StarMade Ship Systems 2.0

    Zylofan

    Dirty Rper
    Joined
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages
    41
    Reaction score
    3
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    I like it.



    Tec Points need a better name I think and as many people have pointed out there are some gray zones and areas of concern, but on a whole this is better than the last proposal and looks to greatly increase the diversity and design potential of ships.

    though it would be nice if having multiple reactors did increase your power output. I understand why they don't in this current design, but even if it was severely diminishing returns I think it would be nicer then just shutting them off. But compromises must be made.
     
    Joined
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages
    457
    Reaction score
    158
    Did neither of you read the section on weapons? Weapons of the same block count and energy per damage will have the same energy per second requirements.



    Overdrive modifies the ratio of DPS per block and power per damage. It is really not applicable for this comparison.



    How can you support self powered turrets but not multiple reactors on the same ship? They're EXACTLY THE SAME, except one is docked.



    TP is only used for effects and modifiers, though. The main issue with self powered turrets is that they are SELF POWERED, which would not require any TP.



    We don't balance the game around what is "cool from an RP standpoint," we balance the game around what is balanced. And self powered turrets are broken.



    You're not accounting for the fact that many self powered turrets sit on multiple layers of docked power generators. These specifically would go away with a linear power system, but turrets having their own power IS a performance issue. The game has to worry about calculating all the regen and reactor damage for 2 extra entities for self powered turrets. Multiply that by the dozens of turrets and docked guns a larger meta ship might have, and you're cutting down on a decent load by disabling their reactors and making docked guns useless.



    But the problem with self powered docked entities is that they have no stress on the mothership. They are self powering, self aiming, and immune to frame rate lag. They need to be more like a system and less like drones glued to tripods.



    Boarding was planned to be done with the teleporter system, and I see no reason for it to be any different. Even if it was through docking (this certainly wouldn't result in any terrible collision lag!), it would have its own checks and not work like normal docking.
    I would hope so, but how could you even differentiate between normal docking and boarding? Just assume any hostile entity dock is a boarding action and put up a power wall?

    Also, if boarding requires the use of a teleporter, then the surest way to prevent boarding is to not have any teleporter! Lol.

    It's just something that'll have to be addressed at a later point regardless, but I admit isn't important at this stage.

    Besides, isn't it more like the chambers are going to be what's actually supplying the power, and the reactor simply makes sure all the chambers can operate? I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding, it's just real life has left me a hollow and narcoleptic shell of my former self...
     
    Joined
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages
    195
    Reaction score
    84
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    There is nothing keeping you from building a mobile minefield consisting of massive grid of unconnected warhead blocks being "driven around" by a small (and very distant) core/thruster unit
    Wouldn't this sort of spindly-ness be solved fairly easily by making (and, I forget the exact term) the setting for parts breaking off of ships a default, always on, set in stone, option?
     

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,115
    Reaction score
    1,229
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 11
    Also, if boarding requires the use of a teleporter, then the surest way to prevent boarding is to not have any teleporter! Lol.
    How it was going to work was, once an enemy ship's shields were down, you would be able to lock on to it with a teleporter on the hotbar and teleport a squad of NPC or player boarders into a random interior room of the ship, which would take down your own shields in the process. I have no idea if this is still planned, but that's what was said in the update post for teleporters.

    Besides, isn't it more like the chambers are going to be what's actually supplying the power, and the reactor simply makes sure all the chambers can operate? I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding, it's just real life has left me a hollow and narcoleptic shell of my former self...
    It's more like the reactors generate power and """tech points""" for the ship, and chambers are systems that apply shipwide effects (similar to the current passives system) when they have enough """tech points""" provided by the reactor.
     

    Atheu

    Gone but not forgotten
    Joined
    Aug 3, 2013
    Messages
    40
    Reaction score
    27
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    There are lots of things that could be done for the base of the turret. The main one that comes to mind is something people have wanted for ages, which is allowing us to put our secondaries and effects into the base of the turret.
    That is provided schema puts that in, if not the base is still useless
     
    Joined
    Sep 11, 2015
    Messages
    59
    Reaction score
    19
    • Purchased!
    I don't believe that it makes sense to think about tech points as a physical resource. Instead, call it bandwidth, and express it as a percentage.

    I think this actually kind of makes sense: each chamber uses up a certain percentage of the reactor's bandwidth. The reason I like this name is because instead of just seeming like an arbitrary imposed limit, you could actually imagine that in "real life" a reactor would have a limited amount of bandwidth with which to control chambers. Plus, I think it sounds "techy" enough without being too cryptic.

    -snip-
    I was thinking about the complaints on the logic and naming of stuff and also (before seeing your post) thought "bandwidth" would be the term I would describe the resource in question... I also like your way of thinking in the bandwidth percentage to share to chambers.

    Another thing that came to my mind when first reading about the "stabilisers" was that they rather sound like heat dissipation units and therefore have to be further away from the reactor to dissipate the heat away more efficiently, when being further away from the superhot reactor.

    ... and now when I wrote it down, it doesn't sound to make a lot of sense in physics.
    Maybe they are sensitive gadgetry that somehow pull the heat off the whole ship and get overloaded if placed too near to the reactor... or something :whistle:


    EDIT: I also have to mention that I think the new power system sounds interesting and not too complicated for me
     

    Atheu

    Gone but not forgotten
    Joined
    Aug 3, 2013
    Messages
    40
    Reaction score
    27
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    Another thing that came to my mind when first reading about the "stabilisers" was that they rather sound like heat dissipation units and therefore have to be further away from the reactor to dissipate the heat away more efficiently, when being further away from the superhot reactor.
    I wish they would be called "heat sinks" rather than "stabilizers"
     
    Joined
    Jun 11, 2016
    Messages
    1,170
    Reaction score
    646
    I would be happy if some guys would reconsider, if having reactors in turrets would be so much fun. I for my part don't want to be forced to fit in 20 reactors for each turret. Yeah big time I would be so happy if I could blow my time into some advanced self sufficient turrets as well.

    And why would I feel forced? Because if I don't put in docked reactors I will not be able to keep up.

    So please don't do this docked reactor shit again. It's just another part of this gigantism problem we allready have in pvp on every server without limits. If we would only fight in ships below 150m length, that would be great. Because with some smaller scales, the majority the new untalented players would stop building so many ugly stuff, as they would have more time to engineer some nice and technically advanced stuff in a reasonable and time saving scale.

    The majority of players is not a Schnellbier or a Tshara, they are just some humans that might never have the time to learn how to build nice and efficient above a certain size of ships. And those majority of players is hiding in their home base protected stations, because they are not interested at all in this kind of unfairness: They want to use their own designs too, but they will never have a chance if other pvp factions used like half a year to make some 500m long dreadnoughts. Comes to me the question: Do the pvpers really think that they get more players that participate in pvp like that?

    Don't get me wrong: building big is great, and gigantism is great: as long as it is about rp. But please make the mechanics for pvp in a way, that the best ships designs favor a size, that regular players can accomplish in a reasonable time .

    Seriously, the majority of the new players I met on servers were building this big ass titan ships above 300m length. And then they go into pvp with this chunks of noobness. I just don't have the time to build such a big ass ship only for pvp.

    Try to eliminate unneccessary distractions in ship building, that only take up more time without adding too much to deep mechanics. Banning docked reactors is the first good step into this direction.
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Jul 17, 2013
    Messages
    97
    Reaction score
    27
    Wouldn't this sort of spindly-ness be solved fairly easily by making (and, I forget the exact term) the setting for parts breaking off of ships a default, always on, set in stone, option?
    Whee! I just cut a dreadnought in half with a super-torpedo! Then the server did a million collision checks and crapped itself. (y)
     
    Joined
    Jul 22, 2013
    Messages
    76
    Reaction score
    27
    > We use the total Reactor block count to determine the optimal distance between every Reactor and Stabilizer group.

    so you have to move all stabilizer if you have to add/enlarge a reactor? wonderful system I say, will make building and optimizing ships truly a breeze
     
    • Like
    Reactions: petlahk
    Joined
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages
    95
    Reaction score
    34
    The thing is, Starmade is just 'sploity by its very nature. There is nothing keeping you from building a mobile minefield consisting of massive grid of unconnected warhead blocks being "driven around" by a small (and very distant) core/thruster unit, or mounting a ton of turrets to floating frameworks spaced kilometers apart with the power/thruster unit hidden behind a web of deadly fire. It's the same way with this power proposal. There is literally nothing keeping you from putting the stabilizers on the outside of the ship, a couple kilometers away, floating out in space, connected by nothing save for a thin tractor beam tether and surrounded by hardened armor and heavy shielding. Things are only even remotely balanced in Starmade because a large number of players work on a sort of honor system and agree to not make doomcubes or bizarre, spindly abominations with their guts in full view, and try to build things that make sense from an engineering standpoint. As soon as you undo that self-restraint, all bets are off.



    The entirety of the new power system opens an exploit door. See above ^^^
    And doing this with your stabilizers accomplishes... What now? added distance beyond the minimum has no effect. all you've done is protected the least valuable part of your reactor system from damage, and made it impossible to turn. And yes, I know I attacked the example, not the actual point.
     
    Joined
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages
    1,696
    Reaction score
    1,199
    • Thinking Positive
    • Likeable
    I honestly think your entire argument is flawed here, in the real world we use ammunition, in starmade we use energy to fire our weapons, now this being said, the barrel can be the weapon output, and the base of the turret it's powerplant (since there's no other purpose for the base than it being the source of power)

    if we remove the powerplant from the turret, what else is there to put into the base of the turret? we'd be back to how we started with the old docking system
    My only argument is that turrets do not NEED independent power, there is no RP/fictional basis for reactor turrets, and therefore the game should not include it in this upcoming overhaul considering the long history of exploits specifically rooted in docked power.

    In-turret power is not based on anything in real life or fiction. Ammo is not equivalent nor analogous to power supply. It only serves to damage gameplay.

    The thing is, Starmade is just 'sploity by its very nature.
    This is not a cause to include a known window for several of the worst exploits in a new overhaul. It supports eliminating known exploit opportunities, not embracing them.

    There is literally nothing keeping you from putting the stabilizers on the outside of the ship, a couple kilometers away, floating out in space, connected by nothing save for a thin tractor beam tether and surrounded by hardened armor and heavy shielding.
    If we permit reactor turrets then no, there certainly will not be, and you are actually elaborating on a major part of my point.

    With fully fixed power and no exploitable reactor stacking via turret there absolutely is something preventing it. It's called "maneuverability." Something that does not enter into your consideration at all when you think in terms of self-powered mega-turrets because (as initially mentioned) vessels sporting super weapon turrets are effectively several-ships-in-one and tend to ruin maneuverability for pilots by in effect exploiting framerate lag and so are optimized to rely on BobbyAI to win engagements against human opponents. Without the lag a human pilot in a corvette or fast frigate can outmaneuver a ship with proportions like those you describe. Easily. AI turrets can't even properly track a fighter with good overdrive. If the pilot can actually see what is happening and maneuver in real time. Frequently they can't though because there is too often a super-ship involved, and all such framerate killers rely on reactor turrets / docked power to exist.

    Look back at my initial argument against extending docked power. It's a massive, underlying part of what makes the game so exploitable.

    It creates the ability to build ships which - by design or accident - instagib anyone who has not built based on engagement scenarios where maneuverability cannot ever come into play because of framerate lag, making the actual meta purely about turret optimization on ships that aren't actually functional in the way the game is meant to be played (ie where opponents can effectively evade superior static firepower by investing in superior maneuverability).

    If ships are limited to working within the confines of a single reactor and powering ALL of their weapons from that one reactor, all the kinds of exploits you describe become naturally worthless because they literally all rely on ignoring maneuverability. Hundreds of mines all spaced way out, floating turrets spaced way out, stabilizers spaced way out - those exploits all exist because of the docked power turret meta that kills maneuverability because they all three involve massive maneuverability penalties.

    Reactor turrets negate maneuver bonuses and penalties, which is the balance function the devs deliberately implemented to combat exactly the class of exploits you mention. Reactor turrets serve no legitimate purpose, they have no fictional or RL basis, and they only cause many problems. People are deliberately building to negate maneuverability and focusing on turreted superweapons because with maneuverability penalties they can safely do that.

    Why keep a system that supports such exploits and others when it serves no actual need?
    [doublepost=1495142449,1495142077][/doublepost]
    That is provided schema puts that in, if not the base is still useless
    Why does it have to be more than a mechanical component that defines the first axis of the turrets rotation? I fail to see how that is a problem. They're necessary to turrets, so by definition not actually "useless," must they have a bunch of other functions besides their intended one?
     

    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
    My only argument is that turrets do not NEED independent power, there is no RP/fictional basis for reactor turrets, and therefore the game should not include it in this upcoming overhaul considering the long history of exploits specifically rooted in docked power.

    In-turret power is not based on anything in real life or fiction. Ammo is not equivalent nor analogous to power supply. It only serves to damage gameplay.



    This is not a cause to include a known window for several of the worst exploits in a new overhaul. It supports eliminating known exploit opportunities, not embracing them.



    If we permit reactor turrets then no, there certainly will not be, and you are actually elaborating on a major part of my point.

    With fully fixed power and no exploitable reactor stacking via turret there absolutely is something preventing it. It's called "maneuverability." Something that does not enter into your consideration at all when you think in terms of self-powered mega-turrets because (as initially mentioned) vessels sporting super weapon turrets are effectively several-ships-in-one and tend to ruin maneuverability for pilots by in effect exploiting framerate lag and so are optimized to rely on BobbyAI to win engagements against human opponents. Without the lag a human pilot in a corvette or fast frigate can outmaneuver a ship with proportions like those you describe. Easily. AI turrets can't even properly track a fighter with good overdrive. If the pilot can actually see what is happening and maneuver in real time. Frequently they can't though because there is too often a super-ship involved, and all such framerate killers rely on reactor turrets / docked power to exist.

    Look back at my initial argument against extending docked power. It's a massive, underlying part of what makes the game so exploitable.

    It creates the ability to build ships which - by design or accident - instagib anyone who has not built based on engagement scenarios where maneuverability cannot ever come into play because of framerate lag, making the actual meta purely about turret optimization on ships that aren't actually functional in the way the game is meant to be played (ie where opponents can effectively evade superior static firepower by investing in superior maneuverability).

    If ships are limited to working within the confines of a single reactor and powering ALL of their weapons from that one reactor, all the kinds of exploits you describe become naturally worthless because they literally all rely on ignoring maneuverability. Hundreds of mines all spaced way out, floating turrets spaced way out, stabilizers spaced way out - those exploits all exist because of the docked power turret meta that kills maneuverability because they all three involve massive maneuverability penalties.

    Reactor turrets negate maneuver bonuses and penalties, which is the balance function the devs deliberately implemented to combat exactly the class of exploits you mention. Reactor turrets serve no legitimate purpose, they have no fictional or RL basis, and they only cause many problems. People are deliberately building to negate maneuverability and focusing on turreted superweapons because with maneuverability penalties they can safely do that.

    Why keep a system that supports such exploits and others when it serves no actual need?
    Framerate lag should not be something used to justify your point as that is entirely something that will be fixed with game code optimization. Also, by the time this game is actually fully released, which will probably be after 2020, the overall populace that plays this game will have better computers to handle more intense fights. (Seriously, this game has been in dev Alpha since 2012, it is half way through 2017 and we still are not even close to Beta.)

    The only thing after this update that docked power would do for weapon systems would be allowing them a little bit of freedom from the main power reactor. As TrainDodger pointed out before: The mechanisms involved in real life ship bound turrets are just that, part of the turret superstructure. Everything directly used by the turret in modern ships is considered turret superstructure.

    I will clarify my statement I made before. I honestly see no reason as to why weapons that are docked and powered by themselves are bad if they have 75% shield share. They trade decentralization for greater liability to die. I do not see this as an entirely necessary thing which is why I am arguing for only turrets to have this decentralization. Power will be linear, so having power in different bits of the ship does not allow for any exponential or otherwise non-linear growth in power.

    Sure, someone could mount turrets in their ship and lock them in place, but that would only do the same thing as I mentioned above + a negative too. They would trade decentralization for being easier to destroy and would drain the enhanced mass from ACTUAL turrets that are mounted elsewhere. This is not as big an exploit as you are making it out to be. These docked weapons would not be able to use their chambers and would therefore be useless for any exploitative shielding or armoring ideas.

    Keeping only 75% shield share would be acceptable if and only if the turrets are allowed to have their own reactors. If 100% shield share occurs then I would be okay with them not having their own power generation as those trade offs wouldn't be in place.

    I am in favor of keeping 75% shield share as long as the turrets have their own power because this system also allows greater modularity/interchangeability between ships of your own fleet and other peoples'.

    Example:
    You have a FIRST hypothetical ship that is 100% efficient and optimized with the turrets that are on it. These turrets are also powered by themselves.
    You have a SECOND ship of equivalent size that you can mount these turrets onto but it is not optimized completely for them. Pay attention here. These turrets being used on the other ship will drop its overall combat efficiency, lets say to 90%.
    You have a THIRD ship of slightly smaller size that has turrets tailor made for it and it is also at 100% combat efficiency.

    If the FIRST and THIRD ship fight the FIRST ship will win holding all pilot variables equal.
    If the FIRST and SECOND ship fight the FIRST ship will win holding all pilot variables equal.
    And this is the important one:
    If the SECOND and THIRD ship fight the THIRD ship will win holding all pilot variables equal.

    This is what we are saying: We are okay with the relatively small drop in efficiency for a LARGE jump in interchangeability. This interchangeability makes it easier for everyone who plays StarMade to have more ships that are of good quality. I can give my buddy a turret or two and know that AT LEAST THAT TURRET will do well out of his ship in total.

    Docked power when treated linearly does not allow for exploiting in nearly as many ways as you have implicated. It allows for either longer firing weapons, or longer lasting weapons.
     
    Last edited:

    Atheu

    Gone but not forgotten
    Joined
    Aug 3, 2013
    Messages
    40
    Reaction score
    27
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    Why does it have to be more than a mechanical component that defines the first axis of the turrets rotation? I fail to see how that is a problem. They're necessary to turrets, so by definition not actually "useless," must they have a bunch of other functions besides their intended one?
    Because a gun on a stick is completely unappealing
     
    Joined
    Jul 17, 2013
    Messages
    97
    Reaction score
    27
    > We use the total Reactor block count to determine the optimal distance between every Reactor and Stabilizer group.

    so you have to move all stabilizer if you have to add/enlarge a reactor? wonderful system I say, will make building and optimizing ships truly a breeze
    Well, presumably, you'd put your stabilizers at the furthest point away from the reactor that you can. But for a given size of reactor, there's an optimal distance where you get 100% power, beyond which putting it further away has no effect. So, generally, reactors would go in the middle, behind the most armor (kinda like core blocks back in the day), and stabilizers would be concentrated at the ends along the ship's longest dimension. So if it's a "tall" ship, they'll be on the ventral and dorsal fins, or if it's a long one, they'll be at the bow and stern.

    And doing this with your stabilizers accomplishes... What now? added distance beyond the minimum has no effect. all you've done is protected the least valuable part of your reactor system from damage, and made it impossible to turn. And yes, I know I attacked the example, not the actual point.
    The bigger the reactor, the greater the minimum distance to get 100%. Let's say you have a reactor that is some ridiculous figure like 10,000,000 blocks, and the distance needed is perhaps over a kilometer. By distancing stabilizers from the ship, you don't have to fully enclose them in the main hull. They can be elsewhere. Well out of sight, even. This means you can save the mass that would have been used to build the hull all . So let's say you have a doomcube/death star, its turning rate is already the lowest it could possibly be, and no increase in dimensions could make it any worse (only mass) because the maximum penalty is in effect. You could put the stabilizers waaaaaaay off out in the middle of nowhere and not have to ever enclose them in the hull. Heck, you could even mount super-turrets on them, covering each axis with different kinds of firepower. Missiles, projectiles, beams, all in one turret. Then, you could have a grid of these turret-festooned, stabilizer-containing orbs spaced out like a good three kilometers away from the central hull.

    This configuration would be much, much lighter and have a higher top speed than a ship with a complete hull 3 kilometers long on each axis. It would also be nearly impossible to approach. And you know what makes it even worse? Each weapon has its own isolated powercap. They don't all draw from a common pool. Provided that you have enough power to recharge one of them, you can recharge all of them, in time, and they can all fire once without interfering with each other. Doo-doo-doo, here I come with a ship that has 128 10,000-block missile turrets. A few of them fired on one side as hostiles approached? Big deal. It doesn't prevent the ones on the other end from firing as enemies approach from the other direction. They were already topped off. The center part experiences no hit to its ability to move. The thrusters are set at max priority, so as the turrets overwhelm the power system and experience power failure, it just runs in the other direction at max speed. When its turrets come back online, it alpha-strikes you again. Now you're dead.
     
    Joined
    Mar 27, 2014
    Messages
    23
    Reaction score
    4
    This is probably going to get drowned out, but:
    Is their any chance that schema&Friends can implement a maximum number for primary reactors that can be set by the server? Or a true/false for unlimited reactors?
     
    • Like
    Reactions: petlahk
    Joined
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages
    73
    Reaction score
    17
    The main issue with self powered turrets is that they are SELF POWERED, which would not require any TP.
    Maybe I missed something, but why this is even an issue? If power is linear, than self powered turrets do not abuse power mechanics in any way.
    As for TP, the easiest way is just to forbid the usage of these on docked entities.
     
    Joined
    Mar 27, 2014
    Messages
    23
    Reaction score
    4
    You could put the stabilizers waaaaaaay off out in the middle of nowhere and not have to ever enclose them in the hull. Heck, you could even mount super-turrets on them, covering each axis with different kinds of firepower. Missiles, projectiles, beams, all in one turret. Then, you could have a grid of these turret-festooned, stabilizer-containing orbs spaced out like a good three kilometers away from the central hull.
    It really sounds like your argument is "DOOMCUBES must be cube shaped!" which can already be prevented with size/mass caps, and not any fancy power stuff.

    This configuration would be much, much lighter and have a higher top speed than a ship with a complete hull 3 kilometers long on each axis.
    Unless you want to fill that 3km gap with shields/Hull that would just make it really easy to sever the connection between your reactor parts; killing your power.
     
    Joined
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages
    195
    Reaction score
    84
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    This is probably going to get drowned out, but:
    Is their any chance that schema&Friends can implement a maximum number for primary reactors that can be set by the server? Or a true/false for unlimited reactors?
    I think this is a good idea, at least in regards to testing. If ultimately they come out to be on the fence with the single reactor idea, and/or with the no reactors on turrets debate, I think it would be a good idea to have these as config options in the rounds of testing, and maybe have another official test server or something so that both ideas can be tested.

    It's just a thought.
     
    Joined
    Jul 17, 2013
    Messages
    97
    Reaction score
    27
    It really sounds like your argument is "DOOMCUBES must be cube shaped!" which can already be prevented with size/mass caps, and not any fancy power stuff.

    Unless you want to fill that 3km gap with shields/Hull that would just make it really easy to sever the connection between your reactor parts; killing your power.
    Nope. Stabilizers are not physically connected to reactors the way chambers are. The gap doesn't have to be filled with anything. Stabilizers are just clumps of blocks x distance from the active reactor. Now, if you had to use conduits on stabilizers, too, and if the conduit being severed deactivated that stabilizer, that would be different. Very, very different.