StarMade Ship Systems 2.0

[El_Poulpy]

after reading a second time the proposal i have some questions/

• why remove the jumpdrive system ? have chambers that increase range .. etc, ok but why remove it ?
• so no more power capacity ? civilisations are &*%&#$& dumb in the StarMade universe. Why can't we have power capacity (explosive block ?) that can have a priority queue like the generator in order to have, for instance, a battery linked to the jumpdrive in order to make an emergency jump when you have to shut down the generator to prevent explosion ?
• we can't have multiple reactor because of tech points (a real name must be found for that) but every ship has the same tech point. Why do tech points need to be linked to power generator. Couldn't chambers be logic controlled and consume power and the tech points ? example : when you activate a chamber it begins to drain power to charge itself and then begin to consume tech point like you described earlier. And because it can be activated by logic you can make configurations using logic blocks that activates a certain number of chambers. So the tech points are not linked to power generator so you can have multiple generator with a efficiency penalty dependant on the distance between generators and one depending of the number of generators to avoid one block checkboard generator ?

 

[Lecic]

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.

Perhaps this is more prevalent in a 1v1, but an individual's piloting ability and how ships react to server lag often seems to be more important than "efficiency and optimization" in a fight past a certain reasonable point, because the returns on that are diminishing. I have seen people flying ships using bricks of power reactors for their power winning outnumbered and outgunned by more "efficient" ships simply because the pilot wasn't a dunderhead and knew how to fight the enemy.

I'm not saying there's no downsides, but mass enhancers are incredibly cheap in both block count and power usage to just add a few extra if you need it, and the small mass impact an extra turret or two has on a larger ship is negligible, maybe 1 or 2 m/s max speed lost at most, which is going to effect the outcome of a battle a lot less than some extra alpha strike, DPS, stop, or EMP on the enemy vessel. So why shouldn't I add that turret?

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

Uh, yes it is? All weapons will have the same power draw for the same block count (not accounting for the multiple output multiplier of course). A 100 block cannon will take 1000 power per second to recharge and so will a 100 block beam/pulse, because the power drain is a constant on reload instead of a burst on fire like it currently is.

 

[DeepspaceMechanic]

A quick question before the main thing: Will all systems (for example, shield capacitors, shield rechargers or thrusters) be used in the chamber system at some point? I think that would be nice for the sake of orderliness (not having both realistically centralized and unrealistically scattered systems).


So, will all-purpose ships be possible with several specialized
reactors like how it's shown on my illustration below?

It will be so fun to be able to switch the whole global operation mode of a ship with logic, like entering a command on a display, I can't wait for these possibilities!

Spoiler: SHIP SYSTEMS ILLUSTRATION

 

[Vilab]

All weapons will have the same power draw for the same block count (not accounting for the multiple output multiplier of course). A 100 block cannon will take 1000 power per second to recharge and so will a 100 block beam/pulse, because the power drain is a constant on reload instead of a burst on fire like it currently is.

i thought the same until i remembered losses due to topped internal capacity of weapons

in the case of a large group of X*Blocks of DPS weapon, the losses are ridiculous and almost all of the energy provided by the ship is changed in damage.
Whereas in the case of X*blocks of alpha weapon, the losses may exceed the amount of power regen available to load the weapons.

With the current self powered turret with power capacity blocks, a same size alpha turret would use far less weapon blocks than a DPS one - due to the need of capacitor - and would obviously deal less damage over time - but one could change a turret for an other and it would not change the design of the main ship.

whereas with the power system described in this topic, changing from a DPS turret to a an Alpha one would cause :

1 - a huge reduction in scale of the turret, and so a probable rebuilt of the ship, at least arround the dock of the turret.
2 - a complete rebuild of the main ship to add reactor blocks, which means also increasing the number of chamber blocks, which means almost completly rebuilt the ship.
3 - a turret filled with hull - or any block which doesn't consume power - to keep its size.

 

[alterintel]

Changing C+V system to chambers only for passive effects but keeping it for weapons effects seems like it may confuse people. Why not just use chamber systems for weapons as well to keep it consistent. It may even be more intuitive and intriguing. Also having the ability to change out the effects on the fly would be kind of cool.

 

[MacThule]

I would be more than happy to see an end to self-powered turrets. They are part of the problem, both because they keep forcing us to leave the door open to easily abused docked power schemes, and even because turrets are THE primary weapon for lag exploiters.

I love turrets, and I would say most warships should strive for about half of their DPS to be turret-based, but... the ability to put super-weapons on turrets (which depends very heavily on self-powering turrets) is overexploited. And I mean exploited.

If two excessively large ships each with excessive DEs meet, the battle will be won by turrets, because primary weapons are crippled by lag and transitions. This is exactly why some players are keenly interested in keeping docked power, because their entire playstyle revolves around using an entity so oversized and over docked that it cripples opposing human pilots and relies on BobbyAI to win. In that scenario, every 1% optimization is a big deal because no part of one's personal DPS capability relies on piloting skill or anything except min maxed turrets that can shred an enemy during slideshow framerates.

It may be that by limiting super weapons to Primary status and forcing turrets to play supporting roles (point defense, fighter support, light anti-capital) we can de-incentivize at least deliberately building around turret-based lag exploitation that much more.

Reducing the ability to calculatedly jump into battle in a lag-inducing entity armed with an ultra-high alpha super turret can only be good. Because AI turret control is the bypass that enables lag exploitation. If super weapons were optimal only as primaries it would be less effective to build a ship that couldn't effectively bring it's primary weapon systems to bear on account of the load it generates.

Obviously a super-weapon could still be turret-fitted to an un-powered turret, but I (perhaps mistakenly) feel that fewer such turrets could operate on a single entity with a single active generator limit. This can only be a good thing, and the minor differences in optimization from killing self-powered turrets would be negligible except on ships that were overly reliant on turrets instead of primaries & pilot skill to achieve victory. Ships with support turrets that do not aim to surpass their primary weapons would not be severely affected.

 

[Ithirahad]

By the new system, those would be entirely different ships because they all have different power needs. Some need quick recharge. Some need massive batteries.

And that's a bad thing? In real life, vehicles for different jobs tend to be separate models, not just a matter of swapping out peripherals. If you design carefully, you can still create modular designs, but IRL modular construction tends to sometimes probe to be more trouble and expense than it's worth... No reason why it needs to work perfectly here. You don't build a close air support aircraft by bolting a GAU-10 and some bits of extra hardware on a high-altitude spy plane. :P

 

[TheOmega]

I think what we really need is a mock up example in game as to how it would work, or a live QnA or something. So many people are confused about how everything is supposed to work.

 

[Chckn Wildstyle]

Perhaps this is more prevalent in a 1v1, but an individual's piloting ability and how ships react to server lag often seems to be more important than "efficiency and optimization" in a fight past a certain reasonable point, because the returns on that are diminishing. I have seen people flying ships using bricks of power reactors for their power winning outnumbered and outgunned by more "efficient" ships simply because the pilot wasn't a dunderhead and knew how to fight the enemy.

I'm not saying there's no downsides, but mass enhancers are incredibly cheap in both block count and power usage to just add a few extra if you need it, and the small mass impact an extra turret or two has on a larger ship is negligible, maybe 1 or 2 m/s max speed lost at most, which is going to effect the outcome of a battle a lot less than some extra alpha strike, DPS, stop, or EMP on the enemy vessel. So why shouldn't I add that turret?

(1st Paragraph) You are not setting all other things equal which is how game balance and optimization are supposed to be viewed.
(2nd Paragraph) You are making sweeping implications from what seems to be a point of ignorance. On very small ships this is a very large concern, and it only decreases in importance to a moderate concern with larger ships. I can assume that you have dealt less with turrets than I have from your writings, which is okay, but it is obvious that you don't understand their intricacies.

Uh, yes it is? All weapons will have the same power draw for the same block count (not accounting for the multiple output multiplier of course). A 100 block cannon will take 1000 power per second to recharge and so will a 100 block beam/pulse, because the power drain is a constant on reload instead of a burst on fire like it currently is.

As I mentioned above, you lack the knowledge of the intricacies of turrets to fully understand this discussion. Different systems require different power and you can optimize turrets for either DPS or Alpha Damage or Shields or Armor which will yield different results. 1 Weapon =/= 1 Shield and so on. To make this very clear, we will assume everything is inside the same turret shell. Optimizing for Alpha or DPS will leave different amounts of internal space for other systems or hull/armor. A turret that can fit on a spot on a ship is not guaranteed at all to have the same energy requirements as a same mass same size turret of different interior design.

 

[TrainDodger]

Man, all this talk about docked reactors being imbalanced, about self-powered turrets being somehow wrong. I like building huge, self-powered turrets. A real, manly turret is at least a million blocks.

Why not just make docked entities inherit the division of Tech Points? So, for instance, if you have a reactor of 100 blocks on the main ship, and then two turrets with 50-block reactors on each, then the ship gets 50% of the TP allotment and the turrets each get 25%. This would work perfectly and would keep people from cheesing offensive chambers on turrets, because, for instance, if you had a 50,000-block reactor on a ship and only 1000 blocks of reactor for each turret, then each turret would only have a tiny fraction of the total TP (that is, it would only have power, not much in the way of chambers).

 

[JonasWalker]

* 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.

No offense but its a game that you picked up explicitly while still in Alpha, not even Beta much less Release. You have to expect things will change at any time and for any reason as your playing a partially formed Work in Progress. I get that it sucks seeing a bunch of work be invalidated but the Dev's have been quite honest over the fact that the game is in fact still in development. So you really have no excuse not to know what you were getting into when jumping into the pool so early.

**

Far as the proposal it seems to have a lot of promise, others far more skilled than me have raised a few potential issues and I really want to see where things go from here.

Also to second Lecic, can we please have turrets be part of the ship proper and not just a drone stapled to the hull? Please?

 

[Atheu]

[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.


.

Lancake I think i might have a solution for this: Keep all reactor power generation online, but only allow one reactor, of your choosing, to generate the TP. it's just a thought

 

[TheOmega]

I think i might have a solution for this: Keep all reactor power generation online, but only allow one reactor, of your choosing, to generate the TP. it's just a thought

The problem is having reactors produce TP. If you were to link TP to the ship entity (including docked entities), but still require it to be linked to a reactor, it would allow multiple reactors to function. However, having multiple reactors with equal efficiency leads to overgeneralization. Most people who cared a lot about efficiency would simply have a lot of single block reactors. That is the main problem with allowing multiple reactors: the power increase is linear. That is why only having a single reactor active at once is better.

What should happen is each entity should have its own reactor, but the calculation for the chamber size on the main entity should be based on all reactors through the chain, and damage applied to any part should cascade down the chain. Shooting a turret should damage the main ship, but shooting the ship shouldn't damage all the turrets.

Docked entities should not be able to use chambers.

 

[Atheu]

I still believe that the docked entities should still be allowed to use internal reactors, having a turret that can self power itself, can relieve some of the stress from the mothership, and at this current time, i still do not have any idea how many reactor blocks you are going to require to get what we currently have for the system now (i.e. how many blocks will it take for 2million generation)

 

[TrainDodger]

I think, even from an RP standpoint, it's cool to have self-powered turrets. I mean, having them undock and collide internally isn't so cool, but it's neat to like, have a turret with its own internal command center compartment that you can walk into, and then have like an engineering space where you can look up and see the internal base of the turret protruding from the overhead, rotating, glowing with power. Stuff like that.

I think overheated turrets and docked entities shouldn't be force-undocked to begin with, because it creates so many issues with the collision checks. They should just be disabled and locked in place. In fact, rails that are in-use should be indestructible, and simply have projectiles pass right through them and damage whatever is beyond (so that someone couldn't use rails with docked entities as armor).

 

[MacThule]

What should happen is each entity should have its own reactor...

...

Shooting a turret should damage the main ship, but shooting the ship shouldn't damage all the turrets.

This reflects no turret in real life or any science fiction ever. How many combustion cylinders does a 20" main gun on a battleship have? Does the .50 cal on top of a nuclear submarine have its own reactor as well?

Taken outside of Starmade, the notion of putting a reactor on a gun is absurd.

Taken inside Starmade, it's not absolutely necessary in any way, turrets function just fine drawing from primary power, but over a period of years docked power has been a primary source of exploits & performance problems.

Why shouldn't a ship-wide power failure affect all of its systems - including turret systems? How is that not realistic? They should get added to the power priority list with every other system, not treated as a sacred cow that must have independent power. I'm starting to feel like the powered turret argument is nothing but a trojan horse for keeping docked power around in order to bypass and work-around primary entity power caps meant to balance entities. There is no other merit apparent in it, and all the supports for it are based in how it will affect turret performance in game, but fail to acknowledge that this effect will be level across the playing field for all players and so nerfing it will not handicap anyone.

There is no good reason for it and it is perpetuating exploitative turret builds and docked power rigs that wreck the balance our developers are attempting to enforce with caps and limits. If the dev team is planing to limit entity reactors to one, it would be self-defeating on its face to then not limit them to one by allowing the limit to be openly worked around with docked power permitted over a non-argument about how "turrets 'need' to be self-powered." If we're looking at a major systems overhaul already, I believe that it's far past time we buried the weeping sore that is docked power since all the old designs will be buried regardless.

Each entity should get one active reactor at any given time. As stated in the system description. Full stop.

No exceptions for turrets or any other configuration. Streamlined, intuitive, realistic, and without a baggage train of exploits & abuses in tow.

 

[Chckn Wildstyle]

I think, even from an RP standpoint, it's cool to have self-powered turrets. I mean, having them undock and collide internally isn't so cool, but it's neat to like, have a turret with its own internal command center compartment that you can walk into, and then have like an engineering space where you can look up and see the internal base of the turret protruding from the overhead, rotating, glowing with power. Stuff like that.

I think overheated turrets and docked entities shouldn't be force-undocked to begin with, because it creates so many issues with the collision checks. They should just be disabled and locked in place. In fact, rails that are in-use should be indestructible, and simply have projectiles pass right through them and damage whatever is beyond (so that someone couldn't use rails with docked entities as armor).

I think the invincible docker idea is okay right now because we can only have one point of connection between docks. I would argue for more points of contact however. Allowing more than one point of locking between entity sets would be a great feature. Each foot of a fighter could have a rail that connects to the carrier so it is less easy to be shot off.

For turrets and rail rotators specifically though, I think there should be two types of rail for the parent ship. The central pivot point remaining the block it is right now, but allowing other support rails to be linked using CV to the main connectors. As long as one of the support connectors is left on the turret and parent entity making a pair, then the turret/rail rotator does not unlink even if the main pivot connectors have been destroyed.
[doublepost=1495129788,1495128605][/doublepost]

This reflects no turret in real life or any science fiction ever. How many combustion cylinders does a 20" main gun on a battleship have? Does the .50 cal on top of a nuclear submarine have its own reactor as well?

Taken outside of Starmade, the notion of putting a reactor on a gun is absurd.

Taken inside Starmade, it's not absolutely necessary in any way, turrets function just fine drawing from primary power, but over a period of years docked power has been a primary source of exploits & performance problems.

Why shouldn't a ship-wide power failure affect all of its systems - including turret systems? How is that not realistic? They should get added to the power priority list with every other system, not treated as a sacred cow that must have independent power. I'm starting to feel like the powered turret argument is nothing but a trojan horse for keeping docked power around in order to bypass and work-around primary entity power caps meant to balance entities. There is no other merit apparent in it, and all the supports for it are based in how it will affect turret performance in game, but fail to acknowledge that this effect will be level across the playing field for all players and so nerfing it will not handicap anyone.

There is no good reason for it and it is perpetuating exploitative turret builds and docked power rigs that wreck the balance our developers are attempting to enforce with caps and limits. If the dev team is planing to limit entity reactors to one, it would be self-defeating on its face to then not limit them to one by allowing the limit to be openly worked around with docked power permitted over a non-argument about how "turrets 'need' to be self-powered." If we're looking at a major systems overhaul already, I believe that it's far past time we buried the weeping sore that is docked power since all the old designs will be buried regardless.

Each entity should get one active reactor at any given time. As stated in the system description. Full stop.

No exceptions for turrets or any other configuration. Streamlined, intuitive, realistic, and without a baggage train of exploits & abuses in tow.

Having one reactor only for an entire ship is fairly antithetical to most Sci-Fi and real life ship designs. I have seen countless shows where the protagonists have to destroy a series of reactors simultaneously to stop the "evil ship of doom" and even modern gas powered ships have multiple engines running at once. There is also in Sci-Fi universes the event that occurs occasionally for dramatic effect where one of the turrets of a supposedly beaten ship starts emitting a power signature because it has its own power plant immediately before vaporizing a key character.

Us people who like the idea of self powered turrets are saying what are saying BECAUSE there is the One-Reactor limit for the parent ship. If not, I would just put specific power reactors immediately under each of my turrets. This arbitrary One-Reactor limit, -Which I Think Is A Good Balance Decision-, is why Turrets should be able to power themselves.

 

[TheWurm]

(1st Paragraph) You are not setting all other things equal which is how game balance and optimization are supposed to be viewed.
(2nd Paragraph) You are making sweeping implications from what seems to be a point of ignorance. On very small ships this is a very large concern, and it only decreases in importance to a moderate concern with larger ships. I can assume that you have dealt less with turrets than I have from your writings, which is okay, but it is obvious that you don't understand their intricacies.


As I mentioned above, you lack the knowledge of the intricacies of turrets to fully understand this discussion. Different systems require different power and you can optimize turrets for either DPS or Alpha Damage or Shields or Armor which will yield different results. 1 Weapon =/= 1 Shield and so on. To make this very clear, we will assume everything is inside the same turret shell. Optimizing for Alpha or DPS will leave different amounts of internal space for other systems or hull/armor. A turret that can fit on a spot on a ship is not guaranteed at all to have the same energy requirements as a same mass same size turret of different interior design.

See, the thing you seem to have missed is that they are also proposing a change to the weapons so that Alpha and DPS will now use (roughly) the same power regen for the same block count. Under the current system you're right, but under the proposed system you are ... much less right.

My main concern with turrets is the same I have with weapons, specifically that we still be able to customize each weapon system separately and not through the ship specialization system. I think they're planning on keeping that aspect, and along with the weapon power changes we look pretty good as far as turrets. I'm not convinced this is going to be as big a deal as you seem to think it will, is what I'm saying.

Side note:

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

I'd just like to welcome you to the dock, seeing as you clearly haven't been here all that long

Seriously though, this is how we roll around here. For the discerning connoisseur of the art of internet argument, I suggest a perusal of the update threads from the winter of 2015-2016, it was absolutely breathtaking. I have pondered writing a dissertation on the different aspects that have led to our little community of psychopaths, because I've never found another community on the internet that can fight quite like the Starmade Dock. *choking up* it's beautiful.

 

[Alphajim]

If self powered turrets can be used for exploits, there's only 2 options :

1. Finding a solution which is not a quick workaround as we oversee here, and which nullify the exploits
2. Deleting self powered turrets

Nothing more.

 

[Chckn Wildstyle]

See, the thing you seem to have missed is that they are also proposing a change to the weapons so that Alpha and DPS will now use (roughly) the same power regen for the same block count. Under the current system you're right, but under the proposed system you are ... much less right.

My main concern with turrets is the same I have with weapons, specifically that we still be able to customize each weapon system separately and not through the ship specialization system. I think they're planning on keeping that aspect, and along with the weapon power changes we look pretty good as far as turrets. I'm not convinced this is going to be as big a deal as you seem to think it will, is what I'm saying.

I am not arguing different rates of regeneration between Alpha and DPS focused weapons. I am arguing that they will have inherently different power draws from the mothership even if they fit inside the same shell. This inherent difference leads to difficulties in making cross fleet turrets. Most turrets would have to be tailor made for each individual ship.

*Edit Clarification* Because 10000DPS is Different than 10000Alpha, its depends entirely on what you are aiming for. You can have many different customizations inside one turret shell, all needing different power.

*Further Edit Clarification* Remember how Overdrive increases power need along with several other modifications to weapons, lest we forget Secondary/Tertiary usage.