The Quickfire Initiative: Rebalancing StarMade.

    MeRobo

    Scrub
    Joined
    Apr 1, 2015
    Messages
    392
    Reaction score
    531
    • Purchased!
    • Competition Winner - Small Fleets
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    this is my opinion, opinions are not debatable
    Maybe it's not debatable but it certainly is [redacted].
    This config is forceful... and the worst part: it can't /didn't fix underlying Alpha-incomplete-buggy problems!
    The config didn't fix things that are not config related, who could've thought?
    As I have stated before; I am not impressed with attempts to turn StarMade into "other games"
    Interesting coming from a person who sees StarMade as "Minecraft in Space". In case you didn't know, Minecraft is in fact another game.
     

    Tsnonak

    Let's Kautsch!
    Joined
    Dec 14, 2014
    Messages
    235
    Reaction score
    243
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Silver 1
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    Maybe it's not debatable but it certainly is [redacted].

    The config didn't fix things that are not config related, who could've thought?

    Interesting coming from a person who sees StarMade as "Minecraft in Space". In case you didn't know, Minecraft is in fact another game.

    Edit: the post I responded originally just said "s".
     

    Crashmaster

    I got N64 problems but a bitch ain't one
    Joined
    Oct 18, 2013
    Messages
    416
    Reaction score
    302
    (*disclaimer: for the hard of understanding; this is my opinion, opinions are not debatable.)
    If your opinion is "not debatable" why should anyone care if you choose to debate QF's opinion? You seem to be saying, "I won't listen to you," in the same post you seem to complain, "why won't you listen to me," which bothers me. I commend you for following the old, "make your own game," advice and producing a competing config though.
     

    Nauvran

    Cake Build Server Official Button Presser
    Joined
    Jun 30, 2013
    Messages
    2,247
    Reaction score
    1,162
    • Master Builder Bronze
    • Competition Winner - Small Fleets
    • Legacy Citizen 6
    If your opinion is "not debatable" why should anyone care if you choose to debate QF's opinion? You seem to be saying, "I won't listen to you," in the same post you seem to complain, "why won't you listen to me," which bothers me. I commend you for following the old, "make your own game," advice and producing a competing config though.
    he is telling you to ignore him
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Agame3

    Tsnonak

    Let's Kautsch!
    Joined
    Dec 14, 2014
    Messages
    235
    Reaction score
    243
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Silver 1
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    If your opinion is "not debatable" why should anyone care if you choose to debate QF's opinion? You seem to be saying, "I won't listen to you," in the same post you seem to complain, "why won't you listen to me," which bothers me. I commend you for following the old, "make your own game," advice and producing a competing config though.
    you seem to me like one of those people that interprets way too much into what someone says, or posts in this case, which usually leads to confusion... and missing the point and / or intention.

    I am not debating QF's opinion, did not post anything along the lines of "I won't listen to you", or "why won't you listen to me".
    It was simply a short"summary.dump", nothing more, nothing less.
    I have no clue what you're on about.


    "make your own game" might be a tad overdrawn.
    After the anticipated Years-End-Update failed to arrive at years end, I took it upon myself to create a "QuickFix" for v0.201.378.
    Had I known v0.202.86 was being suddenly released, I would not have bothered with 0.201.378, last Info was: QF will come with U2.0...
    misinformation ftw...
    I am not "competing" with QF...

    basically I also share the opinion: "alpha is not an excuse," all these config-changes are simple-fixes that could or should have already been done to improve gameplay for everyone.
    Same thing with my Block-extension, it's simple to add light wedges, or carved-mineral shapes. they could have been added years ago...

    Simplicity is the continuation, nothing more, nothing less...
    it gives players / servers a choice beyond default-vanilla, that is what modding is about.
    it is not my own game, it is StarMade the way it was, slightly different, some might argue better, others may think its garbage...
    that's just how things work.
    Thanks for noticing!
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Mar 10, 2016
    Messages
    459
    Reaction score
    1,163
    • Likeable
    • Thinking Positive
    • Community Content - Silver 2
    Hi.

    Will it be okay in the long run to hook up all outputs of multi-output weapons on turrets to the same controller? (To make it feasible for players to jump into otherwise automatic turrets and be able to hotbar-fire all outputs at once?)

    Asking to make sure there aren't plans to bring back output spam power penalty (it used to make a substantial difference on my really heavy station turrets, developed a design habit there, but haven't payed attention to that mechanic since those days).
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Sep 18, 2014
    Messages
    613
    Reaction score
    438
    Asking to make sure there aren't plans to bring back output spam power penalty (it used to make a substantial difference on my really heavy station turrets, developed a design habit there, but haven't payed attention to that mechanic since those days).
    There are no plans to bring it back.

    You are no more punished for using multi outputs. However your weapon won't be as efficient vs armored target as it could with only one output.

    This solution is much sexier than a blind and boring output penalty.
     
    Joined
    Mar 23, 2018
    Messages
    87
    Reaction score
    67
    Years ago when I was active, (power 1.0), if one lost shields first, he lost the battle. If not, he basically won with his ship intact. Usually. (There still were drones and warhead torpedoes with push pulse engines, to cripple your ship even if you won, but in my limited combat experience they never did appear or did not survive one missile-missile heatseeker salvo.)

    Question is: Now, when armor layers are so important to a ship's defense (everyone says so, but I didn't check myself if it's true or not), how can one make sure that if his ship looses, ship is lost, but if his ship wins, it's good as new, ready to be thrown in to the next fight with no repairs needed?

    I am thinking about scenarios like
    - getting resources by looting hunted AI pirates once I have a decent warship built and basically never mining again,
    - defending territory when different players attack different space stations of mine simultaneously
    - spreading out an enemy fleet then fighting them one by one
    - etc.

    I am interested in answers both about how to do that in Vanilla and in QF settings. Thank you!

    PS: I want to get out of single player old version and join the community again. But it will be a lot less painful to me if I know a bit about the new METAs and about any source of blocks other than mining (Mining then crafting only from what I mined bores me to death, planet or roid. I'd rather mine, sell to shop and buy what I need than craft.).
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Sep 18, 2014
    Messages
    613
    Reaction score
    438
    Question is: Now, when armor layers are so important to a ship's defense (everyone says so, but I didn't check myself if it's true or not), how can one make sure that if his ship looses, ship is lost, but if his ship wins, it's good as new, ready to be thrown in to the next fight with no repairs needed?
    If you lost your armor, or part of it, of course no. You will need to repair your ship in a shipyard, use the astrotech beam or spawn another one.
    It is not possible to change the fact that if your shields never get down you can go on another fight without trouble. That's how shields work. They are not interesting as a gameplay mechanic but they exists for this reason too. You need ships of the similar classes to get interesting fights.
    getting resources by looting hunted AI pirates once I have a decent warship built and basically never mining again,
    This is duable the same way in qf or in vanilla. We didn't changed anything related to the economy. The universe update is there for that. Now this is terribly inefficient in term of time invested and the ship you'll get out of it.
    - defending territory when different players attack different space stations of mine simultaneously
    - spreading out an enemy fleet then fighting them one by one
    In theory possible. In practice it's impossible to manage several fleets at the same time and the ai is too dumb to do anything else.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Agame3
    Joined
    Mar 23, 2018
    Messages
    87
    Reaction score
    67
    Thank you a lot for clarification! So the current versions are still playable in my own crazy way, that is what I needed to know.

    Thing is that without push pulse I am not sure how to automate mining. And mining personally looks like repetitive boring work with no fun in it, for me. While fighting dumb pirates is fun, anytime, for me. Therefore, I'd rather fight 4 hours for some loot than mine 30 minutes for the same loot. My twisted way of having fun, I guess ;-).

    I never used fleets before, not sure I will learn it soon... On the one occasion I managed to get hated by a real faction, I simply used the same big warship to wipe out 3 people who attacked my 2 bases simultaneously. Apparently the missile turrets and the 10 Me shield of my base that was not invulnerable hold long enough. I couldn't have done it in time if shields meant nothing and I would have had to replace chunks of armor after every fight.

    That doesn't mean I was some genius. Simply the community rejected the efficient ugly brick warships in favor of personal ships and that meant my opponents had only low efficiency ships, nothing more. My embeddable missile turrets still look like monochrome drums, roughly 30-40 in diameter and 30-40 tall, shooting through the upper side. Looks like some cheap birthday cake when one shoots. Being drums, they can be docked inside a big brick, upper side at same level as the station/ship's hull and they can turn how they like inside without collisions. It makes no difference, and they will still shoot 90 degrees from the ship/station's hull. From a distance, one could not even see the hull is not continuous. The whole trick is they have inside their own power grid, power cap and all the blocks to shoot 15 Me worth of damage every 15 seconds automatically as guided missile salvos. And that helps a lot with weapons energy usage on a big ship. Ugly but effective. My way ;-)

    Now that I know I can, I will try to find my way again in the latest version. What a challenge it will be in QF!
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Aug 10, 2013
    Messages
    287
    Reaction score
    373
    I've done some more building on these new settings, and I can only confirm my earlier suspicions.
    Oddly enough, I don't seem to be the only one who dislikes something here.

    First, the good:

    -Removing recoil was the only sensible thing to do. Large cannon turrets were creating game stopping lag before, as they hit and tried to go behind their maximum elevation upon firing. I'd ask how could this have stayed in the game so long, but this is Starmade.

    -Removing stabilizer distance mechanic was the only sensible thing to do. It was THE most bothersome detriment to building anything besides the most common stick format ships, right after integrity.

    -Beam+Beam weapons are no longer in the "avoid completely, forget they even exist" category.

    -Armor stacking mechanic was something I campaigned for in the olden days. I dare say it's my exact proposal came to life.

    And now the bad:

    In short, pretty much anything that is not a fix to a glaring problem, rather a rebalance is completely wrong. The ones I found to be the worst:

    -System block weight too high. Too restrictive.

    -Thruster power consumption is EXTREMELY high, extremely restrictive, and scales extremely poorly. Many of my builds would need to be filled with reactors from tail to nose to provide adequate power for adequate manouverability.
    According to the balance team, "It was too easy to reach maximum ratio" which is just not true. If one thing was good about power 2.0, it was thrust.
    Well built small ships could reach max ratio, but not all of them, especially if they heavily focused in other areas.
    Very well built medium ships could still reach max ratio IF they focused on speed
    Big ships could still manouver without frustrating the pilot too much, or drift too far while turning.

    -Thrust ratio settings are wrong: Nothing practical will reach the maximum.
    For example, the interceptor hull I have, which is basically a cockpit on a thruster (can't get more speed oriented than that) can't reach it, and wouldn't be able to power it if it could.
    I'm willing to bet if someone replicated WH40K Eldar ships (no shields, no armor, all speed and guns), they wouldn't get anywhere near it either.

    -"Chamber" capacity was said to be made more generous; It was in fact made even more restricting, reasoning, by the team's own words: "Some options were more desirable than others" - This shouldn't need explaining, but making the desirable ones cost MORE cap does not make the others any more appealing; less in fact, as rest assured I'll be splitting my capacity between the same ones, except at less power, for an overall worse ship.
    If you want people to use a larger variety of "chamber" effects, REDUCE the power cost of the good ones, and drastically lower the cost of the less popular ones. If there's not enough cap. left for a major effect, it'll be filled with something minor that was ignored so far. (Doesn't change the fact some of them are just not useful)

    In conclusion, I strongly feel the Quickfire settings were not tested properly, especially on big stuff (See NagyGeri 01's Odissey upload, or my Retribution WIP that might as well be a station now).
    Im in my second decade of gaming, seen many balance mods, and without exception while they all made sense to their creators, who no doubt had fun using them, were of lower quality than the original and unfit for global acceptance.

    In all honesty, I think the Quickfire team either:

    -A, is not very good at game balancing (no modmaker ever was)
    -B, wants to make their preferred ships more powerful in comparison to the rest (judging by the settings, small to medium sized space rifle format, as anything wider, more geometrically complex, or larger gets shafted)
    -C, is actively malicious (not as far-fetched a thought as I'd like it, considering their responses to anyone who offered critique so far.)

    By all means, let them run their settings on their private server, keep it publicly accessible in case anyone wants to follow suit, but revert most of these changes in the base game.
     
    Joined
    Aug 14, 2017
    Messages
    326
    Reaction score
    162
    System block weight too high. Too restrictive.
    Total system weight for a more or less balanced ship - the one that uses 1/3 of energy on thrusters, shields and weapons - is the same as before the change. Mass was just redistributed from reactors to other systems to prevent things with power priority juggling giving too many benefits. Before the change weapons weighted ~5% of ship mass thus making it absolutely 100% no-brainer to fly around with double to triple the amount of guns compared to a ship that does not use energy juggling. While suffering only 5-7% mass increase.

    Thrust ratio settings are wrong: Nothing practical will reach the maximum.
    How much energy do you use on thrusters (should be 30-40)? Ships under 2k mass should have no problem with reaching top TWR. Maybe a good idea would be to check your server.cfg for server speed which should be set at 50.

    -"Chamber" capacity was said to be made more generous; It was in fact made even more restricting, reasoning, by the team's own words: "Some options were more desirable than others" - This shouldn't need explaining, but making the desirable ones cost MORE cap does not make the others any more appealing; less in fact, as rest assured I'll be splitting my capacity between the same ones, except at less power, for an overall worse ship.
    If you want people to use a larger variety of "chamber" effects, REDUCE the power cost of the good ones, and drastically lower the cost of the less popular ones. If there's not enough cap. left for a major effect, it'll be filled with something minor that was ignored so far. (Doesn't change the fact some of them are just not useful)
    The problem with chambers is that many good ones are incredibly good. For example if you don't have a top stealth chamber yourself you must have access to top scan chamber on your ship or one of your allies. Some chambers just don't work properly or don't work at all (armour chambers have a lot of problems). And low damage chamber yeah, that one still a problem with how it works.

    Right now chambers were made in such a way that they encourage specialised ships and prevent you from loading on all the effects you want. Though now you should be able to combine two full chambers in most cases instead of one as before. Especially for combat ones.

    wants to make their preferred ships more powerful in comparison to the rest (judging by the settings, small to medium sized space rifle format, as anything wider, more geometrically complex, or larger gets shafted)
    It is physically impossible to encourage people to build big, wide ships without changing the laws of our universe. You are basically proposing to make system to work against the laws of geometry. The only wide ships that would ever encouraged are spaghetti likes.

    As for complex shapes they are impossible to achieve without complete system redesign from ground up with much more complex rules for how ships must be built. Which is absolutely beyond what can be achieved with config changes.
     
    Joined
    Aug 10, 2013
    Messages
    287
    Reaction score
    373
    It is physically impossible to encourage people to build big, wide ships without changing the laws of our universe. You are basically proposing to make system to work against the laws of geometry. The only wide ships that would ever encouraged are spaghetti likes.

    As for complex shapes they are impossible to achieve without complete system redesign from ground up with much more complex rules for how ships must be built. Which is absolutely beyond what can be achieved with config changes.
    Do you really believe this, or just lie to win an argument? This is the exact opposite of the truth, and a really cheap way of trying to make a point.

    The game already let me build however big I wanted before the quickfire config artificially created your warped version of "reality".
    The FACT is, nothing in the material universe says big things can't go fast. Drive them with sufficient force and they can.
    A big heavy sports bike accelerates better and reaches a higher top speed than a tiny scooter.
    A meteor flies magnitudes faster than a pebble you threw.

    Some elements of the SM community got this weird idea in their heads, that big things can't fly well, and apparently they won't rest until they manage to thoroughly mess up the game with it. This is not realistic, nor does it make the game any better.

    Why do they want this, though?
    Because they are evil: It's harder to troll big ships because they die slower. Of course lowlifes will want to twist out an advantage however they can.
    Same's true for this apparent hatred of scanners: Of course they want to make it more difficult to get max level scanning, how else would they grief unsuspecting players? They can't win a fight if they get spotted....

    More to come when I have the stomach for it.
    This kind of obstinate misinformedness is getting really tiresome.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: jayman38

    MeRobo

    Scrub
    Joined
    Apr 1, 2015
    Messages
    392
    Reaction score
    531
    • Purchased!
    • Competition Winner - Small Fleets
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    A big heavy sports bike accelerates better and reaches a higher top speed than a tiny scooter.
    The relative size difference between these two bikes is smaller than between small ships and large ships tends to be from my experience, also, these bikes don't have to carry the means to produce the fuel they need (which power reactors in Starmade effectively are). On a side note, a considerable amount of the additional mass of the sports bike tends to be due to a bigger engine (the relative displacement difference I found here is considerably larger than the size difference between a sports bike and a scooter).
    A meteor flies magnitudes faster than a pebble you threw.
    This comparison is even worse and makes about as much sense as saying a Peregrine Falcon can go faster than an Elephant and also is smaller, so it makes perfect sense that small things can go faster.
     

    Reilly Reese

    #1 Top Forum Poster & Raiben Jackpot Winner
    Joined
    Oct 13, 2013
    Messages
    5,122
    Reaction score
    1,335
    • Thinking Positive
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 6
    Do you really believe this, or just lie to win an argument? This is the exact opposite of the truth, and a really cheap way of trying to make a point.

    The game already let me build however big I wanted before the quickfire config artificially created your warped version of "reality".
    The FACT is, nothing in the material universe says big things can't go fast. Drive them with sufficient force and they can.
    A big heavy sports bike accelerates better and reaches a higher top speed than a tiny scooter.
    A meteor flies magnitudes faster than a pebble you threw.

    Some elements of the SM community got this weird idea in their heads, that big things can't fly well, and apparently they won't rest until they manage to thoroughly mess up the game with it. This is not realistic, nor does it make the game any better.

    Why do they want this, though?
    Because they are evil: It's harder to troll big ships because they die slower. Of course lowlifes will want to twist out an advantage however they can.
    Same's true for this apparent hatred of scanners: Of course they want to make it more difficult to get max level scanning, how else would they grief unsuspecting players? They can't win a fight if they get spotted....

    More to come when I have the stomach for it.
    This kind of obstinate misinformedness is getting really tiresome.
    Do you really believe this, or just lie to win an argument? This is the exact opposite of the truth, and a really cheap way of trying to make a point.

    The game already let me build however big I wanted before the quickfire config artificially created your warped version of "reality".
    The FACT is, nothing in the material universe says big things can't go fast. Drive them with sufficient force and they can.
    A big heavy sports bike accelerates better and reaches a higher top speed than a tiny scooter.
    A meteor flies magnitudes faster than a pebble you threw.

    Some elements of the SM community got this weird idea in their heads, that big things can't fly well, and apparently they won't rest until they manage to thoroughly mess up the game with it. This is not realistic, nor does it make the game any better.

    Why do they want this, though?
    Because they are evil: It's harder to troll big ships because they die slower. Of course lowlifes will want to twist out an advantage however they can.
    Same's true for this apparent hatred of scanners: Of course they want to make it more difficult to get max level scanning, how else would they grief unsuspecting players? They can't win a fight if they get spotted....

    More to come when I have the stomach for it.
    This kind of obstinate misinformedness is getting really tiresome.
    Imagine disregarding any balance between larger and smaller vessels and making size have zero effect on roles.

    Sounds like a RedEagle wet dream where battleships are actually fighters.
     
    Joined
    Aug 14, 2017
    Messages
    326
    Reaction score
    162
    The game already let me build however big I wanted before the quickfire config artificially created your warped version of "reality".
    And you still can. But big and wide are different things. Armour and minimizing cross-section presenting to the enemy depends on being thin and somewhat long. Unless there are other practical reasons to build a wide ship it won't be very good.

    The FACT is, nothing in the material universe says big things can't go fast. Drive them with sufficient force and they can.

    Some elements of the SM community got this weird idea in their heads, that big things can't fly well, and apparently they won't rest until they manage to thoroughly mess up the game with it. This is not realistic, nor does it make the game any better.
    Wrong. In our universe the main characteristics of the ship won't be speed. It will be acceleration. And it is limited by material properties. If I remember right a ship that is capable of doing 5-6 g acceleration can't be heavier than 50k tons as long as we are using steel composites. Carbon materials can raise it significantly but have their own problems.

    Accelerate a big ship with enough force and it will crumple.
     

    The Judge

    Kill me please
    Joined
    Aug 12, 2014
    Messages
    414
    Reaction score
    185
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    tbh i feel like having massive discrepancies between "large" ships and "small" ships doesnt help the game that much
    rewards titanmade instead of good tactics and design

    although i still like me a big ass battleship
     
    Joined
    Jul 5, 2013
    Messages
    154
    Reaction score
    91
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 6
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    If your titan is too slow then let's add some more effect to the thrusters. But fighters need to be faster to be useful (nobody would like titan vs titan only) so they would be faster by some way. Problem solved ! Oh wait... your titan's still slower than fighters so you'll continue whining about it ?
     
    Joined
    Dec 5, 2015
    Messages
    37
    Reaction score
    23
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    And you still can. But big and wide are different things. Armour and minimizing cross-section presenting to the enemy depends on being thin and somewhat long. Unless there are other practical reasons to build a wide ship it won't be very good.
    There are, in fact, a multitude of reasons (real-life and in-game) for a ship to be wide. These reasons include necessary systems such as power (nuclear reactors are not exactly small), fuel, ammo, and crew supply storage, crew habitation, weapon systems, communications, redundant systems, almost anything that makes a ship functional will necessitate a departure from the two-dimensional plane. For example, look at the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit bomber. The ideal stealth shape is an infinite flat plane, and that is how the design began. Once fuel, engines, weapon bays, and crew spaces were added, the design expanded.

    Building wider also reduces the maximum torque on the ship (Torque=force times distance) by allowing for a mass distribution closer to the center of mass. The reduced axial dimensions also improve handling characteristics (crucial for a combat ship) and efficiency of logistics (refueling, docking, etc.).

    Wrong. In our universe the main characteristics of the ship won't be speed. It will be acceleration. And it is limited by material properties. If I remember right a ship that is capable of doing 5-6 g acceleration can't be heavier than 50k tons as long as we are using steel composites. Carbon materials can raise it significantly but have their own problems.
    That is true to an extent. There are, of course, other considerations such as payload restrictions and stopping time. Payload items (such as humans) may not take kindly to prolonged elevated g-forces, and the payload range must, therefore, be taken into consideration when designing ship thrusters. As far as stopping time is concerned, the maximum speed a ship can attain can be summarized into just three concepts: The g-force restrictions imposed by payload, passengers, or other factors, the equilibrium point at which the material resistance prevents any further acceleration (Yes, this is largely negligible in space) (Drag increases with the square of speed), and the structural limits of the actual vessel. The stopping time must also be calculated around these concepts. In theory, an Iowa-class battleship could stop in the space of 10 meters; however, this would severely damage or sink the ship from the force of the stopping thrusters (only rocket engines would be powerful enough to achieve this) alone. In space, this issue is compounded because of the much more hostile environment.



    If you wish to raise any further points, I will be glad to discuss them with you.
     

    Tsnonak

    Let's Kautsch!
    Joined
    Dec 14, 2014
    Messages
    235
    Reaction score
    243
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Silver 1
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    Quickfire = fast and "unbureaucratic" changes...

    there is nothing to discuss here...

    #waveshand