StarMade Weapons Update Prebuild

[Ckeeze]

Pretty sure they're still a bit gunshy after "The Unpleasantness".

They're reading, I assure you, but they're less likely to say what they're doing too long before they do it now, due to how... poorly... the community acted the last time.

You mean the backlash Power 2.0 coused? I really don't understand how it all happened, when they posted the ideas they polished it to a point where most players (who checked the devblogs etc out) agreed.
Then they launched the update and like the other half of the community who refused to take part in the conversation before acted like schine did not asked anyone about ideas for power 2.0 and just shitted on everybody? .... in reality they just conviniently ignored everything and never came up with proper suggestions in time, other than occasionally telling the devs to F*ck themselves for redisigning the a system wich didn't work and was really exploitable! Schine IS listening and IS taking into consideration what people say, Power 2.0 was several times expanded upon and tweaked using feedback before they even begin working on it, so was Weapon 2.0. (Shield skipping bombs was suggested a dozen times and now we have it for example)

The more hatfull part of the community needs to understand that they can't just insult people and espect Schine to bend to their will, for that they need constructive critics, well they needed, becouse now there won't be major changes for power 2.0.

 

[Edymnion]

You mean the backlash Power 2.0 coused?

Yup. Which was pretty much just the same handful of people and some sock puppet alts (I'm sorry, totally legit other people who just happened to make brand new accounts after the change and somehow had expert level knowledge/opinions) trying to make enough noise to drown everybody else out.

The more hatfull part of the community needs to understand that they can't just insult people and espect Schine to bend to their will, for that they need constructive critics, well they needed, becouse now there won't be major changes for power 2.0.

Most of them are now banned because they couldn't learn how to play nice with others.

 

[Spartan-228]

Not sure where this observation goes, it could be a bug or it simply could be the result of the new build being unfinished. In any case I have found a few problems with the weapons involving turrets.
01. Cannon+Missile turrets will track targets but will not fire.
02. Beam turrets are able to fire through the hull of their mother-ship. Not sure if cannon turrets and missile turrets do this, but I haven't seen them do it. However docked entitys with cannons and missiles will fire through the hull of their mother-ship.
03. Cannon+Beam turrets are unusabley inaccurate. Cannon+Cannon work great and can even properly lead a moving target, but cannon+beam turret's shots will 9 times out of 10 go so wide of the target that they couldn't even hit the broadside of the proverbial barn. They are literally storm troopers levels of bad when a protagonist shows up.

 

[kikaha]

They are literally storm troopers levels of bad when a protagonist shows up.

lol That bad ?!! :P

 

[Nosajimiki]

You mean the backlash Power 2.0 coused? I really don't understand how it all happened, when they posted the ideas they polished it to a point where most players (who checked the devblogs etc out) agreed.
Then they launched the update and like the other half of the community who refused to take part in the conversation before acted like schine did not asked anyone about ideas for power 2.0 and just shitted on everybody? .... in reality they just conviniently ignored everything and never came up with proper suggestions in time, other than occasionally telling the devs to F*ck themselves for redisigning the a system wich didn't work and was really exploitable! Schine IS listening and IS taking into consideration what people say, Power 2.0 was several times expanded upon and tweaked using feedback before they even begin working on it, so was Weapon 2.0. (Shield skipping bombs was suggested a dozen times and now we have it for example)

The more hatfull part of the community needs to understand that they can't just insult people and espect Schine to bend to their will, for that they need constructive critics, well they needed, becouse now there won't be major changes for power 2.0.

There were plenty of constructive critics once it hit dev build, but most of us got all lumped in with the handful of people who wanted to start a giant political campaign against Schine over censorship so we largely got ignored. Censorship and Power 2.0 were two separate issues that just got lumped into one by most people who did not want to take the time to listen. It's like trying to be an Atheist Republican... no reason religion and economic policies should be considered the same thing, but that's just how people make it out to be.

Yup. Which was pretty much just the same handful of people and some sock puppet alts (I'm sorry, totally legit other people who just happened to make brand new accounts after the change and somehow had expert level knowledge/opinions) trying to make enough noise to drown everybody else out.
Most of them are now banned because they couldn't learn how to play nice with others.

A lot of people joined the dock after the power update because they were outraged by it. They were not alts, they were long time players that just so happened to actually spend their time playing the game instead of talking about it up to that point. The reason it seemed this way was that most of the playerbase just plain did not know there was a conversation about it until it was all done and planned. The crux of the problem though was that the people who actually spent their time focused on playing and understood the game mechanics best were not included in the conversation.

The dock just did not appeal to PvP players because we wanted to make our own ships and discover our own methods for making things better, and the dock is the opposite of that.

I don't really think it's fair to blame Schine for not knowing that there was such a big ideological difference between the people who frequented the dock and the remain 70% of the player base, but most people were blindsided by it because we got a few vague teasers about one system, thought it sounded good, and went on with playing the game. Then a bunch of talking happened in the dark, and we got something completely different.

 

[Spartan-228]

I don't think it is a good idea to open up old wounds right now, mistakes where made in the past that we should learn from enough said. The last thing we need is a fight about who, what, where, when, and why concerning power 2.0. What we need to do now is rationally and politely discus the new weapons update.

 

[jacabo136]

I'm absolutely thrilled with the new changes made here! I can use cannons now, and volley fire is quite a lot of fun to use! The combat side of things is starting to come along now.

However, I still don't see the need for some Power 2.0 features, namely the power stream that connects the reactor and the stabilizers. From my understanding, its sole purpose is to counteract "spaghetti" ships. We already have the acid damage model and intergrity to counteract "spaghetti" designs, not to mention that hitting the stream in the first place would be difficult, causing it not to punish the shape it was intended to counteract. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but such a lack of purpose leaves the power stream as a hinderance to building and nothing else. Removing it would make building easier, as there would not be an unattractive tube running through a ship, and it would clean up performance a bit, as it would not have to be rendered.

As a side note, I would like to seek clarification on the purpose of stabilizers as well. I honestly don't know their purpose within the game.

 

[Dire Venom]

I'm absolutely thrilled with the new changes made here! I can use cannons now, and volley fire is quite a lot of fun to use! The combat side of things is starting to come along now.

However, I still don't see the need for some Power 2.0 features, namely the power stream that connects the reactor and the stabilizers. From my understanding, its sole purpose is to counteract "spaghetti" ships. We already have the acid damage model and intergrity to counteract "spaghetti" designs, not to mention that hitting the stream in the first place would be difficult, causing it not to punish the shape it was intended to counteract. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but such a lack of purpose leaves the power stream as a hinderance to building and nothing else. Removing it would make building easier, as there would not be an unattractive tube running through a ship, and it would clean up performance a bit, as it would not have to be rendered.

As a side note, I would like to seek clarification on the purpose of stabilizers as well. I honestly don't know their purpose within the game.

Yeah, both systems received a very negative response when they were implemented. Thankfully they're much more useable now.
Stabs were implemented to force ships to get larger if they wanted more power and the stream was to prevent modular ships so you are forced to protect your power stream.

 

[Matt_Bradock]

IF this works as intended upon release, I'm coming the f*** back. I've been waiting for this waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long.

 

[God mode]

I'm absolutely thrilled with the new changes made here! I can use cannons now, and volley fire is quite a lot of fun to use! The combat side of things is starting to come along now.

However, I still don't see the need for some Power 2.0 features, namely the power stream that connects the reactor and the stabilizers. From my understanding, its sole purpose is to counteract "spaghetti" ships. We already have the acid damage model and intergrity to counteract "spaghetti" designs, not to mention that hitting the stream in the first place would be difficult, causing it not to punish the shape it was intended to counteract. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but such a lack of purpose leaves the power stream as a hinderance to building and nothing else. Removing it would make building easier, as there would not be an unattractive tube running through a ship, and it would clean up performance a bit, as it would not have to be rendered.

As a side note, I would like to seek clarification on the purpose of stabilizers as well. I honestly don't know their purpose within the game.

Stabilizers are supposed to promote empty space within ships and tie power generation directly to ship size. The former doesn't actually happen and the latter is a bad idea.

The power stream is intended to prevent exploitation of the stabilizer system using "island" ships, where the empty space is left unprotected. If the power stream was built out of conduit blocks, it would look much better and wouldn't be a hindrance to building.

 

[Spartan-228]

Any one know if the AI can use the missile+missile combo? Also has any one found the best way to mount them to ensure the fewest premature detonations?

 

[DrTarDIS]

Yup. Which was pretty much just the same handful of people and some sock puppet alts (I'm sorry, totally legit other people who just happened to make brand new accounts after the change and somehow had expert level knowledge/opinions) trying to make enough noise to drown everybody else out.
Most of them are now banned because they couldn't learn how to play nice with others.

At least a couple of there were users who got banned by {a specific super left wing moderator given power in 2017} abusing their power in a manner that eventually made the ENTIRE MODERATOR TEAM {other than said abuser} quit. Others were players who only saw the news announcements in the launcher and were blindsided by the actual content of the update; 'cause they don't follow schemax on reddit, read through every single thread in the forums(or even bother to register a forum acct with their SD.net acct - 2 seperate but linked entities), and ALSO listen to every minute of every livestream by EVERY dev member...

...Ya really sys 2.0 was a storm of bad communication from inception to implementation the likes of which are rarely seen unless a manure-truck happens to crash into a fan-factory on QA-day. I'm REALLY HAPPY they are doing "bi-weekly" Q&A so this kind of issue won't happen a second time... just wish they would FOLLOW THROUGH with it and ACTUALLY ANSWER questions both on schedule and with answers that aren't inanities. Ya know, to keep things civil and avoid the backlash.

 

[kiddan]

This sounds incredibly promising. How would y'all rate this Prebuild (or latest Dev) from 0-5?

 

[Ckeeze]

This sounds incredibly promising. How would y'all rate this Prebuild (or latest Dev) from 0-5?

4 out of 5
I would only change a couple things (increase weapon range a bit, decrease recoil a bit), some tweaks and this could be a (near) perfect update.

 

[MacThule]

Stabilizers are supposed to promote empty space within ships and tie power generation directly to ship size. The former doesn't actually happen and the latter is a bad idea.

The power stream is intended to prevent exploitation of the stabilizer system using "island" ships, where the empty space is left unprotected. If the power stream was built out of conduit blocks, it would look much better and wouldn't be a hindrance to building.

And it still doesn't tie directly to ship size because nacelles let you amp power and spread targets. Which ends up being a counter to coring.

If the goal is only about making power 100% tied to ship size, then they didn't make that mark, but I do like the balance they've achieved specialized craft.

 

[Spartan-228]

So I did some more tests I and found that one of the biggest problems with the cannon+beam turrets is that unlike cannon+cannon turrets they have to be fiscally pointing in the right direction. Problem is that 95% of the time the AI cant get the turret to point exactly were it needs to to hit the target. This is not a problem for cannon+cannon as they can adjust at what angle they leave the weapon, if the gun is pointing a little too left, up, down, or whatever the round will just exit the output block at the appropriate angle to hit the target.
Because the AI is so shit at actually getting the turret to face the target exactly where it needs to to hit the target, the AI needs to have the same ability with cannon+beam as it dose with cannon+cannon, however I could see it being toned down a bit so that c+b is not quite as spot on as c+c. But the way it is now you can hardly use c+b turrets on a station let alone a ship.

 

[pigghoti]

And then there's the problem with the missile capacity modules. I tested them and you need HUNDREDS of capacity blocks just to break the two missile cap. I mean, we can change it in the configs but this is just ridiculous as a default.

 

[God mode]

And it still doesn't tie directly to ship size because nacelles let you amp power and spread targets. Which ends up being a counter to coring.

If the goal is only about making power 100% tied to ship size, then they didn't make that mark, but I do like the balance they've achieved specialized craft.

I am talking about ships with optimal power systems. If your ship is mostly full of systems, adding nacelles does almost nothing.

Stabilizers might be 1/5 the size of your reactor, and your reactor might be 1/5 the size of all your systems. Moving half of your stabilizers to nacelles could increase stabilizer efficiency by 50%. Decreasing the stabilizer sizes to compensate and reallocating the empty space would provide at most a 2% power gain.

 

[MacThule]

- Shields feel incredibly weak for their cost in modules.

Yeah, there seems to have been substantial "inflation" of the shields in the new system. Which means that nearly all meaningful shield values occur in increments of millions, perhaps with a decimal in the hundred thousands for accuracy at the low end because even relatively small alpha combos evaporate 1m shields instantly (last I tested combat; bout ten-twelve days ago).

Report button is for pussies, :D
like I refuse to push it EVEN when recieving direct insults nothing should be censored in the internet! Look at this way, their mistakes shall be displayed, or if they weren't actually that toxic they will be alloved to exchange their point of view...

Normally this is true, but general tolerance for disrespect is pretty low in here right now. There was a sustained effort to shut down this forum and torpedo the game, which involved a relentless shit-storm of garbage posts (fallacies, distortions, outright false info, and personal attacks) piled onto any productive or positive discussion.

Everyone is just... really bored of wasting time with it, so I think most people at this point have taken the kid-gloves off and are hitting report and getting on with their day.

Plus, no point tolerating trolls if they aren't even good enough at what they do to be funny.

changing your writing style will be necessary if you want to make any impact on the game's direction.

This seems to call back to that core issue that I think we have all recognized with the recently dispersed brigade.

They seem not to want to have any constructive or productive impact nearly so much as they want to stir up bad feeling. Labeling any change in any direction a "failure," including developer implementation of their own suggestions, and also labeling any given game element not changed as "failure." Which is an incredibly easy strategy, since any such assessment is entirely subjective, but... if you're aggressive enough about your opinion and assert repeatedly that your opponents are idiots, then a lot of people will latch on.

One thing they seem, collectively, incapable of is respecting the efforts of others (likely because they don't themselves do a job that requires them to actually take risks and make mistakes in order to achieve long-term goals, like anyone contracting, or running their own business or even department has to do). Of course the result has been that anyone displaying this pattern of non-constructive, disrespectful shit-talk is now just being seen as a troll and treated accordingly, whereas before these members were still being accorded a lot of consideration and respect purely on account of their knowledge and familiarity with the game.

So I think your message here is an extremely important one.

Shit-posters take note: If you are incompetent communicators who don't know how to talk to real human beings with genuine respect and the kind of constructive critique that actually gets things done and drives change in the real world, then it doesn't matter how much you actually know (or claim to know) about the game - you aren't likely to be listened to.
[doublepost=1530546414,1530545679][/doublepost]

I'm sorry, totally legit other people who just happened to make brand new accounts after the change and somehow had expert level knowledge/opinions

This cracked me up! At a certain point it's just so obvious that no one even bothers disputing it... pretending that alting isn't a super-common thing is so naive as to be foolish.

It reminds me of when my kid used to hide under a blanket in plain sight and be like "Hey! Come find me! I'm totally hiding in a really great spot!!" That was before he turned 5.
[doublepost=1530546608][/doublepost]

From my understanding, its sole purpose is to counteract "spaghetti" ships.

What leads you to this conclusion?
[doublepost=1530547342][/doublepost]

This sounds incredibly promising. How would y'all rate this Prebuild (or latest Dev) from 0-5?

Right now I would give it a 3-3.5/5. It looks gorgeous, has a lot of potential, but is still very buggy and needs a lot of balancing. I think after it has been release for a month it should easily hit 4/5 because a lot of the bugs will be sewn up and the balancing will continue to progress.

 

[Nosajimiki]

Stabilizers are supposed to promote empty space within ships and tie power generation directly to ship size. The former doesn't actually happen and the latter is a bad idea.

The power stream is intended to prevent exploitation of the stabilizer system using "island" ships, where the empty space is left unprotected. If the power stream was built out of conduit blocks, it would look much better and wouldn't be a hindrance to building.

It would also give acid damage more opportunity to spread; so, if you got hit in a spaghetti stabilizer conduit, then the damage could propagate to the reactor and stabilizer group whereas a proper nacel arm could spread it out into your armor or adjacent systems depending on configuration.

Any one know if the AI can use the missile+missile combo? Also has any one found the best way to mount them to ensure the fewest premature detonations?

AI could not use them last I checked, and I don't think Schine intends to make them able to. They are supposed to be a special tactics weapon for disadvantaged players (kinda like old warhead lancers), and letting AI spam them would be super toxic because they are very OP.

As for how to set them up. Mount them all along one side of your ship (bottom feels most natural to me.) and place their outputs all the way to that extreme. When you do your bomb run release them, and then straf away. That way, you can get out of their hit zone just by strafing a couple of meters.

This sounds incredibly promising. How would y'all rate this Prebuild (or latest Dev) from 0-5?

4/5 for new mechanics, 2/5 for implementation of said mechanics. New mechanics like lead indicator, beam fall-off, latch on targeting, zoom, and even some of the quirky nerfs like no-gimbal, and shield drop are all very neat, but they are all tied up in weapon classes so there is nothing left to actually design or plan out. With the removal of pulse and classic terciaries, we've been cut down to a very small handful of meaningful weapon configurations (9 to be exact), and most of them are so situational, that they don't mix-and-match well. Also, the Heat/EM/Kinetic thing that replace terciaries feels way too random for me to feel like they are worth using unless I were to actually steal an enemy BP and design a counter ship around it.

New weapons seem like they should be fun, but it got really boring and restrictive feeling for me after a few weeks of messing with them to the point that my last few ship design didn't really get past the reactor design phase because all the weapons choices feel like having to pick what inanely restricting aggravation I want to have to deal with just to get to fight someone. Do I want to have to head-butt my enemies to use Arc-Beams, or hold my mouse button down for 15 seconds so that I can't do anything meaningful with other systems to use a charge cannon, or do I need to make a small perma stealth ship so I can do a single bomber run before getting vaporized, or do I want a super specialized doom beam frigate that can ravage anything it its as long as I don't get blasted while my shields are down?

Don't get me wrong, I like that all of these things are options, but weapons 2.0 was more engaging because you decided what strengths and weaknesses you would traded off for what; so, you could make the weapon you wanted instead of having to pick from a short list of odd-balls.