StarMade v0.199.214 Auxiliary Power, Better Graphics, Better Textures, and Bugfixes

[Lecic]

Docked Shield Reactors weren't nearly as bad as docked power reactors though mostly because people couldn't figure out how to use them correctly and just ditched them. XD

No, shield injectors were worse. You could use them to make essentially invincible ships.

 

[Olxinos]

[Edit: damn shortcurts, posted that before I finished writing it, hang on a minute]
[Edit: ok, that should be fine now, took a bit more than a minute though :p]

[...]
Doing that makes the old docked reactors more than twice as effective. It also removes the linear part of the docked reactor since then you need more power reactor blocks than power supply. Making the reactor depend on something that doesn't scale non linear.
That does make it slightly more skill based but putting down rows of power regen is pretty much the best you can do, not that much skill involved. Although time is required to fine tweak it unless you do the math before hand.
[graphe]

Agreed, this was just a counter-example because I disagreed with your argumentation, but it isn't really balanced.

A bad reactor that is 4000% worse than the best one means you need to go back to the drawing board. That's not a reactor, that's a ship where you put a few power supply blocks on. The efficiency would be worse than the linear regen on a normal reactor.

Well, 10 x 10 x 10 blocks of reactors = 30,806 e/s, line of 1000 reactors = 1,647,409e/s, this is ~53x times more (i.e. a +5200% bonus). Of course anyone who knows Starmade mechanics a bit won't make a cube of reactors (unless it's temporary), so this is actually a real value :p
Anyway, the underlying point is that the gap is too big and even if reactors mechanics that hard to grasp, you usually want your beginner players to be able to build things without knowing anything about the game that are still a tiny bit efficient. This is especially true in multiplayer games so that complete beginners can at least compete with veterans to an extent.

Could you mention your better system? I'm interested to know what you would propose as an alternative. The formulas you present below seem to just be about the power softcap per group so I'm not sure that is your alternative system.

I don't really have formalized what my ideal power mechanics would be, but if I was a Starmade developer, here are the most simple changes I'd have made to that system:
- remove the softcap per group (using something like the green curve)
- remove the auxiliary pool and togglable thing and have them just generate power (as power reactors do)
- decrease their SHP
Well I still wouldn't really like that system. Coming up with a real system with no obvious flaw is not something I can do in the time necessary to write a post :/

The soft cap per group encourages people to either spread out their big reactors. Or to go oversized to make increase their internal storage efficiency at the cost of losing regen efficiency. Whether the internal storage values are good or not depends on play testing.

Your formula would make people slap multiple 10K blocks together in 1 group, so I don't really see how that is an improvement. Especially when their power storage cap benefits the most of a single big group. It also makes the explosive system too overpowered.

The softcap discourages the player to have groups bigger than 10k, whereas having no softcap presents the player with the choice of getting a bit more extra efficiency per block or having safer auxiliary banks since they're separate.

Hm, it's a one time use now, at the beginning of a battle or between "breaks" where you're currently not shooting or just coasting around.
It seems better that the switching aux regen from main ship to internal and back is bound to the left mouse button.
And the "dump power" toggle is bound to the right mouse button.
This feels convoluted but splitting up this functionality seems to be a solution to what you're talking about. How we would split it up is something we can figure out later. IF this is indeed what you mean.

About that power being lost if it can't fit, that's intentional to prevent it from being used too much of an extension to your second power storage, and to have it more act like a burst storage. There's a config option to switch between both though so you can experiment with that yourself. (Block behavior config)

Nice, I didn't know about that option.

Their SHP is most likely too high yes, we can reduce that next release if needed. As a counter to those deep penetrating weapons. The reactors explode very slowly, provide inner armor to those and after they're done exploding, they still provide 1/4 of their power (at least, would be more if I bothered making a more complex armor layout) which is 4-5 times more efficient than linear 25 regen.

Before docked reactors were taken down even faster, shoot for the markers and win.

If we replaced docked reactors with a better scaling power block ,then there's no weak spot whatsoever. And you would just fire to kill SHP, not to kill power (how would you know you hit something that provides a lot of power?).

I agree that the docked reactors were even bigger weak points (except when it comes to SHP maybe). But I still don't like how you can destroy a non negligible amount of power generating blocks (imo the most critical system) with very small weapons. I don't know how to really explain it, but I find the fact that the most rewarding course coild be trying to pierce a tiny hole into a titan until you reach an auxiliary bank, then repeat until it lost so much SHP or his generators can't provide enough power anymore isn't really interesting.
Maybe it's because there's no other more exposed and less critical weak points, or maybe such piercing weapons be so easy to do, I don't really know, but it doesn't feel right

Like I said in my original post, we were fine with these reactors before. Their efficiency was too high initially but that got nerfed to a more acceptable level. These reactors were weak points which countered their efficiency. It only started becoming a problem when they were used in larger scales and count, causing major lag.

You have a choice after you've reached a certain size. Either stick to the bad linear power regen of normal reactors. Or switch over to the more effective ones that have downsides, just like before. Or do a mix of both.

Well, I'm not really fine with the way docked reactors(/this block) add power. Imo, the bigger you build, the more challenging it should become so that you can't just choose "let's build a bigger ship!" as your "strategy" indefinitely. I find docked reactor(/this block) were(/are) too effective and too easy to add even on enormous ships (in other words I find the skill gap too low here)

If you have a much better power system in mind, feel free to make a suggestion post about it and if you have done that already, make sure to tag me so we can go through it together

For now, no, I've thought about it, but so far mine has flaws I don't like either.

 

[StormWing0]

Just noticed there's a new update 0.199.217 what's up with it?

 

[Pacific_Jim]

Having them separate is a weak point though. on ships big enough to justify these having a rapid fire cannon with enough penetration to hit multiple reactors is a legitimate possibility, especially on the larger vessels.

 

[Lancake]

The softcap discourages the player to have groups bigger than 10k, whereas having no softcap presents the player with the choice of getting a bit more extra efficiency per block or having safer auxiliary banks since they're separate.

Interesting idea. I imagine that you would want this assuming there was no internal storage mechanic to them?
If that's the case, I do see a flaw with it I think.

In your green curve, you reach maximum efficiency per block (200) at about 20K blocks. Going beyond that doesn't improve your efficiency. So why would you make that group even bigger, making it an easier to destroy target (explosive event only happens within the group that got hit) instead of splitting the groups up into 20K each.

To me, it just looks like we're moving away from 10K to 20K groups.
[doublepost=1473530323,1473530002][/doublepost]

Just noticed there's a new update 0.199.217 what's up with it?

Patch notes were added to the main news post:

Hotfix 0.199.217: Fixed universe generation (no planets in new universes). Fixed ClassCastException when loading ship with ongoing auxiliary power explosion.​

 

[Olxinos]

Interesting idea. I imagine that you would want this assuming there was no internal storage mechanic to them?
If that's the case, I do see a flaw with it I think.

In your green curve, you reach maximum efficiency per block (200) at about 20K blocks. Going beyond that doesn't improve your efficiency. So why would you make that group even bigger, making it an easier to destroy target (explosive event only happens within the group that got hit) instead of splitting the groups up into 20K each.

To me, it just looks like we're moving away from 10K to 20K groups.

Well, I'd say that those are somewhat independent points, but you're right, without the capacity, there's ultimately no point in building bigger since the green curve either converges to the optimum too fast (or simply has an optimum).
TBH, I quickly made these formulas to illustrate what I was saying but I'm obviously not saying they are the best solutions you can think of (well, I do prefer the green curve over the current one, especially if you keep the auxiliary pool, but I haven't put that much thought into it)
At least even without an auxiliary pool, the green curve doesn't punish player from building bigger twice though, only once (less safety, but not less power). I also think a monotonic formula is simpler to grasp than one with a maximum but it's discutable.

 

[Malacodor]

For all you fools whining about the new system either shut up or come up with a better one.

This seems very divided and I would like to see alternative solutions if anyone has them. For now, this is what we've got.

I suggested multiple times to just leave undocked entities in the reference system of the mothership (like a ship-aligned astronaut), if it couldn't go anywhere anyways. This would avoid most collision checks.

Furthermore, I and several others suggested to simply replace the power soft cap by a logarithmic or similar curve for the dimensional bonus, which would still punish size, without making docked reactors necessary.

And also, if there's anything we've learned from Star Wars, it's that big ships that explode when their weak point is exposed are awesome.

As long as it's not yours. :p

I might consider return from my leave. Now very big vessels do have a disadvantage. Serves you right.

You must have been away for years, if you aren't aware of any of the many disadvantages for big ships.

Now it’s true that at this point, modular ship design is discouraged/eliminated without power supply beams.

Docked reactors are still valid, as they can still supply turrets.

I can make a bigger post on its own in a separate thread if that is required.

It would be great, if you could offer some more indepth info, like the exact formulae used (for both power generation and explosions). Also, is one point of damage enough to destroy an entire reactor group? Do more or bigger hits cause more or bigger explosions?

The config values may require tweaking, but that’s where your input comes in. It’s important that you’ve used the new block and experimented with it enough to grasp the positives and negatives. Only then can you see that it’s either not working as it should, or is just fine as it is.

So for getting a properly armored reactor I have to build one and shoot it to test it out. I have to repeat this multiple times to get a reliable result, since explosions happen randomly. If the armor should turn out as insufficient, I'll have to add some more and repeat the tests until it's good enough. Then I have to do that for each and every reactor size and shape I want to use. And after an update I have to start over completely, in case something was changed (which doesn't necessarily get mentioned in the update notes). That does sound a little bit frustrating.

Were the shield values changed in this? My shields now require barely any more power to charge compared to when it is idling at full charge.

Did you take into account that shield regen is down to 12.5%-25% for one minute after a hit?

So only ships that are docked to each other get influenced by the config option right, and not two separed ship? Because I'm 60 % done building a station with an enormous power and shield supply beam and I would hate to see it's main function be wasted.

Yes.

I don't understand why the devs listens to a small player base of 5% who have the time making 1km or longer capitals. Thats nice, but content should be focused on all player groups.

They listen to those who provide feedback including server admins and faction leaders, who don't just speak for themselves. But they can't read the minds of the silent majority, most of which probably didn't even pay a cent for the game.

Does anyone really enjoy playing a game among other hardcore players and throw casual players out of your community by beating them with your captials again and again? Or can you beat a capital ship suited with docked reactors and shield supply with a certain number of normal sized ships that in total are equal the mass of the capital? I believe capitals are not fun because a normal player can't ever compete to them. Now people say "hey thats the point of capitals, you need more to take them out". I say: It's unbalanced and favours hardcore players over casual players. Every competetive game must be balanced for booth sides.

Bashing new players is a problem with the community, not with game mechanics. If you nerf big ships, griefers will come with a bigger fleet. If you nerf fleets, they'll bring some friends with.

 

[Micro753]

... the "solution" does not fix angled computers and consoles, turrets going loose or in general other docked stuff within ships, enabling us to put our feet below a table...

I made a suggestion related to that at this post.
#shamelessselfpromoting

 

[linwe talion]

The thing is that I can't stop my test ship from exploding, when the aux. power group got shot. It still explodes even when the ship overheats. It still explodes when the ship got reloaded. It still explodes, when no aux. blocks left, all being removed or all blown up. The space, the aux.blocks previously took, still explodes when you fill it with new blocks. So it is an unstopable chain reaction with no seen way to prevent it from happening.
Is it a feature or is it a bug? (C)


UPD
I got it. The explosions are precalculated for the amount of the aux blocks in the hit group. E.g. if an explosion destroys about 30 blocks every time, if you have a group of 30 000 aux, it will explode 1000 times, no matter if the blocks still remain in that space or not. If new blocks are placed in that place, they will suffer damage from non-existent aux blocks, that don't exist there anymore.

Now I believe this is a bug.

I believe a pilot should be able to prevent futher chain reaction by some sort of red button, like "blow em all up to hell, just stahp that fireworks NOW", or "cooldown" button, like systems reload or something, letting the already installed aux blocks to recover.

 

[Ithirahad]

Bug.

 

[Lecic]

Just a quick comment I made I'd like to drop in from another thread.

"This "streamline" was absolutely necessary for the future of the game, which will feature fleet battles in unloaded combat. There's no real easy way to determine how much power a docked reactor is supplying, but it is very easy for them to determine how much power these supply."

 

[StormWing0]

Also to those of you complaining how are the devs suppose to make sure docked reactors for power and shields work in unloaded space? Logic doesn't work in unloaded space so those docked reactors of yours would be totally worthless when unloaded combat comes around making your ships lose a ton of fighting power and likely lose a fight they'd win if the sector was loaded.

 

[Malacodor]

Also to those of you complaining how are the devs suppose to make sure docked reactors for power and shields work in unloaded space? Logic doesn't work in unloaded space so those docked reactors of yours would be totally worthless when unloaded combat comes around making your ships lose a ton of fighting power and likely lose a fight they'd win if the sector was loaded.

Somehow I believe ships optimized for unloaded combat will be very different from ships for real combat, be it with or without docked reactors.

 

[nightrune]

Somehow I believe ships optimized for unloaded combat will be very different from ships for real combat, be it with or without docked reactors.

Lets hope not.

 

[Thalanor]

At last, we shall conquer the lands beyond the softcap without glitchy lag monster modules! All hail the feline god

 

[Ithirahad]

Somehow I believe ships optimized for unloaded combat will be very different from ships for real combat, be it with or without docked reactors.

Remember that unloaded ships can be loaded at any moment. If an enemy realizes that someone's using unloaded-combat ships, then they'll just load in the ships.

 

[Lecic]

Realistically, people will probably design ships that work well in all scenarios.

 

[kiddan]

The new auxiliary power is pretty neat, I could see it being used for logic randomizers, too. Seems to just set off one explosion after a block breaks, and then more chain reaction or anything, is this intentional (for a 6x6x6 cube)?

It's great to see the textures looking more natural now, specular and rotational-wise!

Also, weren't heat shields mentioned a while ago? I'd really like to see those sometime soon.

 

[Keptick]

Auxiliary reactors, they were added at last! I can finally finish Charon...

*insert tears of joy*

I was one of the councilors that worked on their conceptualization (to adress the massive lag docked reactors caused on servers), so I knew that reffiting my docked reactors and turrets would be a waste of time and energy. Now that they've been added to the game I can finally finish my god damn ship!

Spoiler: Adressing concerns

Also, to the people complaining about the new reactors, and how it's "stupid", why did you never bother providing your "smart" solution? I'm sure the current council will be more than happy to forward it to the devs. Also, to the people that misunderstood their use: Use them IN ADDITION to normal reactors, not as a full replacement. Use normal reactors until you reach the 2mil cap, then use auxiliaries to boost past that (like docked reactors). They're balanced so that a group of auxiliaries would provide the same amount of regen as an efficient 2mil e/sec reactor (for the same total number of blocks).

Back when we drafted up the concept we considered literally everything, from individual power cap per group (the simplest and worst idea because it means that large ships could pack on power with no downside, which leads to an arms race to see who has the largest ship), all the way to complex fuel systems. What we have now is what the devs considered to be the best middle ground between all those solutions. Keep in mind that large ships have to stay balanced, and have some form of downside to prevent hardcore players from rolfstomping random plebs with their unkillable ten million mass ships. Also keep in mind that it's not as simple as "slap armor around a chunk of auxiliary reactors", stupid design like that will obviously lead to your ship killing itself. Armor weaving and smart reactor placement is more complex than making docked reactors ever was. Seriously, if you knew the formulas and had a calculator making efficient docked reactors was ridiculously easy, not to meantion that there was literally no trade-off for the ridiculous power efficiency they provided. If you don't have enough balls to use volatile reactors and trade off risk for ludicrous power regen, then just don't fucking use them.

One last thing: Schine has their own schedule and stuff, so even if other councilors and I literally brought up how shitty docked reactors were about a billion fucking times, it still took the devs 2 years to acknowledge the issue and do something about it. The council can't order the devs around, and get them to implement changes instantly, but that doesn't mean the councillors don't try.

PS: To those crying that their ships are at risk (not adressed to those fellows with valid criticism): If you can't handle that your invincible zero-risk no-compromise million mass noob-crusher of doom was nerfed, HTFU or gtfo, there's this thing called balance.

Edit: I forgot to mention that having the new reactors explode OVER TIME is less of a risk compared to having a freaking targetting reticule on a docked reactor, literally a "SHOOT HERE TO DISABLE MY SHIP, YOUR COMPUTER AND THE SERVER" sign, and the entire thing becoming useless if it undocks (which they always did).

So yea... I, builder of a 1.28km long ship, helped to conceptualize a system that would add a weakness/downside to large ships. lol.

 

[Malacodor]

It's great to see the textures looking more natural now, specular and rotational-wise!

...and hepta/tetra slope textures are finally symmetrical!

Also, to the people complaining about the new reactors, and how it's "stupid", why did you never bother providing your "smart" solution?

As I said above, various solutions were presented and ingored.

Keep in mind that large ships have to stay balanced, and have some form of downside to prevent hardcore players from rolfstomping random plebs with their unkillable ten million mass ships.

Great, now hardcore players will rolfstomp random plebs with their ten million mass fleets instead. Problem solved.