StarMade Ship Systems 2.0

[Deserea]

https://www.infowars.com/russians-disable-u-s-guided-missile-destroyer/

What do we say to the god of death ?

That article is a hoax

They were dismissed in February 2015 as "nothing but a newspaper hoax" by the Khibiny jammer's Russian manufacturer KRET' website, which asserted that Khibiny was not installed on Su-24 but claimed it was "capable of completely"

Is it possible it could be disabled, yes, but, highly unlikely.

I think you're missing the point of StarMade. Its point isn't to be realistic. Its point is to be fun to play. In my opinion, fighters would definitely be the most fun to fight in: you get to gather people together to form a fleet and go have fun zooming around chasing after other ships, plus, there's more of an element of skill involved. However, I can definitely see how commanding and managing a large frigate would also definitely be appealing. That's why we need the game to be balanced so that both ends of the spectrum are viable options. Again, the point isn't to make the game realistic, but to accommodate all playstyles.

its almost impossible to balance a game like that, one end of the spectrum is going to suffer far far more, unless they use entirely separate systems so they arent linked(Period).( at least none of the space games i own have been).
O.R.B(fighters near usless against anything higher than destroyers)

Homeworld(only the really high tier ones where useful, but ive never played online, and most fighters and bombers are destroyed easily by flak frigates.) ,

SOTS( not really any fighters, drones are thing, but they where never that great),

CFW(Fighters and bombers are OP as hell, *BUT* they can only be fielded by capital ships, with the exception of one race, which makes them expensive, time consuming, and harder to obtain and field.),

Endless Space(Again not many fighters, i believe they can be used, but its far easier to destroy anything with barrages of missiles and beams, again at least against a AI),

Sins of a solar empire is about the closest ive seen in a long time, it comes close at least, and even then, swarms of bombers and fighters will destroy anything, unless you are prepared to face that, and it takes *alot* of fighters to be able to do much. 60 squadrons is moderately annoying, 120 squadrons is far to much(times that by 5-8 depending on what are used.) and even then. one squadron cant take down a capital ship by itself.

 

[spocklin]

Here's an idea, can we just have the other stuff you guys promised first before getting a whole new power system that will take forever to implement?

 

[Zekester81]

Here's an idea, can we just have the other stuff you guys promised first before getting a whole new power system that will take forever to implement?

That would be great. However, they have stated several times that they need to do this now before they pile all that stuff in and it becomes too hard to implement a better system in the future. Basically, do it now, or add all that stuff in and it becomes too much trouble to get done later as all the new stuff will have to be redone to account for a new power system.

 

[Lecic]

https://www.infowars.com/russians-disable-u-s-guided-missile-destroyer/

What do we say to the god of death ?

Are you seriously using infowars as a source?

 

[Napther]

if people dont like the gigantic that a more linear system provides, perhaps making the ships detonate ala Star-trek warp cores might be a good dissuading factor that a "sabotage" strike causes enough damage to destroy that section of the ship in reactor detonations...

also I assume fleets are going to have something to 1-up a solo player in a bricknaught and its turret compliment. I mean, in most server situations, a massed fleet of bomber craft at mid range are a pest to deal with as your AI will miss due to ai leading being bugged. always missing = no killing bombers no dead bombers means no dps reduction = shields down at some point if escape isnt possible for whatever reason.

Im too tired to be tying at 2:40 am

 

[StormWing0]

Now that I look at it this new system doesn't actually slow or stop the giant ship problem.

 

[petlahk]

Now that I look at it this new system doesn't actually slow or stop the giant ship problem.

Would you mind explaining?

 

[TheOmega]

Now that I look at it this new system doesn't actually slow or stop the giant ship problem.

It never tried to.

 

[El_Poulpy]

They were dismissed in February 2015 as "nothing but a newspaper hoax" by the Khibiny jammer's Russian manufacturer KRET' website, which asserted that Khibiny was not installed on Su-24 but claimed it was "capable of completely"

Thanks for the update, i read that story in 2014, didn't know that it was debunked later.

Are you seriously using infowars as a source?

no, i read it on a side note of a blog dedicated to geostrategy . I'll use the infos given by Deserea to test the liability of this blog. The infowar link was just the first i found.

 

[IchSehDich3000]

-> Changelog 17th may

and it still goes worse -.-

 

[Comradecolonel]

I had a much longer post feedback post but I was distracted and now I lost it. My main point of feedback is that I think the system has a lot of potential and I definitely like it. It could add a lot to ship design and its good to see some of the placeholders being taken care of. Chambers also seem like a pretty good mechanic. I'm hoping there will be a point to many different combinations of chambers and abilities.

I think there should be a look at multiple reactors, as I think this would increase the variety of designs. I can otherwise see the limitation as the focus of exploits, similar to the power cap. I look forward to see where this redesign goes.

 

[kingreol]

im down for this change. ALSO YES disabling power on docked entities as mentioned bye a few posters needs to happen.. as much as it added a Lot of complex design choices to the game balancing said turret, which really only benefits people who have been playing for a year plus.. it just felt more like a dirty little trick to get around power restrictions. which yes isn't even close to the real dirty tricks that only expert players know. since this is revamping power. might as well address the balancing problem at hand

 

[Vilab]

Now that I look at it this new system doesn't actually slow or stop the giant ship problem.

However, this system introduce the idea of a relationship between max power available and size of the ship ( due to stabilizer distance ) and a top off losses of power for weapon system.

To get a gigantism deterrance, you just have to add a few things :

1) - confirm an " active reactor only in the main ship " rule

2) - tweak the relation between reactor size and stabilizer distance so that it strikes harder and harder the more power output you want to get ( making it linear would already be quite hard because ship size, along with power consumption of a completelly system filled ship is almost cubic ).

Here you already get a kind of soft cap on the energy regen which shouldn't be bypassed - the 1) part would already be beneficial to the current system -

3) - add top off losses on shield capacity : so that it requires a minimum shield recharge - that is to say a minimum power requirement - to get working shield.

Here, you get a real power based balance as filling space with "free" shield capacity is prevented. Moreover people will be able to have some RP room without losses of efficiency, and the % of recharge/capacity keeps some freedom

A few other quick improvement for interresting/more realistic fight :

- add a 100% shield coverage of docked entity ( no more ablative docked armor )

- give shield their real purpose ( according to most fictions ) : greatly reducing damages to the hull, not preventing it completely, at least in the lower halve of the shield capacity.
At 100% to 60% shield capacity it would work like now, whereas the lower % of max shield capacity would let some damage be dealt to the ship ( 1/10000 at 59%, 1/1000 at 55%, 1/200 at 50%, ... 1/3 at 5% ). However the shield capacity would go down like now, a 1000 damage hit while the shield is at 5% would deal 333 damages to the hull of the ship, but would still reduce the shield capacity of 1000 to prevent shield stagnation at 1-2% and make alpha weapon a must

Optionnal one I would love to see in the game.

- give shield and weapons their own reactor/chamber-like reduced efficiency system, the shield capacitor/recharger would need to be in groups ( various groups could be allowed, but it would be limited : 1-500 mass ship have right to 1 group, 501-1500 mass to 2 groups....8 groups for 100k mass ), it would prevent " i have a 2 block space here, i will fill it with shield" and allow a efficiency/damage system for groups of shield along with weapon's ( which already need to be grouped )
Those systems could be similar but harsher than chamber's : groups would lose efficiency with damages for weapons ( a group of weapon would be completely disable if destroyed by 30%, and it would keep its one output and consumption features until then, a bent gun tube prevent it from firing, it doesn t turn it into a grape shot launcher which consumes 1/3 of a cartrigde ).
While it could completely disable the one groups of shield which was hit for half a minute ( it further reduces the already low amount of shield remaining/prevents that one group from doing its share of a shield re-activation )

These suggestions would allow damages to docked entity - which are less armored than the main ship - to be dealt before the complete shield depletion ( which was the main point of the current on/off shield sharing ), and extend it to the main ship. It really make shield system a main one, you have to protect your shield generator or some early hits could completely disable some of them for dozens of second, it prevents the 90% destroyed main gun of a frigate to turn into a bunch of pistol fire.

 

[petlahk]

3) - add top off losses on shield capacity : so that it requires a minimum shield recharge - that is to say a minimum power requirement - to get working shield.

I like this idea, making shields work in this system sorta like the way the weapons have capacity.

- give shield and weapons their own reactor/chamber-like reduced efficiency system

But, while this also may be a viable idea, I don't think we should get ahead of ourselves. We ought to test and tweak this power system as proposed before we run off applying the same system to every system in the game.

 

[Madman198237]

I am really starting to dislike this idea, honestly. I thought it had good parts starting out, but I do not like the replies given in the answers section.

I'd want to see multiple reactors per ship, with docked entities capable of carrying their own power. No bounding-box silliness. However, what you could do instead is say that a docked entity either is self-powering or not, with some restriction on what a docked entity can actually do, depending on what the issue with most docked entities actually is.

So, if connectors/conduits cease to matter once you've built them, why bother? Seems like a waste of time and programming ability.

Why NOT give players an additional thing to balance with regards to chambers consuming power? Have Chambers be a way to specialize a ship, not just another "You must have this or everyone else will be better than you". Instead, make it so that shield chambers make your armor weaker, armor chambers weaken your shields. Thrust improvements increase power draw more than the others (All chambers would draw power, but could be seen as merely increasing the power required by the system in question. There'd be no difference, really). Jump drive improvements could possibly do damage to EWAR equipment or some such.

Honestly, chambers are shooting for becoming either an extremely poorly thought out must-have for all combat vessels, or an interesting way of specializing a ship.

 

[petlahk]

Why NOT give players an additional thing to balance with regards to chambers consuming power? Have Chambers be a way to specialize a ship, not just another "You must have this or everyone else will be better than you". Instead, make it so that shield chambers make your armor weaker, armor chambers weaken your shields. Thrust improvements increase power draw more than the others (All chambers would draw power, but could be seen as merely increasing the power required by the system in question. There'd be no difference, really). Jump drive improvements could possibly do damage to EWAR equipment or some such.

You have a good point with this. There needs to be a trade-off, not just a buff.

 

[MacThule]

Well done & Thank You to Schine.

The way they have handled this overhaul proposal is as professional as one could expect. It's been the kind of handling I would expect an executive team to use interacting with their board, which makes me feel extremely valued & respected as a player of StarMade and member of the community.

The proposal, the revised proposal, taking our feedback to heart, the progress reports, the formal answers to our questions, and generally timely written communication from members of the development team on top of the actual work they do... not mention coming up with an excellent solution. All very much appreciated.

Cheers!!

 

[mrsinister]

I am a bit worried on my fighters that are done to their T.V. / Movie counter parts. I didn't have the extra block room when they did a change before, but now, if this proposal is indeed saying that we need to add an additional block or two(connection block).....ugh....

lol I should send Schema one of my Starfuries...

 

[Zekester81]

I am a bit worried on my fighters that are done to their T.V. / Movie counter parts. I didn't have the extra block room when they did a change before, but now, if this proposal is indeed saying that we need to add an additional block or two(connection block).....ugh....

I want to see this in action, but from looking at it, and without knowing numbers on power production to size, I think I might actually have more available space in some of my smaller fighters. The power blocks to other systems ratio inside of the armor is pretty high inside some of my smaller ones, and this would probably give me a better arrangement to place more of the other blocks because of the way I do power in them now.

 

[starhaiden]

There is a reason why having multiply active reactors per ship is a bad idea. It would allow people to make thousands of one block reactors with a very small distance needed between it and stabilizers. Secondly the chambers would only have to be one block.