The Quickfire Initiative: Rebalancing StarMade.

[DrTarDIS]

Can you provide example of solution for Starmade not vacuum based.

These words are meaningless when arranged together this way. I'm sure you've got some headcannon/jargon going on that makes them mean something to you, but ... Use your words, convey the information.

 

[Crashmaster]

"Nurse, NURSE! The bandaid on my knuckle wrinkles you incompetent cow!"

 

[DrTarDIS]

And how do they not stem from one common resource pool? As far as I know, bar chamber effects that are not linearly related to their mass, everything you put on the ship takes blocks?

WHile you get back to me on exactly what "not vacuume based" means:

Yes. blocks/mass are a common resource pool. Are they balanced?

EG if I have 10^3 weapons, 10^3 thrusters, and 10^3 shields do they require the exact same amount of reactor blocks to function at 100%? Do they have the same level/scalar(magnitude of blocks or magnitude of mass) to match up?

This is a major part of the "length" of the 3 legs I was talking about.


The next part is regarding the "balance" of those 3 interacting: Which way does the arrow go on the "wins against" triangle?

1. if mobility is supposed to win against weapons, the mathematical method of that "win" matters.
2. if shields are supposed to win against weapons, the mathematical method of that "win"matters.
3. ad no matter which way the arrow turns it MUST be kept in that direction for the 3rd option.

Let's take #1 there as an example. You'd have to carefully control weapon speeds and engagement ranges so that at X distance any shot at center-of-object from "weapon" cube towards "thruster" cube WILL miss if thruster cube changes direction. Not that hard when you define an "minimum engagement range" (EG the max distance of beams since they are instant hit scan) as the point where the 10*10*10 cube cannot avoid a missle or canon round moving at Xm/s to match with the beam hit scan. "Shield" cube then has to be tuned to "lose" vs that "weapon" cube over engagement time.

The same sort of base balance is true with #2: if shields win against weapons, Mobility has to be balanced so it's VERY hard to avoid non hit-scan at almost any rage. Then Shield cube has to be tuned to never fall at all unless a larger weapon-cube is against them.

It's just math, but it HAS to come from a common base variable(required e/sec and blocks/mass) and it HAS to follow that tripod.

This is NOT the case with he arbitrary mass and energy requirements of the basic/crucial systems. This has to be FIXED for real balance.

A spreadsheet with highschool MSOffice(or ope office, or Google Sheets) will show you very quickly what things need to be.

After that BASIC balance is established you can move onto adding Lizard and Spock in the form of Ion/em/poison/acid/fire/ice/dark/care-bear-stare effect/resistance, Lock-on/ECM/counter/ECM, after-burners/slow/snare/dizzy, and whatnot but they again HAVE to follow a balanced cross-defeat/win matrix(Like Rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock). and they HAVE to be balanced in-class.

 

[Zoolimar]

EG if I have 10^3 weapons, 10^3 thrusters, and 10^3 shields do they require the exact same amount of reactor blocks to function at 100%? Do they have the same level/scalar(magnitude of blocks or magnitude of mass) to match up?

Yes or close to it.
Same mass in thrusters, weapons and shields takes more or less the same energy. The variation should be less than 1% especially at large sizes. But shields and thrusters were specifically made to be larger by volume than weapons of the same mass - to facilitate their use as ablative armour after shields/armour die and to make weapons easier to use on turrets without making ships 1/3-1/2 turret but size.

if mobility is supposed to win against weapons, the mathematical method of that "win" matters.

Yeah, we did try to calculate average displacement achievable by a ship of a certain size and how hard it is to dodge. And used it to plan the cannon projectile speed. Manhattan tested it and if I remember right still found it to easy to dodge but he is an experienced PVPer.

if shields are supposed to win against weapons, the mathematical method of that "win"matters.

They are not. They are around 1/4 as effective as weapons by mass/energy.

 

[Forsyth]

A couple of questions:

1) Can someone explain to me how the Low/High damage resistance chambers work? Does it base the damage off of a percentage of max shield strength?

2) Do bombs still bypass shields?

 

[Zoolimar]

1) Can someone explain to me how the Low/High damage resistance chambers work? Does it base the damage off of a percentage of max shield strength?

Yes it uses percentage of max shield. If the damage is over or below a threshold set in Effects file it gets partially mitigated. The more the difference between the damage and threshold the higher is the mitigation.

 

[Forsyth]

Yes it uses percentage of max shield. If the damage is over or below a threshold set in Effects file it gets partially mitigated. The more the difference between the damage and threshold the higher is the mitigation.

Ok, thank you

 

[Dr. Whammy]

2) Do bombs still bypass shields?

Under the latest config; Technically "No", but in practice, "sometimes"... Though this is most likely a bug.

The "new" MM combo is essentially a repeat of the old missile/damage pulse combo from weapons 2.0 AKA "nuke"
It is guided and extremely powerful for its size but also very slow. At a full 1:1 ratio, the weapon's speed is just 100m/sec. so most player ships will just jink away from them and/or use point defense. You can add a partial ratio and get roughly 200m/sec. with decent damage but in reality, you'll likely only be able to hit stations, very slow craft or the occasional mid-sized NPC.

Still, it leaves a nice sized hole...

Spoiler: M/M combo 100 block array 1:1 ratio vs unshielded adv. armor

As I mentioned above, there is a bug where it sometimes bleeds damage through weakened shields. I've not been able to identify the cause or the extent of bleed through just yet.

 

[Forsyth]

Thanks

 

[DrTarDIS]

Same mass in thrusters, weapons and shields takes more or less the same energy. The variation should be less than 1% especially at large sizes. But shields and thrusters were specifically made to be larger by volume than weapons of the same mass - to facilitate their use as ablative armour after shields/armour die and to make weapons easier to use on turrets without making ships 1/3-1/2 turret but size.

Armor is armor. Giving other systems that role is not balance. You just took the job of hull and assigned it to other blocks. This is not balance. No wonder you find it hard.

Yeah, we did try to calculate average displacement achievable by a ship of a certain size and how hard it is to dodge. And used it to plan the cannon projectile speed. Manhattan tested it and if I remember right still found it to easy to dodge but he is an experienced PVPer.

They(shields) are not. They are around 1/4 as effective as weapons by mass/energy.

SO they're not actually "balanced" that "leg" is 1/4 the size of the others.

 

[Zoolimar]

SO they're not actually "balanced" that "leg" is 1/4 the size of the others.

Sorry? You think "balanced" for shields is to have the same per energy regen efficiency as weapons damage or close to it?

 

[Scypio]

2) Do bombs still bypass shields?

As whammy said current "bomb" configs are not bypassing shields.
However if you do bring back the real bomb via the configs they will bypass shields.

 

[Forsyth]

Something a friend and I are coming across in-game:
When we're building turrets, they point off-axis from the target ship. Is this because of how the AI works? Rail mass enhancers are not the problem, nor is it collisions. Here's an image (the front turret is aiming at the center of the ship, the other two aren't)


Here are images from each of the turrets during a second test (two of them are aiming at the edge, one is aiming at the center. Also, partway through the middle turret decided to reset its positioning and not move. Not sure why...):

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Something a friend and I are coming across in-game:
When we're building turrets, they point off-axis from the target ship. Is this because of how the AI works? Rail mass enhancers are not the problem, nor is it collisions. Here's an image (the front turret is aiming at the center of the ship, the other two aren't)
View attachment 57123

Here are images from each of the turrets during a second test (two of them are aiming at the edge, one is aiming at the center. Also, partway through the middle turret decided to reset its positioning and not move. Not sure why...):
View attachment 57124View attachment 57125View attachment 57126

I think that's an AI bug.

I find that my larger turrets often fire off axis. The larger the turret, and the longer it fires, the more off center it gets.

Example: This missile turret will aim more than 70 degrees off center and then stop firing because it can no longer "see" the target.


I also had a small-ish station with a single missile system consisting of a Z-axis base circling the structure like a ring and dual X-axis missile arrays embedded in the ring and extending out sideways by 10-15 meters. It was designed to give nearly full 360 degree coverage in all directions. The thing fired but it would always rotate on its Z-axis by 45 degrees or more. ...any more and one of the missiles would hit the ring base or main station structure.

I never got a hard answer on what causes it.

Also, nice product placement advertising for Gmodism Industries!

 

[Forsyth]

lol yeah, GHI heavy test hull is just my go-to for testing weapons (fun fact: Those turrets can shoot straight through the test hull because of their 44k damage cannons. Surprisingly, I managed to capture one firing).

Side note: What do you think of the aesthetic of the turrets? I'm thinking of adding some darker colors, but I'll see what aesthetic I do on the main battleship

 

[Dr. Whammy]

lol yeah, GHI heavy test hull is just my go-to for testing weapons (fun fact: Those turrets can shoot straight through the test hull because of their 44k damage cannons. Surprisingly, I managed to capture one firing).

Side note: What do you think of the aesthetic of the turrets? I'm thinking of adding some darker colors, but I'll see what aesthetic I do on the main battleship

Looks good so far. I like their classic look.

Because of their large size, you might want to add a "bolts and panels". look or similar for detailing for the finished product. You certainly have the room.

http://img12.deviantart.net/5be9/i/2012/096/b/a/german_h_class_bb_turret_by_quacky112-d4v6ian.jpg

https://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2015/8/31/740521_md-Battleship, Cannon, Orks, Ship, Tank, Turret.jpg

 

[Forsyth]

Looks good so far. I like their classic look.

Because of their large size, you might want to add a "bolts and panels". look or similar for detailing for the finished product. You certainly have the room.

Alright, I'll keep that in mind. I might also add a missile array on the base of the turrets to help fill the empty space (most of the base is actually empty)

 

[DrTarDIS]

Sorry? You think "balanced" for shields is to have the same per energy regen efficiency as weapons damage or close to it?

Note: did not respond to point regarding shields and thrusters being used in secondary roles, part of what I'm talking about in the post you replied to that goes hand-in-hand with this. "basic balance" being thrown off by the secondary(or 3rd or 4th)-considerations.

Indeed, I think 1/4 is WAY too off-balance for energy efficiency. By quick math that would have to make projectile velocity of cannons drop below speedcap to maintain thruster-counter balance if "I can see a 10m^3 ship at this range" is used as combat metric.

You REALLY don't see how using secondary considerations like "this system is being used as off-tank armor" as a primary consideration is throwing your ideas out of whack and making everything difficult, do you?
*shakes head* this kind of "just nail on a new layer without considering what's under it" mentality is why it's too annoying to refit a ship in any version since they got rid of SD-KB/BB.

 

[Zoolimar]

You do understand that raising shield regen to similar energy efficiency of weapons means that armour becomes more or less worthless ? As it is much better to use that mass for more reactors, shields and weapons. It also raises TTK by 5-10 times depending on ship setups in question - as your shield regen will negate most of incoming damage and you still need to grind through the shield cap.

As a result we get ships with no armour. That take 7-15 minutes to kill even if they don't dodge or dip in and out of weapons range. And when shields finally fail the ships in question burn in seconds.

 

[Crashmaster]

Was there a config considered where shield cap and regen blocks were given a *very* large mass value?