The Quickfire Initiative: Rebalancing StarMade.

    Joined
    Dec 5, 2015
    Messages
    89
    Reaction score
    44
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    A)If Quick-fire doesn't include equally Quick-build; it should be called Quick-exodous.
    To be honest, I was intending that point to be a semi-jab at the name. If it wasn't funny/fell flat, I'll see myself out
    B)No, having negative functional HP would just mean "it won't turn on" and be stuck in constant offline/overheat state till despawn. I suppose you could change the curent "systems debuffs" part of the XML to include negative HP states to stop "i'm building it" despawns while still including "no thing works" debuffs untill it becomes over 0. Conveniently already in the xml/gamecode (if not often refrenced)
    It would be (theoretically) possible to set that to trigger when a player enters build mode. Also, would there be a disable priority (e.g would factories disable before weapons/shield)? Alongside that, would reactors/shields have decreased effectiveness when fhp (I'll use that as an abbreviation for what we're discussing) is less than 0?
    3)How do they currently work? Do turrets have RHP? Suppose the new one would give them "more" functional RHP, but I'm thinking it would be "tuned off" by being a docked entity unless there a reason to comment-out that part of the engine. Points out that "free RHP" from a core should be enough to offset the minimum 2-block active systems of a micro-turet(or a space-bike), and the minimum docker/rail combo should effectively double that "freebie".
    Just thought of this, but could turret rail axis provide a set fhp bonus and rail mass enhancers (or a similar block) increase fhp as well? Or would that be potentially unstable?
    due to "basic tripod" being off-balance(above posts)
    Just to make sure that I am not misinterpreting what you are proposing, could you summarize the main aspects you would change?
     
    Joined
    Dec 5, 2015
    Messages
    89
    Reaction score
    44
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    Also, I feel like Fertikeen is too heavily-weighted of a resource in blueprints (although that might just be because of how I tend to build)
     
    Joined
    Aug 14, 2017
    Messages
    353
    Reaction score
    165
    It would mean system-heavy ships would have have VERY LOW functional HP bar, from a MINIMUM number of "not e/sec" blocks. Below the minimum scalar the ship would have negative RHP and auto-overheat, and the more "durable" you wanted your ship to be the more you sacrifice on relative number of "active systems"(like weapons or shields or thrusters or salvagers) for your block count.
    Why use HP bar armour when you can use HP bar shields? Especially when you are suggesting to up their regen by a lot.
    This suggestion also further moves Starmade from building ships and into just slapping blobs of systems and armour together as geometry matters even less when HP bars come into picture.

    This creates hard-floor and open envelope for ship design balance at every conceivable size. This is opposed to "cookie-cutter" and "metabuild" that is often seen in/after every single knee-jerk "durrr I nails on something new and play with numbers after when exploit discovered" "balancing" the game has so far received.
    You are killing design with your suggestion. What you will get will be ships that use shields as external armour, because after shield is dead it's better to have them outside to soak up damage and use armour internally to have a little more HP on other systems. So you will have Shield->armour->other systems.

    What you don't seem to understand is that ships can be disabled long before some arbitrary number comes down. You have defence, offence and mobility. With reactor providing energy for everything. Losing offence or mobility (weapons/thrusters) puts the ship down as surely as losing all reactor HP.

    Even when we had SHP you could be out of the fight long before the SHP will roll down.
     
    Joined
    Dec 5, 2015
    Messages
    89
    Reaction score
    44
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    shields 1/4 as efficient as weapons
    In context, I think this actually makes sense. If shields are (as they probably would be) energy-based (i.e. electromagnetic), then they would be susceptible to inverse-square laws which means they would draw a huge amount of power to sustain their size (and that's not even accounting for power fluctuations caused by weapons fire).

    On the other hand, cannons (projectile-based probably) and missiles are not subject to these laws. Because of this, these two weapons can use a larger percentage of their power to sustain combat operations. Beam weapons (being electromagnetic weapons) are subject to inverse square laws, and as such a falloff distance is applied to them.
     

    DrTarDIS

    Eldrich Timelord
    Joined
    Jan 16, 2014
    Messages
    1,051
    Reaction score
    282
    Why use HP bar armour when you can use HP bar shields? Especially when you are suggesting to up their regen by a lot.
    This suggestion also further moves Starmade from building ships and into just slapping blobs of systems and armour together as geometry matters even less when HP bars come into picture.
    Sure, why have reactor HP at all. Lets just auto-overheat and despawn when shields=0.
    You are killing design with your suggestion. What you will get will be ships that use shields as external armour, because after shield is dead it's better to have them outside to soak up damage and use armour internally to have a little more HP on other systems. So you will have Shield->armour->other systems.
    If they want to die to overheat before using the armor's damage-reduction qualities I suppose that's their choice.
    I'm assuming you mean using sheild capacity/regen blocks as the outer layer, which would in turn reduce the RHP for every one of those blocks destroyed (cause BHP is used for damage to the RHP bar on the interface as far as I know)
    It would probably be smarter to hide everything under the damage-reduction qualities of armor, but with the way you talk I could see why you would do the silly thing.

    What you don't seem to understand is that ships can be disabled long before some arbitrary number comes down. You have defence, offence and mobility. With reactor providing energy for everything. Losing offence or mobility (weapons/thrusters) puts the ship down as surely as losing all reactor HP.
    I mean, not really? FTL needs to be knocked out or escape is still an option(not really possible after FTL blocks were removed). Just cause you can't duck and weave much(called punch-drunk or snared in most gaming circles) doesn't mean you can't tank and shoot back.

    You seem to be using further and further "gray area" and "grasping at straws" to avoid dealing with actual math and actual balance.
    It's VERY obvious you don't understad what a .jar actually IS so...Are numbers scary to you? Have you actually read BlockBehaviourConfig.xml EffectCofic.xml and BlockConfig.xml? Do you understand what the values are/do? Can you solve for X when 95.2=2.1X^(X-2.112F) ?
    Even when we had SHP you could be out of the fight long before the SHP will roll down.
    No argument here. But that system had it's own "bad tripod" at the time too. It's a very common thing for this game. Schema does NOT seem to spreadsheet before they code, just throws in random values and "sees if it works" for absolutely everything from resources to building to combat to seed. Back to my above mention of "nail it on top" balance a few posts back. Changing what weapon combos do is exactly this kind of "nail it on top" method rather than switching what resource-pools(RHP, BHP, AR, E/s, Mass, etc) branch off to what balance mechanism.
    They've got cool ideas but they have listened WAY too much to idiots who can't express things in mathematics as far as game design since 2015.
    Reading though this thread AND the github AND a good chunk of the starbase discord tells me next to nobody actually does math, they "feel like" something and just nail-it-ontop. The issue is FOUNDATIONAL it's not something you fix by adding more nails or a layer of paint. Do go back and try to understand my earlier posts and objections to silly stuff like "you have to put sheilds and thrusters on the outside because they are less important in the meta-build"
    That kind of "cookie cutter" ideology is directly caused by the FOUNDATIONAL PROBLEMS of MISPLACED RESOURCE POOL BALANCE.
     

    DrTarDIS

    Eldrich Timelord
    Joined
    Jan 16, 2014
    Messages
    1,051
    Reaction score
    282
    In context, I think this actually makes sense. If shields are (as they probably would be) energy-based (i.e. electromagnetic), then they would be susceptible to inverse-square laws which means they would draw a huge amount of power to sustain their size (and that's not even accounting for power fluctuations caused by weapons fire).

    On the other hand, cannons (projectile-based probably) and missiles are not subject to these laws. Because of this, these two weapons can use a larger percentage of their power to sustain combat operations. Beam weapons (being electromagnetic weapons) are subject to inverse square laws, and as such a falloff distance is applied to them.
    Making sense and being FUN and/or BALANCED are two entirely different things.
     
    Joined
    Aug 14, 2017
    Messages
    353
    Reaction score
    165
    I mean, not really? FTL needs to be knocked out or escape is still an option(not really possible after FTL blocks were removed). Just cause you can't duck and weave much(called punch-drunk or snared in most gaming circles) doesn't mean you can't tank and shoot back.
    If you can't duck and weave you are dead, unless your weapon range is much better than that of the enemy and all your weapons 360 degree turrets. Even then you are dead. Because you can't turn. You can't dodge. You can't kite. Enemy can just duck in and out of his own range and kill you at his leisure easily concentrating shots on the already damaged part of your ship.

    And if his weapon is close range and he destroyed your thrusters you are dead because short range weapons have much higher DPS and he can just hug your hull and burn you to death.

    FTL is an option but a) there is supposed to be interdictors if you don't want your opponent to jump and b) there is supposed to be some objective in a fight - if it was just a duel the guy has already lost if he is jumping out. And if the objective was to destroy the ship you should have brought interdictors.

    If they want to die to overheat before using the armor's damage-reduction qualities I suppose that's their choice.
    I'm assuming you mean using sheild capacity/regen blocks as the outer layer, which would in turn reduce the RHP for every one of those blocks destroyed (cause BHP is used for damage to the RHP bar on the interface as far as I know)
    It would probably be smarter to hide everything under the damage-reduction qualities of armor, but with the way you talk I could see why you would do the silly thing.
    Depends actually on how the acid will work. For example right now it will pierce through basic hull like it's not there and then go against the main armour layer. But systems will always prompt a full acid spread. So in your armour idea it will depend on how much of HP bar you can get from armour and if it will be better than the loss of shield blocks.

    Using shields that are worthless after their HP was depleted as ablative armour is a tried and true method even in P1. You would get SHP damage but it's negligible compared to being able to save your weapons and mobility for a few more cycles of hammering at the enemy. After all the shields are just dead mass after they ran out of steam. You are actually getting lighter when they burn.
    ____________________________________

    Overall I think any mechanics that moves Starmade from engineering to blobbification and HP bars is a mistake. As Starmade is supposed to be a building game. Right now it's already pretty bad where you can just blob a working ship in like 10-20 minutes if you know what you want. Drop the reactor, shield, thruster blocks. Wrap it up in hull/armour. Done. The only problem is turrets and with dock spawn it got much better. it won't be a very good ship but it will work.

    It may be a good mechanic for starter ships but the lack of actual non-aesthetic ship design kinda grates.
     

    DrTarDIS

    Eldrich Timelord
    Joined
    Jan 16, 2014
    Messages
    1,051
    Reaction score
    282
    It may be a good mechanic for starter ships but the lack of actual non-aesthetic ship design kinda grates.
    Yeah that went out the window in 2015. You were about 2 years late joining the forums if you wanted to talk about "non aesthetic ship design."
     
    Joined
    Sep 18, 2014
    Messages
    624
    Reaction score
    455
    Perhaps, although I would argue that being balanced and making sense go hand in hand with each other.
    Not everytime. But we should try to go the most for it.

    Also, I feel like Fertikeen is too heavily-weighted of a resource in blueprints (although that might just be because of how I tend to build)
    Both statements are probably true. But balancing cost before the universe update is both useless and a waste of time. Because everything is easily obtainable for people on survival so you probably see why this is a moot point. Then, well, the universe update will distribute the cards completely so it'll need a change afterwards anyway.
     

    DrTarDIS

    Eldrich Timelord
    Joined
    Jan 16, 2014
    Messages
    1,051
    Reaction score
    282
    Both statements are probably true. But balancing cost before the universe update is both useless and a waste of time. Because everything is easily obtainable for people on survival so you probably see why this is a moot point. Then, well, the universe update will distribute the cards completely so it'll need a change afterwards anyway.
    Don't think that's a waste of time.
    If the resources and crafting can be fixed before the universe update, that means the universe resource distribution can be tailored to follow the balanced crafting tree.
    Crafting being "trash" is another big part of game balance that's out of wack.
     
    Joined
    Dec 5, 2015
    Messages
    89
    Reaction score
    44
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    Crafting being "trash" is another big part of game balance that's out of wack.
    One thing that irks me a fair bit is the fact that paints can only be applied to basic armor. Maybe there's a history behind that mechanic, but it would be fairly easy (I think) to make it so that paints can be applied at any armor stage (basic, standard, advanced).
    Both statements are probably true. But balancing cost before the universe update is both useless and a waste of time. Because everything is easily obtainable for people on survival so you probably see why this is a moot point. Then, well, the universe update will distribute the cards completely so it'll need a change afterwards anyway.
    Agreed. Guess the only thing to do is just deal with it until universe update hits
     
    Joined
    Dec 5, 2015
    Messages
    89
    Reaction score
    44
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    Do stealth chambers work on stations? Building a shipyard and stealth drive is having no effect (have tried with one person outside faction as well)
     
    Joined
    Mar 10, 2016
    Messages
    473
    Reaction score
    1,214
    • Likeable
    • Thinking Positive
    • Community Content - Silver 2
    Do stealth chambers work on stations? Building a shipyard and stealth drive is having no effect (have tried with one person outside faction as well)

    Don't know the answer, but I have a related question: permanent-duration scanners on stations?

    Can they de-cloak nearby enemies?
    (I actually have one installed in my famous "PetroFlux" shipyard, without knowing if it does anything, lol)


    EDIT: Stealth chambers on stations most probably could only have those effects which you can use without clicking the StealthDrive computer on the flightmode hotbar (since stations lack a flightmode). So, perma radar jamming and anti-lockon?

    Anti-lockon sounds pointless on a stationary structure. As for jamming, it hides the nav menu signature, perhaps it could be recoded to hide the map screen icon for stations?
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Dec 5, 2015
    Messages
    89
    Reaction score
    44
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    Don't know the answer, but I have a related question: permanent-duration scanners on stations?

    Can they de-cloak nearby enemies?
    (I actually have one installed in my famous "PetroFlux" shipyard, without knowing if it does anything, lol)
    You could activate the scanner, then leave the faction and test to see if it works.

    What chambers do you use on stations?
     
    Joined
    Mar 10, 2016
    Messages
    473
    Reaction score
    1,214
    • Likeable
    • Thinking Positive
    • Community Content - Silver 2
    You could activate the scanner, then leave the faction and test to see if it works.
    Thanks for the suggestion, I will give that a try.

    A relevant experience I had before involved a carrier with recon chambers, plus support craft fitted with a perma jam/perma cloak chamber tree.

    If the support craft was launched unmanned, its StealthDrive kicked in when its reactor went online upon undocking. It wasn't factioned, and I couldn't see it unless I was in the core of the carrier with active scanning. This was the case even when retested with the Bobby AI deactivated OR ABSENT from the stealth craft.

    From this we know that (1) activatable effects can indeed work without being player-triggered via an associated Weapon Menu/Flightmode Hotbar computer, at least if they are of the permanent-duration variety, and (2) effects of scanning show only for those within the core (or maybe Build Blocks too) of a scanning structure.

    Implications include that stations might be able to use stealth effects despite not being AI-controllable.


    What chambers do you use on stations?
    I don't have too much experience with systeming stations, but I usually go for maxing out the defense branch, add onto those a Transporter Shield Outage Redux chamber from the logistics branch, then maybe a basic passive Reactor Boost effect if power-hungry turrets are aplenty, but there isn't much room for expanding the reactor setup.
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Dec 5, 2015
    Messages
    89
    Reaction score
    44
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    If the support craft was launched unmanned, its StealthDrive kicked in when its reactor went online upon undocking. It wasn't factioned, and I couldn't see it unless I was in the core of the carrier with active scanning. This was the case even when retested with the Bobby AI deactivated OR ABSENT from the stealth craft.

    From this we know that (1) activatable effects can indeed work without being player-triggered via an associated Weapon Menu/Flightmode Hotbar computer, at least if they are of the permanent-duration variety, and (2) effects of scanning show only for those within the core (or maybe Build Blocks too) of a scanning structure.

    Implications include that stations might be able to use stealth effects despite not being AI-controllable.
    Interesting. The reactor menu does have a tab for addons (including stealth) which can be activated, although not sure if it has any effect (that's how I was trying to activate stealth drive in the first place)

    I don't have too much experience with systeming stations, but I usually go for maxing out the defense branch, add onto those a Transporter Shield Outage Redux chamber from the logistics branch, then maybe a basic passive Reactor Boost effect if power-hungry turrets are aplenty, but there isn't much room for expanding the reactor setup.
    Ok, thanks
     
    • Like
    Reactions: DeepspaceMechanic

    Dr. Whammy

    Executive Constructologist of the United Star Axis
    Joined
    Jul 22, 2014
    Messages
    1,719
    Reaction score
    1,528
    • Thinking Positive
    • Top Forum Contributor
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    Don't know the answer, but I have a related question: permanent-duration scanners on stations?

    Can they de-cloak nearby enemies?
    (I actually have one installed in my famous "PetroFlux" shipyard, without knowing if it does anything, lol)


    EDIT: Stealth chambers on stations most probably could only have those effects which you can use without clicking the StealthDrive computer on the flightmode hotbar (since stations lack a flightmode). So, perma radar jamming and anti-lockon?

    Anti-lockon sounds pointless on a stationary structure. As for jamming, it hides the nav menu signature, perhaps it could be recoded to hide the map screen icon for stations?
    I tried using stealth chambers on my "neutron star" project but they didn't work.

    The original plan was to create a man-made spacial anomaly (neutron star, black hole, quasar, pulsar, etc.), make it impervious to standard sensors, give it gravitational effects and make it radiate particle streams and plasma bursts. Unfortunately, there was no way to activate the stealth field and spherical gravity doesn't work right.

    Likewise, I was not able to use stealth chambers on my mobile command system when it is docked to an anchor station.

    Same thing happened with scanners; there was no way to activate them on a station or on a docked scanner-equipped ship.

    When I need to scan for cloaked ships, I just position one or more dedicated picket/recon craft nearby. As you can see, they don't need to be very big.
    Reconnaisance 1.JPG Recon 1.jpg
    To help them out, I often position a large number of stealth fighters with fleet orders set to "defend".
    Stealthy.JPG

    You can save a blueprint of ships with their scanners/stealth fields already turned on so they spawn ready to go. I've not tested this with shipyards yet due to them being kinda buggy.
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: DeepspaceMechanic
    Joined
    Aug 5, 2020
    Messages
    2
    Reaction score
    0
    Very interesting. I think I may like the direction this appears to be going.

    Hopefully, a few things get "stabilized" and set. That is to say, deciding on a final set of the distance and facing of the stabilizers. I would hate to start a scam report just to have my power halved on an update, for example.

    But on the whole, I very much hope that the initiative continues development. Nice work :giggle: