way too much and unnecessary. Now to have an efficient and not wasteful ship, you will have to completely redesign your reactor for this new power setup.

      My point is that it would ruin the interchangeability of turrets by making their installation a very tedious endeavor.

      *Edit Afterthought* I know a lot about turrets and have spent many days docking and redocking them along with making ships specifically designed to carry them. I am not speaking from ignorance when I say it is already tedious and involves a lot of min-maxing for turreted ships to have turrets perform decently. I don't want it to get any worse.
       
      #242 Chckn Wildstyle, May 18, 2017
      Last edited: May 18, 2017
      • Informative Informative x 3
    3. Son_of_Georg

      Joined:
      May 18, 2017
      Messages:
      2
      For a long time I've wondered - why doesn't power scale exponentially upward as reactors get bigger? So, as an arbitrary example, two 100-block reactors make 200 power (100 each) but one 200-block reactor makes 250 power.

      This would be both intuitive and realistic, and would overcome the whole problem of multiple reactors because you'd have the choice of two or more small ones or one big one that produces proportionally more power. For that matter, go ahead and put 200 separate one-block reactors on your ship, but it will be extremely inefficient.

      If you're concerned about people building ships that are just one enormous reactor, there are some ways to counter that. First, systems can require proportionally more power as they get bigger as well. This would also be intuitive and realistic. A single 200-block laser cannon should require more power than two 100-block cannons. And if that's not enough, you can do something like make reactors extra heavy, so that you don't really want to carry too much extra around. Or make the build cost of extra-huge reactors prohibitive.

      Overall, I'm a big fan of the proposed overhaul. Building ships is great, but what I really want to do is take those ships and join up with some friends and explore the galaxy together. This seems to open up the possibility of Star Trek or FTL-style adventures, which is great.
       
      • Funny Funny x 1
    4. Shaker

      Joined:
      Jan 19, 2015
      Messages:
      364
      Does a small reactor produce the same amount of TP as a big reactor?

      Could stabilizers work off sides that arent touching another block instead of distance from reactor, that way they are like heat sinks on the body or interior. That way ships arent forced to be longer on a axis.
       
    5. Mr.Steam

      Joined:
      Oct 24, 2014
      Messages:
      226
      With the new system it kind of will grow exponentially. A 2x2x2 reactor will have 8 times the power output of a 1x1x1. And a 3x3x3 would have 27 times the power output.
      --- Updated post (merge), May 18, 2017, Original Post Date: May 18, 2017 ---
      I believe this means that the tech points are the same no matter what size the reactor.
       
      • Agree Agree x 3
      • Funny Funny x 1
    6. Son_of_Georg

      Joined:
      May 18, 2017
      Messages:
      2
      I do think this is an improvement from the previous system (which actually got less efficient as it got bigger), but this is actually linear growth because a 3x3x3 reactor is 27 blocks and is no different than 27 1x1x1 reactors (except for the fact that they are simply disabling multiple reactors). But if power scaled exponentially with size, you wouldn't need an arbitrary rule against multiple reactors. Maybe that 3x3x3 would produce 40 power instead of 27, so you'd naturally prefer that over 27 single-block reactors.
       
    7. Lecic

      Lecic Convicted Lancake Abuser

      Joined:
      Apr 14, 2013
      Messages:
      5,101
      If two turrets are the same size, why would they have different power draw in the first place? If the turret is bigger than the ship was designed for, shouldn't that cause problems, and shouldn't an undersized turret result in excess power? None of these are bad things from a game design perspective. Imagine if someone was making your exact same argument but for the main gun on a ship. "Why shouldn't the game accommodate me for pulling my main cannon out and replacing it with one twice as large????"

      The current overmodularity of turrets IS the problem, because it encourages just mounting them on every surface available.
       
      • Agree Agree x 2
    8. Chckn Wildstyle

      Chckn Wildstyle Design Head of Cabal Weapons/Technologies (CWT)

      Joined:
      Feb 8, 2014
      Messages:
      132
      Systems are not the only thing contained in a turret which is in itself another entity than the parent ship. Some may favor heavier armor and some may favor more internals. <-- That is how you have equivalent sized turrets with different energy needs. Another way is different weapon types, whilst having the same DPS, will have different Alpha damage.

      The main point, Lecic, is that the interchangeability would be ALL BUT GONE from the game.

      Anyone who just slaps random turrets on because they fit will end up with a bad ship.

      Your point about main guns is not applicable. The shipboard weapons are part of the same entity as the main reactor, turrets are not. Turrets can be and are mostly built without a ship under them. Turrets are their own unit and should be treated as such in this regard. If they allowed aiming of turrets by simply pointing our cursor somewhere like in most other games then I would agree with you, but StarMade does not allow that.
       
    9. spocklin

      Joined:
      Jul 29, 2013
      Messages:
      174
      So my ships will all be completely broken? Sounds like the end of times for any existing fleets.
       
      • Agree Agree x 1
    10. Lecic

      Lecic Convicted Lancake Abuser

      Joined:
      Apr 14, 2013
      Messages:
      5,101
      While this is true now, the changes to weapons makes this point null.

      But it won't be, only in extreme cases. There's nothing particularly bad about having a turret that draws LESS power, because that gives you extra power the main ship can use in case of a damaged reactor producing less than normal or an EMP attack. And a turret that is too oversized to be supported by the ship should not be there any more than a giant unproportionate main gun should be a ship that can't support it.

      Really? Elaborate. Why shouldn't I put an extra turret on my ship if I've got the space for it and the thing powers itself? Oh no, the extra mass means my ship has a 1m/s lower max speed!

      If that's your argument, that's fine, but you've said you are opposed to self powered docked guns and shields. How is this any different? What is stopping me from making a single axis turret that has blocks holding it in place and using it exactly the same as self powered docked guns?

      Not as if it hasn't happened before. Slider weapons to M/S/E weapons, the split of regen and capacity for shields, the rail update, the aux update...
       
      • Agree Agree x 3
    11. Drakkart

      Joined:
      Nov 3, 2014
      Messages:
      619
      I am not a fan of the TP system in general but i am a big fan of you agenda stating
      predictability - with power you either have enough power or you don't no arbitary ok how much % of total power is that now calculations.
      simplicity - see above
      Depth - a big ship probably should light up green at different parts because the system should allow for distraction and redundancy the likes being valid styles
      Creativity - Because we can if the system would not limit us.
      Solution focused - and you really want to avoid core drilling again.
      LOGICAL- it is a BIG SHIP which engineer would plan such a precious cost intense thing based on a single reactor?

      Now your arguemnt was the spread of the tp points. Well why not power your so called chambers reroute the amount of power like the thrust thing to the different parts... they need more power the bigger they get right? so if you first make tp points a percentage to then ditribute them and stating they all power 100% of the chambr or you use power and elaborate chamber efficiency according to how much power is delivered to the chambers the difference again we would have more options which is a good thing.
      Again why would a fun game not allow for a large quantity of seperate reactor groups? What would you want to achieve by limiting it.
      How would this solve any issue we have with our power system now?

      Oh and did i get this right turrets may not provide their own power anymore?
       
    12. Chckn Wildstyle

      Chckn Wildstyle Design Head of Cabal Weapons/Technologies (CWT)

      Joined:
      Feb 8, 2014
      Messages:
      132
      This would drain mass enhancer from the rest of your non-locked turrets. This is an issue and I can understand it, but only in this case.

      Increased weight is a very important issue. Also, if you had another better suited turret it could outperform two poorly suited turrets in regards to the ship. Optimized turreted ships will always outperform non-optimized turreted ships.


      Efficiency and optimization, these topics are not just skin deep, Lecic. Ships that are not optimized for their exact compliment will always fail compared to another equally sized ship that is optimized. Game balance is picky this way. You should read the examples I gave the other dude, if you can't see from this post and the example given as to why I am making these claims, I don't know how to hold your hand any farther.

      They will still draw power between shots, so no, the point is not null.
       
    13. MacThule

      Joined:
      Jan 31, 2015
      Messages:
      1,689
      Sounds good. It streamlines and makes customizing ships more intuitive. I get this nagging sense that perhaps too many diverse systems are being absorbed into reactors, but that is also to be expected of any attempt to streamline and I like the resulting dynamic.

      I could even be the only person who thinks that there's nothing particularly bad about the name "tech points."

      Without any critique about the system itself, I feel the need to point out that the meta-narrative behind the new dynamic may still need a bit of polish. Reactors that provide a non-power resource to ship systems by means of "stabilizers" which also do the job of stabilizing feels oversimplified to the point of making almost all ship diversity a question of power. Which, again, results in a fine dynamic, but we are basically ditching several systems to replace them with one system that is nominally only about keeping the reactor core stable but in fact they secretly double as a diverse range of systems.

      It's a good system and I am already imagining playing with it. I worry about overloading the functionality of one single system block so much though, meanwhile reactors themselves will remain exceptionally single-function. Whatever resources you set for the Stabilizer recipe will instantly become the new Gold Standard (the way shields caps were and fertikeen is now). Because those resources will support a broad range of dependencies for every entity its demand will be intense. Which is fine - supply shortages would be lovely - but then comes off a bit strange that it's some aspect of the stabilizer that is the most highly sought after commodity, rather than the components for the reactors themselves (petrolium, uranium, dilithium, etc).
      --- Updated post (merge), May 18, 2017, Original Post Date: May 18, 2017 ---
      Sad to say goodbye to so many years of design collecting on the Docks here, but it sounds like a fresh start as well. On a level playing field where everyone else is starting fresh at the same time. And that does sound envigorating.
       
      • Informative Informative x 2
    14. Andir

      Joined:
      Jun 24, 2013
      Messages:
      270
      Just wanted to state.... ignoring Goal #7, the fact that there are so many pages, questions and separate explaination thread pretty much kills Goals #1, #2, and #8
       
      • Agree Agree x 1
    15. Gamel

      Joined:
      Aug 5, 2013
      Messages:
      405
      So for large ship, now we only need a bigger reactor+stabilizer? no more caps?

      a bit worry about the Chamber system, how big is large enough
      So how small can my fighter be to be buff by chamber system to be useful in battle?
       
    16. MrFURB

      MrFURB Madman of the Girders

      Joined:
      Jan 31, 2013
      Messages:
      1,117
      No more caps. The capacity needed for weapons, which were the primary need for capacitors will be built into the weapons themselves.

      The chambers scale based off a % of your ship's largest reactor, which means pretty much any ship can utilize chambers.

      Heck, if you want you could make a smaller reactor so your chambers can be smaller. Trade-off being less max power regen. I suppose smaller reactors would be useful for transports/shuttles/haulers and any other specializations that chambers can provide.
       
    17. taisong

      Joined:
      Jul 9, 2016
      Messages:
      85
      I want the old effect systems to be available for weapons.
      I do want to make each of my own ship's weapon have a speciality of its own.

      Weapons - slaves - effects

      Ship - chambers
       
      #257 taisong, May 18, 2017
      Last edited: May 18, 2017
    18. JinM

      Joined:
      Jun 11, 2016
      Messages:
      1,129
      I think it is great, that there are no reactors inside of turrets anymore. Those could have been used to bypass regen limitations, and I think it is better to draw a line to this docked enhancing stuff once and for all. I don't know if it would be possible to balance docked reactors with the bounding boxes though. But even if so, this would only complicate ship building and give us some weird far away mounted turrets - and I consider such forced design as a no-go.

      About the turrets being less usefull on one ship vs one ship combat, I think, that this needs to await a weapon change for any usefull discussion.

      Suggestion:
      Add a rail mass enhancer type of module, that gives a linear damage boost to turrets, for each block placed. Those modules could be linked to the rail, where the turret, that would have additional damage, is docked to.
      The most important thing here: The modules that would normally be mounted on the turret, would be possible to build onto the ship.
       
      • Agree Agree x 1
    19. RODLON

      Joined:
      Dec 31, 2014
      Messages:
      56
      These proposals are getting really complex... Why not come up with a simple system that works? Questions like "what will prevent a player from doing X?" should be answered with how the design works, not with parches on top of it. Like creating random resources as "tech points" or imposing arbitrary limitations to fill the design gaps and incoherences.
      I have a few ideas and most people do, but these won't fit the way you want your game to be played.
      And that's the main problem, you are making a game where players can build anything and you want to force them to play it in a certain way, but you are unable to come up with a design that merge both aspects.

      So my best advice is to take two steps back and rethink what do you want the game to be like.
       
      • Agree Agree x 2
      • Informative Informative x 1
    20. Olxinos

      Olxinos French fry. Caution: very salty!

      Joined:
      May 7, 2015
      Messages:
      151
      That'd be a completely viable and good design decision if players couldn't go wide instead of going tall.
      By that, I mean you need to have superlinear power costs in addition to your superlinear power yields, however it's easy building Nx N-times-smaller weapons rather than a single weapon which means you can actually get away with something resembling a linear power cost (while favorising something heavy on the engine btw).
      That might be fixed though. For instance, let's assume you have three cannon groups on your ship (let's say, respectively 200, 50, and 50 blocks), and that costs are supposed to be quadratic in the number of blocks (ie C*[Blocks]^2 where C is an arbitrary constant), ideally the total cost of the three groups should be C*300^2, from there it'd be logical to assign a (200/300)*C*300^2 cost to the first group (and (50/300)*C*300^2 for the last two groups).
      However, there are a few problems with this:
      - it makes each group dependent on each other, which makes things a bit more complex
      - if you have both cannons and missiles, should there be two or one global number of modules? what about thrust and cannons? shields and thrust?
      - you'd have to count turrets and docked entities in for balance (as long as they can draw power from you, they should also have an increased power cost), which starts to make things very complicated ("my station works fine, until someone docks on it")

      Edit: a better/simpler way to "fix" that, but also a more restrictive one, would be to have a hard limit of simultaneous system activations (firing a cannon would have an activation window equal to its cooldown for instance, and only K windows could overlap at a time, trying to activate something if you have already K things activated would simply fail) so that it's useless to go too wide... there isn't the complexity issue anymore (as you don't need to have a global count of each thing and they are somewhat independent again), but the restriction alone might be reason enough to not use that (although it could be a very interesting thing to do, you could even imagine having chambers to increase the activation count of things)
       
      #260 Olxinos, May 18, 2017
      Last edited: May 18, 2017
    Loading...