StarMade Ship Systems 2.0

    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
    (2), and both the turret horizontal and turret vertical would inherit the Main Ship's reactor chamber effects.
    This limits creativity massively. I can understand not allowing any chamber effects on any child entity as that would allow serious min-maxing of the shields/thrust/weapons/etc., but turning off the reactors of the docked entities completely is unnecessary.

    As long as the entity is outside the bounding box of the main reactor <--> stabilizer set, then having turrets with their own power is only adding linearly to the main ship. Sure it is decentralizing the power of the ship overall, but it only applies to the turrets themselves and not the rest of the ship in terms of staying power. Turrets are already easy enough to shoot off due to only one rail connector being allowed to connect them to the parent ship, and the only 75% shield share, this just unnecessarily nerfs turrets.

    I will add a caveat: Not allowing solid docks to have their reactors online would be acceptable as you can hard mount your forwards firing weapons, as they are basically part of the ship at that point.
     

    JumpSuit

    Lost-Legacy Director
    Joined
    Feb 5, 2015
    Messages
    343
    Reaction score
    93
    I agree to everything except these 'Tech Points'(Due note, I haven't watched the video so will probably be less accurate*)which I kinda don't get, but the name is most certainly gonna need to be changed, more like 'Stages', 'Levels', or 'Upgrades'. It would make more sense. But, overall Agree.
     
    Joined
    Sep 18, 2014
    Messages
    622
    Reaction score
    448
    Being able to completely bypass EMP for weapons and at least partially for shields while also removing the need for aux, while also being substantially better than aux, is not "efficient and reliable"?
    Emp being useless is a complete different problem as the effect should run down the chain and not stop at the main entity.
    Then what is left ? No needs for aux ? Aux are more reliable if build correctly and they won't detach if by some lucky shot the docker got destroyed. They are more reliable than stacking a tons of power cells to power up your meta gun. Yes, power cells are good if you don't use plenty of them docked together otherwise you waste space on capacitors that each of the cells need to power up the weapon the time the other cells regain the possibility to power up again the weapon. The more differents cells there is the more chances to hit a docker your opponent get, clipping aside if that ofc. In fact it's only when there is one power cell in my opinion (a few more for someone not like me) that's also a mechanic called self powered turrets. Something that a lot of people use and like, i can understand both sides and agree that removing this possibility is for the best currently.

    It's all on the right words at the right place. Yes power cells are strong. But no they're not this magical thing that allow to beat anyone without knowledge and surpass aux without inconvenients. Knowing them you can work with it and so on but that's not just "power cells are broken".
     

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,105
    Reaction score
    1,222
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    but turning off the reactors of the docked entities completely is unnecessary.
    Yes it is. Otherwise turrets would be able to ignore EMP, just like they already can. They can and would continue to be able to completely ignore damage to the main ship. They will continue fighting on their own even if the main ship has almost entirely lost power. Does this not seem broken to you? Turrets should be considered part of the ship they are docked to like any other system, not a self powered death dealer you should mount as many of on your ship as you have surface area for.
    [doublepost=1495053909,1495053564][/doublepost]
    Emp being useless is a complete different problem as the effect should run down the chain and not stop at the main entity.
    You say that like EMP being split up and going into dozens of different entities which are all self powered would have much effect.

    Aux are more reliable if build correctly and they won't detach if by some lucky shot the docker got destroyed. They are more reliable than stacking a tons of power cells to power up your meta gun
    It takes substantially fewer blocks to make a docked cell than to make an aux that won't vaporize itself the instant it's shot, and power cells getting undocked in combat is exceptionally rare. And even when they do, the things still have all the power and AI they need to keep fighting the enemy. That's broken.
     

    Chckn Wildstyle

    Design Head of Cabal Weapons/Technologies (CWT)
    Joined
    Feb 8, 2014
    Messages
    133
    Reaction score
    54
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Competition Winner - Small Fleets
    • Legacy Citizen 8
    Yes it is. Otherwise turrets would be able to ignore EMP, just like they already can. They can and would continue to be able to completely ignore damage to the main ship. They will continue fighting on their own even if the main ship has almost entirely lost power. Does this not seem broken to you? Turrets should be considered part of the ship they are docked to like any other system, not a self powered death dealer you should mount as many of on your ship as you have surface area for.
    I would understand and agree 100% with this argument if the turrets were not so easy to blow off/up. You can shoot off turrets when the main ship still has 25% of its shields which pretty much inherently makes the turrets less of a "part of the ship" and more of an "addendum to the ship".

    For me, if the turrets have 100% shield share and the rail system is upgraded to allow more than one point of connection per set of entities I would say, sure, don't allow turrets their own power. However, we are not at that point and I have seen nothing to suggest we are going there.

    Turrets sacrifice many things to gain one thing: Multi-directional fire.
    Not allowing on-board reactors is just another sacrifice.
     

    Ithirahad

    Arana'Aethi
    Joined
    Nov 14, 2013
    Messages
    4,152
    Reaction score
    1,330
    • Purchased!
    • Top Forum Contributor
    • Legacy Citizen 8
    Turrets sacrifice many things to gain one thing: Multi-directional fire.
    Not allowing on-board reactors is just another sacrifice.
    No. Not allowing onboard reactors is not "another sacrifice." Allowing them is an added boon. Do onboard guns get their own special onboard reactors? No, not under the old system and not under the new one.
     
    Last edited:

    Chckn Wildstyle

    Design Head of Cabal Weapons/Technologies (CWT)
    Joined
    Feb 8, 2014
    Messages
    133
    Reaction score
    54
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Competition Winner - Small Fleets
    • Legacy Citizen 8
    No. Not allowing onboard reactors is not "another sacrifice." Allowing them is an added boon. Do normal guns get their own personal reactors and power pools? No, not under the old system and not under the new one.
    Allowing on-board reactors is something to offset their sacrifices.

    Sacrifices:
    Not Accurate Aim
    Less Durable Shields Wise and Connection Wise
    Requires a Menu to Set Up and Change Mid Combat (Between All/Select/Missile)
    You have to base the entire design of your ship around them if they are to even get mildly large

    Boons:
    Multi-directional Aiming
    Personal Power
     

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,105
    Reaction score
    1,222
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    For me, if the turrets have 100% shield share and the rail system is upgraded to allow more than one point of connection per set of entities I would say, sure, don't allow turrets their own power. However, we are not at that point and I have seen nothing to suggest we are going there.
    I'm actually a pretty strong supporter of the idea that shield sharing should be 100%, not 75%. One of the other major problems with docked entities is docked hulls working as an ablative while the main ship hovers at 25% shields for a very long time. I would love it if shields were shared 100%.

    I think allowing turret dockers to have additional protections would also be great.
    [doublepost=1495054998,1495054643][/doublepost]
    Not Accurate Aim
    This is mainly a problem of the game not separating turret AI accuracy and enemy NPC AI accuracy ("difficulty"), when these should really be separate config lines.

    Less Durable Shields Wise
    Fixable with a quick config edit, and SHOULD be like that by default.

    Requires a Menu to Set Up and Change Mid Combat (Between All/Select/Missile)
    I really wish we had a way to quickly swap between fire at will/fire at selected/fire at missiles etc, plus other options for fire at will like prioritize proximity, or mass (higher or lower), or entities with shields up or down, etc, and be able to do it with hotbar buttons. The ability to turn turret AI on and off with wireless is a good step, but it could be a lot better.
     

    Chckn Wildstyle

    Design Head of Cabal Weapons/Technologies (CWT)
    Joined
    Feb 8, 2014
    Messages
    133
    Reaction score
    54
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Competition Winner - Small Fleets
    • Legacy Citizen 8
    I'm actually a pretty strong supporter of the idea that shield sharing should be 100%, not 75%. One of the other major problems with docked entities is docked hulls working as an ablative while the main ship hovers at 25% shields for a very long time. I would love it if shields were shared 100%.

    I think allowing turret dockers to have additional protections would also be great.
    [doublepost=1495054998,1495054643][/doublepost]

    This is mainly a problem of the game not separating turret AI accuracy and enemy NPC AI accuracy ("difficulty"), when these should really be separate config lines.



    Fixable with a quick config edit, and SHOULD be like that by default.



    I really wish we had a way to quickly swap between fire at will/fire at selected/fire at missiles etc, plus other options for fire at will like prioritize proximity, or mass (higher or lower), or entities with shields up or down, etc, and be able to do it with hotbar buttons. The ability to turn turret AI on and off with wireless is a good step, but it could be a lot better.
    I am not arguing that the turret sacrifices are bad, just that they are sacrifices. They should have at least as many boons as they do sacrifices. Fixing the AI accuracy and Menu annoyance would still leave at least 2 Sacrifices.
     
    Joined
    Sep 27, 2013
    Messages
    684
    Reaction score
    1,247
    It breaks with the numbers, balancing the power output against thrust and mass is the thing that still will be the problem.
    I for one hope for a massive reduction of hull mass and tweaks on thrusters and weapons (whats the point of not having to fill the ship with systems when it has to be empty to be able move).
    TBH i don't like the proposed system (feels arbitrary), but it seems better than what we have now.
     

    MrFURB

    Madman of the Girders
    Joined
    Jan 31, 2013
    Messages
    1,116
    Reaction score
    413
    This post will be 'duh' for those of you who already know what you're doing with the turret discussion. You can skip it, it's just to keep other people appraised.

    Multi-entity power systems as they are now are a balancing issue. That is a fact widely seen and proven by people who attempt to build the most effective combat ship possible. Having a large number of turrets, docked guns, and drone/fleet ships all using their own 2m e/sec power regen is simply superior to using auxiliary power reactors. They use less space and resist damage better than auxiliary units despite having docking blocks as points of failure. AI isn't the issue (though they have their own problems), bypassing the power softcap is.

    That said, the power issue is going away with the advent of linear power generation from reactors. That just leaves the question, "How is damage and Reactor-HP going to be calculated/balanced/etc when multiple self-powering entities are utilized?"
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Top 4ce
    Joined
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages
    73
    Reaction score
    17
    Well, in previous posts I only pointed some stand alone problems that I saw in this proposal.
    Now is time for a big one.

    First of all - chamber idea is golden. It gives players a huge variety of choice, lots of interesting buffs can be added using chamber mechanics.
    It also fixes problems with passive effects - such as their /to mass ratio, which leads to enormous block counts, their abusable inheritance.
    It also adds some flexibility to this game, which starmade really lacks of.

    Second - reactor hp is somewhat golden too. Ability to shut down enemy systems by considerably damaging them, vital weak-spots of any ships in form of reactors - it can enhance combat greatly.
    But, I have some worries that this can lead us to infamous core-drilling and annoying lucky-shots. Mostly because we are not allowed to use multiple reactors at once - this surely will lead to the majority of ships having only one, big and easy to target reactor.

    Third - reactors themself. I have mixed feelings about them.While chambers add a lot of depth to the ship design, reactors, the heart of any ship - they are almost completely depthless. Just place 2 types of blocks far away from each other and you are good. I understand that you wanted to create simpler power system than the current one, but this one power system lacks of hard-to-master part, while spaghetti lines had that part, for some degree. And I am not even talking about how illogical and unintuitive is the idea that stabilizers have to be far away from reactors to work properly. It's weird, but not that important.

    Fourth - inner capacity and priority queue. This is rather interesting combination. For example, you can have a large ion weapon on the bottom of the queue, just to fire it once at the beginning of the fight. So, queue adds another bit of flexibility to our ships, and i highly appreciate that. Inner storage itself, as I already said, can lead to emergence of cheap and disposable one-strike ships. I like the idea of such ships, but they must be balanced well.

    So, conclusion. Well, this one proposal is really solid. There are lot's of good ideas, but the reactor part is rather weak. I believe, that the good system mechanic must be based only on that system characteristics - such as form, block interaction, count, etc, it must give player opportunity to master it - to build such system more efficiently than majority of other players, and what I believe good mechanic mustn't do - is to notably encourage any ship shape over another ship shape. And that is what distance based reactor efficiency lead us to - it makes really long an thin ships more viable than compact, more axis-balanced.

    Months ago, after a first proposal I made my own one. It's main ideas was to: instead of the restrictions, like in the first proposal, use encouragement, to increase game depth by making systems power consumption floating - adjustable by player in real time and counterbalanced by heat production. So, I maybe will create another one, by combining my ideas with ideas from this proposal, refining them, only to never see them happen. But the man can dream, cannot he?

     

    madman Captain

    Self-appointet Overlord of the Scaffold
    Joined
    Jan 11, 2015
    Messages
    263
    Reaction score
    491
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    Ok first: I like the Idea

    Second: How the ship size affect the amount of "Tech Point's" or the generation of them?

    Third: Yeah I also don't like the name "Tech Point" for some kind of energy souce to run the chambers.

    Fourth: Will this system also make active systems/abillitys like Blinks, Charges, Temp. Buffs, Detect Pulses, Temp. Supershields?
    You know making combat more interesting than building an tanky battlebrick/overpowerd flying deathray rifle and circlestraving around my enemy.

    Fifth: Some alternative names for "Tech Points": Blockonium Charges, Octazid Cells, Cubic Fuel,
    Dice Force, Suprasquareic Energy.
     
    Joined
    Jun 24, 2013
    Messages
    270
    Reaction score
    43
    Yes it is. Otherwise turrets would be able to ignore EMP, just like they already can. They can and would continue to be able to completely ignore damage to the main ship. They will continue fighting on their own even if the main ship has almost entirely lost power. Does this not seem broken to you? Turrets should be considered part of the ship they are docked to like any other system, not a self powered death dealer you should mount as many of on your ship as you have surface area for.
    You know there's a better fix to your problem than limiting on turret reactors? Make EMP affect every docked entity.

    This disabling the ability for turrets to have their own power is extremely limiting on the creativity aspect.
     
    Joined
    Mar 10, 2016
    Messages
    564
    Reaction score
    1,589
    • Likeable Gold
    • Community Content - Silver 2
    • Thinking Positive
    In order for a chamber to be activated, TP’s (Tech points) have to flow into it. This happens at a fixed pace such as 1 TP/ 1 sec per chamber and only when it is fully filled does it activate before it moves on to any of the other connected chambers.

    I would like to ask for some clarification on the highlighted part of the quote.

    So TP's are basically units of energy; they flow from power reactors to power consuming systems - Will they supply the different/unrelated consuming systems in the chamber tree in a sequential manner? Or will different/unrelated systems with internal power capacity be filled in parallel?

    (I guess unrelated systems will be connected in parallel, while "skill upgrade" subsystems will be limited by sequential charging due to being connected in a series fashion.)
     

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,105
    Reaction score
    1,222
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    You know there's a better fix to your problem than limiting on turret reactors? Make EMP affect every docked entity.

    This disabling the ability for turrets to have their own power is extremely limiting on the creativity aspect.
    Creativity takes a back seat to balance. Allowing players to have docked guns that can bypass limits put on the main entity is a bit busted. Turrets should really be treated like any other weapon system.
     
    Joined
    Jun 24, 2013
    Messages
    270
    Reaction score
    43
    Turrets should really be treated like any other weapon system.
    So basically, you want StarMade to be every other spaceship building game. Go play Avorion if you want to see how annoying/dull this mechanic is. That's my biggest complaint about that game.
     

    Lone_Puppy

    Me, myself and I.
    Joined
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages
    1,275
    Reaction score
    529
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Legacy Citizen 8
    I love the power management.
    Only 1 active reactor allowed on the entity and its chains
    Does that mean 1 active reactor for the entity and it's chains or 1 reacter on the entity and 1 active reactor on each docked entity individually?
     
    Joined
    Jun 24, 2013
    Messages
    270
    Reaction score
    43
    I love the power management.

    Does that mean 1 active reactor for the entity and it's chains or 1 reacter on the entity and 1 active reactor on each docked entity individually?
    They are leaning on one active reactor per ship... period. The original proposal (2.0 proposal) was to alloy docked entities to have reactors, but limit them to bounding boxes ("heat zones" in the original) and the newest thread states they are considering 1 reactor per ship.
     

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,105
    Reaction score
    1,222
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    So basically, you want StarMade to be every other spaceship building game. Go play Avorion if you want to see how annoying/dull this mechanic is. That's my biggest complaint about that game.
    Why should turrets not be looked at like normal weapons that can aim on their own? Why do you want turrets to just be drones glued to the ship?