The New "Vanilla Standard"

[Dr. Whammy]

If servers had more customization for settings on the number of allowed docked entities, this would help quite a bit. It's not realistic, but then again mass limits aren't realistic either.

But essentially, servers have higher mass limits generally because the population demands it. For example, when I was part of the reboot of Light vs Dark, I can't tell you how many players said they would not play on our server if we set our limit to 200k. To be realistic about what was acceptable to players at the time, we had to set our limits higher. Many players were very upset about the cap being limited to "only 1m mass," but it was an acceptable compromise. Our plans are to gradually reduce the mass limit on our server (probably from 1m to 500k) and also reduce the mining bonuses by half. We can't just do it overnight though because that would lead to insane economy imbalances for players that are already established. We have to wait for the next server reset. And then we have to make sure that the lowered limits won't do away with too many ships, leading to players having spaz attacks due to all the time lost on their larger ship builds. There is no way around it though, lowering limits is probably going to cost us some players. I am hoping though that it will help keep the players that stay. But lowering the mass limit is, in itself, just not good enough. Server admins need more controls.

As I said before; it's a player behavior issue.

Acknowledging that players "demand" it, doesn't change the fact that it's detrimental to multi-player as a whole and inconsiderate to the players who are actively trying to reduce their own impact on lag.

"Demand" is kind of a funny word to use in a situation like this. Players want multi-player, PVP and unrestricted building. What exactly are they going to do if all server admins were to suddenly crack down and set limits on size and entity count? ...play single player? I doubt it.

Do you remember my impact on lag when I was on LvD? Do you remember what happened when I spawned in my 100x torpedo launcher? How about Star industries' giant lag base that paralyzed the server when the Light side attacked it? That's what happens when you allow players to build beyond what the server can support.

It's unfortunate but no matter how we spin it, StarMade simply isn't ready for the kind of building people want to do in multi-player. We have no choice but to either scale back or wait on Schine to optimise further.

 

[Benevolent27]

As I said before; it's a player behavior issue.

Acknowledging that players "demand" it, doesn't change the fact that it's detrimental to multi-player as a whole and inconsiderate to the players who are actively trying to reduce their own impact on lag.

"Demand" is kind of a funny word to use in a situation like this. Players want multi-player, PVP and unrestricted building. What exactly are they going to do if all server admins were to suddenly crack down and set limits on size and entity count? ...play single player? I doubt it.

Do you remember my impact on lag when I was on LvD? Do you remember what happened when I spawned in my 100x torpedo launcher? How about Star industries' giant lag base that paralyzed the server when the Light side attacked it? That's what happens when you allow players to build beyond what the server can support.

It's unfortunate but no matter how we spin it, StarMade simply isn't ready for the kind of building people want to do in multi-player. We have no choice but to either scale back or wait on Schine to optimise further.

Part of the issue also is new features make current settings untennable. For example, many servers are still on settings that were ok compromises before fleets were introduced, and they haven't adjusted (nor can they really - because what settings do we have to limit fleets? None.) So right now, server admins simply cannot do anything through server settings to combat the latest issues. They can create artificial rules and micro-manage their servers, but this is not fun for anybody.

But, in any case, I recognize that it is driven by player behavior, so I have been trying to build more of a consensus with players to accept more limits. Maybe even look forward to those new limits. It's all about consensus building.

 

[Asvarduil]

As I said before; it's a player behavior issue.

Acknowledging that players "demand" it, doesn't change the fact that it's detrimental to multi-player as a whole and inconsiderate to the players who are actively trying to reduce their own impact on lag.

"Demand" is kind of a funny word to use in a situation like this. Players want multi-player, PVP and unrestricted building. What exactly are they going to do if all server admins were to suddenly crack down and set limits on size and entity count? ...play single player? I doubt it.

Do you remember my impact on lag when I was on LvD? Do you remember what happened when I spawned in my 100x torpedo launcher? How about Star industries' giant lag base that paralyzed the server when the Light side attacked it? That's what happens when you allow players to build beyond what the server can support.

It's unfortunate but no matter how we spin it, StarMade simply isn't ready for the kind of building people want to do in multi-player. We have no choice but to either scale back or wait on Schine to optimise further.

And this is why I'm starting work on my super-strict, 100-mass-limit server (station size is undetermined, I don't plan to limit planet or asteroid sizes.) I want to put the theory 'omg restrictions suck and maek teh game less fun!' into practice and see how it holds up.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

And this is why I'm starting work on my super-strict, 100-mass-limit server (station size is undetermined, I don't plan to limit planet or asteroid sizes.) I want to put the theory 'omg restrictions suck and maek teh game less fun!' into practice and see how it holds up.

What the... 100 mass? Are you sure you don't mean 100,000 mass? ...because even I don't build at 100 mass.

Either way, let me know when you do, provided I don't make one first. My average mass for ships is between 7,000 and 12,000 mass but I don't mind dialing back to 2,000-5,000 like the good old days.

Edit: On second thought, if you do go for 100 mass, maybe I can bring these guys out of retirement...
.

 

[Asvarduil]

What the... 100 mass? Are you sure you don't mean 100,000 mass? ...because even I don't build at 100 mass.

Oh, I totally mean 100 mass. No '100k'. For ships only, though. I wouldn't outlaw planets, and to have the PvE experience I want to have with stations, they'll need to be more massive than 100 mass.

It brings all sorts of challenges that even the MiniMade 3000 mass-cap server didn't offer, but in my judgement the benefits are worth it: it seriously decreases the iteration times of your builds. This means you get to start hunting pirates more quickly, PvP more quickly, and if you get blown up? You can get up and running more quickly.

Also, those ship designs are awesome.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Oh, I totally mean 100 mass. No '100k'. For ships only, though. I wouldn't outlaw planets, and to have the PvE experience I want to have with stations, they'll need to be more massive than 100 mass.

It brings all sorts of challenges that even the MiniMade 3000 mass-cap server didn't offer, but it seriously decreases the iteration times of your builds. This means you get to start hunting pirates more quickly, PvP more quickly, and if you get blown up? You can get up and running more quickly.

Alright... Challenge accepted.

You can call it "MicroMade" and I will come dominate your server with hundreds of power armor infantry, vehicles and fighters...

FEAR THE MICRO-MINIS!!!

 

[Asvarduil]

Alright... Challenge accepted.

You can call it "MicroMade" and I will come dominate your server with hundreds of power armor infantry, vehicles and fighters...

FEAR THE MICRO-MINIS!!!
View attachment 44570

I like the power armor particularly; they're like mini Zakus.

Just don't paint them pink, or I'll be unable to hit them!

 

[Matt_Bradock]

Oh, I totally mean 100 mass. No '100k'. For ships only, though. I wouldn't outlaw planets, and to have the PvE experience I want to have with stations, they'll need to be more massive than 100 mass.

It brings all sorts of challenges that even the MiniMade 3000 mass-cap server didn't offer, but in my judgement the benefits are worth it: it seriously decreases the iteration times of your builds. This means you get to start hunting pirates more quickly, PvP more quickly, and if you get blown up? You can get up and running more quickly.

Also, those ship designs are awesome.

Sorry to burst your sarcastic bubble, but gigantism is so prevalent that even a server with 3K mass limit (30K for stations) called Minimade died (very unfortunately. It was fun, especially that pirates often had multiple 21K mass ships spawning so you REALLY didn't want to screw with them)

 

[Dr. Whammy]

I like the power armor particularly; they're like mini Zakus.

Just don't paint them pink, or I'll be unable to hit them!

 

[Asvarduil]

Sorry to burst your sarcastic bubble, but gigantism is so prevalent that even a server with 3K mass limit (30K for stations) called Minimade died (very unfortunately. It was fun, especially that pirates often had multiple 21K mass ships spawning so you REALLY didn't want to screw with them)

Yeah, I enjoyed playing on that server. Unfortunately, I found the 3000 mass limit too cumbersome; it takes a while to build those, and having them blown up makes the game still very un-fun.

That's why I'm ratcheting further down. Heck, last night I was able to design and build and test the Mjolnir pirates that I'm considering using on the server I'm going to be working on. Three ships in the space of roughly as many hours. That's how you do fast iteration, and that's how you make this game less punishing on death.

People who do like big ships, don't have to play on the server I'm going to be creating. And, I assure you I'm quite serious - I'm literally putting my money where my mouth is.

Edit: oops...

This makes me sad.

 

[jayman38]

Can fleet and/or sub-entity (rail-docked) counts be found with SQL queries? I wonder if a script can be used to create an automated feedback that auto-kills rail subentities that are added to a mother entity that already has reached some sub-entity limit.

Pseudo code for entities:
Select EntityID
From Entities
Where MotherEntity is not null
And (
Select Count (*)
From SubEntities
On SubEntities.MotherEntity = Entities.MotherEntity
) > 10
group by Player

... some sort of admin command is run with all the returned entities, killing anything that is attached to anything that already has 10 subentities, thus automatically limiting all entities to 10 (the magic number, in this case) sub-entities. Hopefully, you can also send an in-game pop-up that notifies the affected player why their 11th turret just disappeared....

The same sort of thing could be applied to a Fleet table in SQL, if there is one, with a magic number of, say, 5 to keep a limit of 5 ships in a fleet.

Then you could also use the same sort of thing to limit the number of fleets also.

Does Starmade's SQL contain information on subentity and fleet relationships to individual players? If not, then nevermind.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Edit: oops...

This makes me sad.

Sorry... Gimme a minute...


Ahhhh... That's better.

 

[Asvarduil]

Ahhhh... That's better.
View attachment 44586

I'll say.

 

[Valck]

Can fleet and/or sub-entity (rail-docked) counts be found with SQL queries? I wonder if a script can be used to create an automated feedback that auto-kills rail subentities that are added to a mother entity that already has reached some sub-entity limit.
[snip]

server.cfg:

MAX_CHAIN_DOCKING = 25 //maximal deepness of docking chains

...unless I misunderstood something?

 

[Benevolent27]

Can fleet and/or sub-entity (rail-docked) counts be found with SQL queries? I wonder if a script can be used to create an automated feedback that auto-kills rail subentities that are added to a mother entity that already has reached some sub-entity limit.

Pseudo code for entities:
Select EntityID
From Entities
Where MotherEntity is not null
And (
Select Count (*)
From SubEntities
On SubEntities.MotherEntity = Entities.MotherEntity
) > 10
group by Player

... some sort of admin command is run with all the returned entities, killing anything that is attached to anything that already has 10 subentities, thus automatically limiting all entities to 10 (the magic number, in this case) sub-entities. Hopefully, you can also send an in-game pop-up that notifies the affected player why their 11th turret just disappeared....

The same sort of thing could be applied to a Fleet table in SQL, if there is one, with a magic number of, say, 5 to keep a limit of 5 ships in a fleet.

Then you could also use the same sort of thing to limit the number of fleets also.

Does Starmade's SQL contain information on subentity and fleet relationships to individual players? If not, then nevermind.

Yes. You'd get a list of all ships in a fleet, then cross-reference their ID's for other ships that are docked to them. Relatively simple really. Then you'd grab the UID for the ships that are docked to those ships and remove them. But there are certain limitations, such as implementing your own mass restrictions for fleets. Mass is not saved in the SQL database, so your scripting would need to rely on the built in admin-commands.

Edit:
Actually, I must have been in a rush or something, I thought you were referring to fleet ships. Also SQL queries aren't enough on their own if you want this to happen in real-time. You'll need a wrapper set up that can catch when a ship docks to another ship OR when created via the advanced build mode. It could then check to see the total number of ships docked to the the parent entity with SQL queries and then kill the entity that just docked if the total number exceeds the amount allowed. It would be nice if there was some kind of admin command to simply force undock an entity from it's parent.

 

[Asvarduil]

server.cfg:

MAX_CHAIN_DOCKING = 25 //maximal deepness of docking chains

...unless I misunderstood something?

I didn't know you could have a 25-deep hierarchy of chained entities...

Well, I know one setting I'm going to be reducing significantly. I'll probably allow max-chain-docking of 2, because PD turrets. If I feel generous, I might go with a max of 5, but someone's going to have to bribe me something awesome for that to happen.

As far as scripting goes, I'm doing some research. I have some other game modifications I'd like to make that go a bit beyond some of these performance questions. As noted, I want to put some theories I have, into practice.

 

[Matt_Bradock]

I didn't know you could have a 25-deep hierarchy of chained entities...

Well, I know one setting I'm going to be reducing significantly. I'll probably allow max-chain-docking of 2, because PD turrets. If I feel generous, I might go with a max of 5, but someone's going to have to bribe me something awesome for that to happen.

As far as scripting goes, I'm doing some research. I have some other game modifications I'd like to make that go a bit beyond some of these performance questions. As noted, I want to put some theories I have, into practice.

I'd say 3 is best on the chain. For RP supercarriers, 4 (homebase->carrier docked to homebase->light corvette with PD turrets docked to carrier)

 

[jayman38]

I'd say 3 is best on the chain. For RP supercarriers, 4 (homebase->carrier docked to homebase->light corvette with PD turrets docked to carrier)

That last example sounds like a chain of 5 docks to me.
Homebase > Carrier > Carried ship > PD Turret Base > PD Turret Barrel

I've heard of fighters carrying their own PD turrets, so normal ships carrying small fighters could be involved in a 5-link docking system. It wouldn't just be RP supercarriers that would use 5-link chains.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

That last example sounds like a chain of 5 docks to me.
Homebase > Carrier > Carried ship > PD Turret Base > PD Turret Barrel

I've heard of fighters carrying their own PD turrets, so normal ships carrying small fighters could be involved in a 5-link docking system. It wouldn't just be RP supercarriers that would use 5-link chains.

Yeah, I'd have to agree with 5 links to the chain. Occasionally, I (sparingly) use dropships carrying APCs and/or power armor for PVE/roleplay scenarios. I also use ultra-light gunships with 2-4 AMS turrets to distract and thin out swarmers. Obviously, I'd like to not have to add that many entities to the lag equation but I guess that's what this discussion is all about.

 

[Matt_Bradock]

That last example sounds like a chain of 5 docks to me.
Homebase > Carrier > Carried ship > PD Turret Base > PD Turret Barrel

I've heard of fighters carrying their own PD turrets, so normal ships carrying small fighters could be involved in a 5-link docking system. It wouldn't just be RP supercarriers that would use 5-link chains.

Correct. I'm a psychologist, I can't do math. Not even once.