StarMade Weapons Update Prebuild

[Spartan-228]

So I found another weapons combo the AI can't use beam+beam.

 

[Euke]

Am I looking at the chambers wrong or is perma stealth no longer possible?

 

[pigghoti]

you know, after some testing myself I feel there needs to be a small UI update with a flight direction indicator. Like a small indicator of where your inertia is pulling you allowing you to fire torpedoes (missile+missile) more accurately at speed. As is currently, I couldn't hit a moving barn even if I was at point blank range! Also, the turret problem could be solved if the beam+cannon turrets were to be set to aim in front of where its target was moving, allowing the speed of the turret to correct for the movement of the ship.

 

[Ckeeze]

So I found another weapons combo the AI can't use beam+beam.

I really don't think there should be 3 out of 9 combos that the AI can't even use (let alone be potent with)... AI faction fleets (and other NPC enemies) would never be able to challange (or at least pose some threath to) the player sence all 3 of those are OP as fuck, plus instead of a fleet this might push the players to use just ONE ship, and where is the fun in that?

 

[jacabo136]

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.

Ah ok! I forgot about the "islands", thank you! Though, I still don't see how its more fun if a ship has to have larger dimensions in order to obtain more power. I feel like all that does is force empty space in a ship, which looks messy and kills efficiency (because there is a lot more mass compared to systems).

(Warning: There is a lot more writing here. My main point is all the way at the bottom, while the rest in-between is just me going through every possible way I can think of that creating empty space in a ship might be perceived as a good thing and then explaining how creating empty space does not accomplish such goals)

Maybe the idea is to encourage adding more armor? Then again, one can't just add more thrusters (because of power limitations), and therefore more armor (you're still making the same sacrifice between armor and maneuverability either way), so I would think that armor would be equally encouraged with or without stabilizers.

The same could be said of creating interior space, because it is still adding more blocks that aren't systems, just like adding armor. The only difference is that this time the tradoff is between maneuverability and aesthetics. This will always be the case, as one can only have a finite amount of systems in any given build, thanks to stabilizers. For example, using thrusters as the floor or something doesn't have the benefit of creating more room for systems like it used to because there will still be the same number of systems anyway (because of power limitations), effectively making it so one is just adding more non-system blocks for interior. (I must say, I wouldn't be against the Devs giving interior spaces a functional purpose. That could open up more possibilities for ship and system design. I know that MacThule had a pretty good idea about integrating interior and chambers.)

Perhaps the idea is to encourage chamber usage? Well, that shouldn't be an issue, so long as chambers can do something that a bunch of system blocks of equal size cannot.

I don't think the system restriction really has any interesting way to discourage just filling a place with systems in a boring fashion, either. Right now, stabilizers try to encourage prioritizing the amount of systems in a ship by limiting how many systems blocks can be in a ship with a limited power output.

Ideally, this role would be taken on by the resource cost of the systems themselves. This would encourage utilizing systems in an efficient and thought-out manner, a far more interesting alternative to just whacking them in to fill the gaps. One way this could be applied is designing within the constrictions of a ship's role. For example, a builder might think about making an attack cruiser that is meant to get in, strike quickly, and get back out. Ideally, this cruiser would have relatively big guns and lots of maneuverability to get in, deal as much damage as possible to the enemy, and then get out of dodge. Those two types of systems would serve the ship much better than more shields, as the cruiser would, if operated properly, not really need that many shields to get in and out quickly, as it would not be exposed to enemy fire for prolonged periods of time.

Unfortunely, currently it is very easy to obtain what is essentially an unlimited supply of resources with a big enough salvager, making resource allocation not a huge concern for any player.

Some people may also argue that because stabilizers create space within a ship, players can make systems in uniform clusters without just filling in the cracks between rooms and so forth, creating weird shapes. However, this issue is already solved in the forms of system integrity (which punishes players if their system blocks are too irregular) and chambers, both of which provide nice clusters of blocks that if damaged can cause systems to not function as well. To top it all off, this sort of targeting currently is not possible, because even with a sniper zoom anda lead indicator, being that specific in targeting a ship is super difficult unless the targeted ship is massive. (oooo, I just got an idea. What if a chamber for recon gives the ability to have a lead indicator for system clusters based on center of mass? I'm totally gonna go suggest that.)

To sum it up, I can not come up with any positive side to creating empty space within builds using stabilizers. If I am missing something here, then PLEASE, anyone, write a response to showcase that. In fact, I IMPLORE the community to prove me wrong. I want to see the positive side of stabilizers if there is one.

 

[jacabo136]

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.

I agree that the capacity modules feel pretty weird. I did some testing in singleplayer, and found that it took almost three hundred modules to get to three missiles, but only about two hundred to get to three missiles, with the amount of modules need to get another missile steadily decreasing all the way up to twenty missiles (that's as far as I went). I feel like it would make a lot more sense to simply have a flat number of modules per one missile increase. Say, one hundred modules or so, perhaps more. This would make the system much easier to use, as it's easier to plan for a linear increase in modules for the desired missile quantity. Ships also should be able to store two missiles by default, because why wouldn't anyone just go ahead and place the one extra block required to get two missiles?

 

[NTIMESc]

First, let me say that I'm not a fan of the way in which stabilizers function, mainly because they seem too abstracted from reality, as to make the system uninteresting and less meaningful to the player. I would much prefer them to be redesigned and relabeled as a cooling system for heat dissipation or similar, but that is another story.

I still don't see how its more fun if a ship has to have larger dimensions in order to obtain more power. I feel like all that does is force empty space in a ship, which looks messy and kills efficiency

Stabilizers are not about forcing empty space. They are about abstracting a simulation of the difficulties surrounding the generation of large amounts of power in a way that can scale and be balanced for game play.

I must say, I wouldn't be against the Devs giving interior spaces a functional purpose. That could open up more possibilities for ship and system design.

This, I believe, is part of the plan. It's just not there yet.

Right now, stabilizers try to encourage prioritizing the amount of systems in a ship by limiting how many systems blocks can be in a ship with a limited power output.

Ideally, this role would be taken on by the resource cost of the systems themselves.

I wouldn't agree with this on the grounds that I can easily afford to buy more "systems" (and they are abundantly available) than, my car, for example, could possibly run. It's meager power generation system, which not only generates excessive amounts of heat, is extremely limited in it's ability to be upgraded by any significant amount without a costly redesign of the "reactor" and a likely increase in the dimensions of the vehicle, both of which, I imagine, would carry a cost far above that of the systems being added. Of course, this is a science fiction game, and you could just as easily argue that the power of the sun can fit in the palm of your hand and be done with it.

Ideally, this cruiser would have relatively big guns and lots of maneuverability to get in, deal as much damage as possible to the enemy, and then get out of dodge.

Isn't this already possible? Admittedly, I have not tried many experiments or tests, but I believe shields consume quite a lot of power even at rest. If shields were minimal, or omitted, this would leave more of the scarce power to be directed towards larger weapons. It may be that weapon power consumption far exceeds that of shields making the trade-off non-viable, but that would seem to be something quite easily balanced. Maybe someone else has some insight on these types of power trade-offs that could help the developers.

because stabilizers create space within a ship, players can make systems in uniform clusters without just filling in the cracks between rooms and so forth, creating weird shapes. However, this issue is already solved in the forms of system integrity (which punishes players if their system blocks are too irregular) and chambers, both of which provide nice clusters of blocks that if damaged can cause systems to not function as well. To top it all off, this sort of targeting currently is not possible,

I don't think system targeting was specifically mentioned in any of the news posts, but there was a point, quite a while back when AI targeting switched to targeting system blocks instead of the ship core. My assumption is that the developers are aware that system targeting is a desired feature, and it was at least hinted that the group outlining system implemented in v0.199.646 would continued to be updated for information warfare. The first example of this was in the initial Power 2.0 update with the recon and stealth chambers allowing you to reveal reactor and system groups when scanning. Now we just need the ability to target those revealed systems.

In summary, for me, the power/stabilizer system needs some reworking and a coat of varnish to make it more pleasant/interesting/sensible. Further updates will hopefully address issues with functional interior space, as well as enhanced targeting/information from scanning.
[doublepost=1530722674,1530721973][/doublepost]

I feel like it would make a lot more sense to simply have a flat number of modules per one missile increase. Say, one hundred modules or so, perhaps more. This would make the system much easier to use, as it's easier to plan for a linear increase in modules for the desired missile quantity. Ships also should be able to store two missiles by default, because why wouldn't anyone just go ahead and place the one extra block required to get two missiles?

I do agree that the missile capacity system is not easy enough to use, but imagine for a second, if you actually had to build the missiles you are firing, and thus allocate the space needed for however many missiles you wanted to hold.
Missile power can vary greatly and I don't think it would make sense to have a uniform x number of capacity blocks per missile. I can imagine that one doomsday missile might easily take up the space of 100 smaller missiles. Barring a switch to actual non-regenerating ammo that you have to load onto your ship and dock at a station to replenish, the capacity system seems to be pretty good, but maybe needs a small buff.

 

[jacabo136]

First, let me say that I'm not a fan of the way in which stabilizers function, mainly because they seem too abstracted from reality, as to make the system uninteresting and less meaningful to the player. I would much prefer them to be redesigned and relabeled as a cooling system for heat dissipation or similar, but that is another story.


Stabilizers are not about forcing empty space. They are about abstracting a simulation of the difficulties surrounding the generation of large amounts of power in a way that can scale and be balanced for game play.


This, I believe, is part of the plan. It's just not there yet.


I wouldn't agree with this on the grounds that I can easily afford to buy more "systems" (and they are abundantly available) than, my car, for example, could possibly run. It's meager power generation system, which not only generates excessive amounts of heat, is extremely limited in it's ability to be upgraded by any significant amount without a costly redesign of the "reactor" and a likely increase in the dimensions of the vehicle, both of which, I imagine, would carry a cost far above that of the systems being added. Of course, this is a science fiction game, and you could just as easily argue that the power of the sun can fit in the palm of your hand and be done with it.


Isn't this already possible? Admittedly, I have not tried many experiments or tests, but I believe shields consume quite a lot of power even at rest. If shields were minimal, or omitted, this would leave more of the scarce power to be directed towards larger weapons. It may be that weapon power consumption far exceeds that of shields making the trade-off non-viable, but that would seem to be something quite easily balanced. Maybe someone else has some insight on these types of power trade-offs that could help the developers.


I don't think system targeting was specifically mentioned in any of the news posts, but there was a point, quite a while back when AI targeting switched to targeting system blocks instead of the ship core. My assumption is that the developers are aware that system targeting is a desired feature, and it was at least hinted that the group outlining system implemented in v0.199.646 would continued to be updated for information warfare. The first example of this was in the initial Power 2.0 update with the recon and stealth chambers allowing you to reveal reactor and system groups when scanning. Now we just need the ability to target those revealed systems.

In summary, for me, the power/stabilizer system needs some reworking and a coat of varnish to make it more pleasant/interesting/sensible. Further updates will hopefully address issues with functional interior space, as well as enhanced targeting/information from scanning.

Thanks for the reply! For the parts of my response that don't seem to be as much of a point, I was trying to run through everthing I could think of to justify stabilizers, no matter how much weight such discussions have carried in recent times.

I think you're right about prioritizing one type of system over another, that it is already in place, so it would seem that filling up blocks shouldn't be as much of a problem because there still is the choice between what systems a ship really needs.

I really appreciate that you brought it up that stabilizers intentionally make power generation more difficult. I had not thought of that angle, though to me this game seems to be about making whatever ship you want and having it fly around and do stuff, rather than the difficulties of actually maintaining said ship and adding more stuff over time. One basically has unlimited time to go through with said "costly reactor upgrade" anyway. As a result, stabilizers create more of a chore to add more systems than anything else.

So yes, I do think that for the purposes of this game, players may as well "have the power of the sun in their hands and be done with it", because this game is more about designing your dream ship and watching it go than the act of actually figuring out the engineering behind it.

I believe that the only roles reactors should play within the game are to be a volitile area of the ship to b protected and to make the functioning of systems on a ship more believable to the player.

 

[MacThule]

I really don't think there should be 3 out of 9 combos that the AI can't even use (let alone be potent with)... AI faction fleets (and other NPC enemies) would never be able to challange (or at least pose some threath to) the player sence all 3 of those are OP as fuck, plus instead of a fleet this might push the players to use just ONE ship, and where is the fun in that?

I'm pretty sure that the AI can be taught to use beam+beam. Cannon+missile as well. Missile+missile... well, that might be hard to teach a basic AI to use.

The AI hasn't been touched while new weapons have been tweaked, but it will be. So I am going to refrain drawing any conclusions about which weapons the updated AI will be able to use when the big universe update round pushes out.

tl;dr - I don't think that the status of several weapons as being unusable by AI will continue past the universe beta release. Maybe one will (which would still kinda suck but is acceptable IMO).

 

[Spartan-228]

I'm pretty sure that the AI can be taught to use beam+beam. Cannon+missile as well. Missile+missile... well, that might be hard to teach a basic AI to use.

The AI hasn't been touched while new weapons have been tweaked, but it will be. So I am going to refrain drawing any conclusions about which weapons the updated AI will be able to use when the big universe update round pushes out.

tl;dr - I don't think that the status of several weapons as being unusable by AI will continue past the universe beta release. Maybe one will (which would still kinda suck but is acceptable IMO).

The weapons update is technicality not out yet it is still a pre-build. So I hope the AI will get fixed before the full release of the weapons update.

 

[pigghoti]

It would be nice if they made a system that allows you to customize how blocks work in game rather then forcing people to play with the configs.

 

[GnomeKing]

seems to be about making whatever ship you want and having it fly around and do stuff, rather than the difficulties of actually maintaining said ship and adding more stuff over time

 

[MacThule]

The weapons update is technicality not out yet it is still a pre-build. So I hope the AI will get fixed before the full release of the weapons update.

They've already said AI is to be updated as part of the beta galaxy update. So it should be next round after weapons releases - wish it was all at once.

 

[Jeryia]

The weapons update is technicality not out yet it is still a pre-build. So I hope the AI will get fixed before the full release of the weapons update.

Unless I'm misinterpreting what Lancake is saying I don't think it will happen this for the release of the weapons update.

AI requires some rework to make it work properly with all weapons, it's something to work on after this release.

Source: T3036 AI doesn't use Missile+Missile bombs correctly

 

[Edymnion]

They've already said AI is to be updated as part of the beta galaxy update. So it should be next round after weapons releases - wish it was all at once.

Yup, they're saving the AI update pretty much for last because they don't want to have to do it multiple times.

Every time a new block functionality gets added, the AI has to be updated to know how to use it. So they're waiting until they get all of the functionality in place before redoing the AI from scratch so that they only have to do it once.

 

[JinM]

redoing the AI from scratch

And at the end they will implement machine learning AI in combination with OpenAI.

 

[NTIMESc]

It would be nice if they made a system that allows you to customize how blocks work in game rather then forcing people to play with the configs.

You aren't forced to play with configs, and in fact, it's better if most people don't mess with them, unless they are earnestly testing values for the purpose of finding bugs for evaluating balance in the game. I would rather not see a nice friendly UI for casual tinkering until the core features have stabilized and mechanics are no longer being added or removed. Writing documentation or formatting information for public consumption can be quite time consuming and probably isn't the best use of the developers time at this stage. But the configs are all just XML files, so anyone can take a stab at making a web app or something to parse and format them into a nice UI.

 

[StormWing0]

And at the end they will implement machine learning AI in combination with OpenAI.

Only useful if their NPC AI is using it and controlling things like a player, won't be much help for turrets and other AI module things.

 

[Edymnion]

Well personally, I still want Block Based AI.

 

[MacThule]

Only useful if their NPC AI is using it and controlling things like a player, won't be much help for turrets and other AI module things.

Which the NPC factions are. We could very soon be looking at a "Civ in Space" situation.

Edymnion block based AI or just a single AI block interface with deep customization options would be so nice.