The Quickfire Initiative: Rebalancing StarMade.

[MeRobo]

to balance all three weapons they all need the same coding that brings them in-line somewhere.

So we need the code to shoot down cannon projectiles and beams, we need cannon and beam capacity models to treat them like missiles? If all weapon types had the same coding they would be balanced because they would be identical and therefor having different weapons would be pointless.

That was a very serious game-coding question...

Directing a coding question at a project focused on configs is pointless.

The reason minecraft is so successful is its simplicity.

Simplistic? Not really. I'd say it's easily accessible and has a low barrier of entrance, which certainly is/was a considerable factor in Minecraft's success, but certainly not the only difference.

Stop trying to turn a great game into an EliteEpeenBuffingMachine, (wrong league for minecraft in space).

This statement of yours is where I find the word simplistic far more fitting. Seeing Starmade as "Minecraft in space" for me only works as a first introduction for a new player, "Minecraft in space, but..." would be far more fitting. Aspiring to "only" be Minecraft in space would make very little sense to me, because what reason to buy Starmade would exist then, in a world where you can just get Minecraft? Buildmode? Buildable moving entities that interact with each other? At that point a hypothetical release version (something I don't expect any time before the middle of the decade tbh) of Starmade would just be a glorified Minecraft mod you have to pay for. I'm not saying that there's no overlap between the games btw.

3) ...there isn't undocumented, independent QF testing being done by other players outside of their group.

Two things.

1. Undocumented testing, whether independent or not would be pointless, because without documenting your test results they can't be used to improve the project.
2. The guys running a project do the vast majority of the testing required for said project, colour me surprised.

By the way, I'm not part of the group running QF, just putting that here before somebody throws some sort of ridiculous "accusation" my way.

On a somewhat less meta-plane (and this is not the for some reason hated meta as in most effective tactic available), one change I really like is the removal of stab distance requirements, due to it effectively eliminating an annoying, unreproduceable bug I had with the distance shown when trying to place a stabilizer. The stabilizer changes in general seem to make the system more intuitive and by that lowering the barrier of entrance. Another change that appears to make the power system more intuitive is the way the reactor levels behave.
I haven't done the testing required for commenting on the other changes in a meaningful manner.

 

[The Quickfire Initiative]

Another PSA: The game update did not patch server.cfg files. Our intended values are:

THRUST_SPEED_LIMIT = 50 //How fast ships, etc. may go in m/s. Quickfire default is very slow because of high speed multipliers
MISSILE_TARGET_PREDICTION = 3.5 //How much seeking missiles will attempt to correct for target motion. Too high results in overcorrecting (missiles flying ahead of targets) and too low causes missiles to fly towards where a target used to be.
WEAPON_RANGE_REFERENCE = 2000.0 //Reference distance for weapon ranges. (what blockBehaviorConfig.xml weapon ranges are multiplied with (usually the sector size)). Set to 1 to interpret weapon ranges in the config in meters

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Undocumented testing, whether independent or not would be pointless, because without documenting your test results they can't be used to improve the project.

Pointless? That's a rather closed minded response. ...Especially since the team seemed unsure of how to handle thrust and were largely oblivious to the fact that their config at the time made smaller ships handle like a drunken brick.

The guys running a project do the vast majority of the testing required for said project, colour me surprised.

It's rather arrogant and presumptuous to think that someone outside of the group wouldn't or couldn't test on their own and potentially discover something that the team wasn't aware of (like I did). ...or perhaps you want less diverse points of view so that the same issues can be recreated over and over again?

By the way, I'm not part of the group running QF, just putting that here before somebody throws some sort of ridiculous "accusation" my way.

On a somewhat less meta-plane (and this is not the for some reason hated meta as in most effective tactic available), one change I really like is the removal of stab distance requirements, due to it effectively eliminating an annoying, unreproduceable bug I had with the distance shown when trying to place a stabilizer. The stabilizer changes in general seem to make the system more intuitive and by that lowering the barrier of entrance. Another change that appears to make the power system more intuitive is the way the reactor levels behave.
I haven't done the testing required for commenting on the other changes in a meaningful manner.

The complete removal of stabilizer distance was unwise. Now we're back to block spam, minimal/no interiors, borderline-forced building methods and glorified death bricks. They have exacerbated nearly every building problem that Schine set out to correct via power 2.0.

This particular change was recommended against because some players understood that this kind of rampant block spam makes interiors a liability and strongly favors (essentially forces) a single play-style over all others. ...but like I said; personal preferences over community input.

 

[MeRobo]

Dr. Whammy Not sure whether you intentionally miss the point of everything or not, ngl.
Not documenting what the results of your tests are makes said tests unusable because it's hardly possible to implement changes based on test results that are documented nowhere - guess I'm close minded because I think you should document your test results if you want them to be useful.
I'm not sure how it's a sign of arrogance to assume that the people most invested into something would do most of the testing, but hey, whatever makes you feel good, guess I'm arrogant and close minded

This particular change was recommended against because some players understood that this kind of rampant block spam makes interiors a liability and strongly favors (essentially forces) a single play-style over all others. ...but like I said; personal preferences over community input.

It was recommended by "some", whatever that means. My perception was that the players in favour of this change are far more numerous than it's opponents (from what I saw you and 1 or 2 others), so it's more like community input (community input regarding vanilla p2) over your personal preferences.
Here, I even have something to back up my claims (wow, not just unsupported claims):

I'll make a config, doing what OP suggests. I'll just remove the stabilizer distance efficiency entirely, or do invert it, it does the same thing really in reality so shouldn't matter too much.

Please note that the agree ratings on the OP don't seem to show up, but even if you doubt they ever existed, just look at the multiple posts supportive of the OP in the thread. And yes, I intentionally quoted the post that says that inverting the distance and removing it are effectively the same so you don't claim the people in that thread support something different.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Dr. Whammy Not sure whether you intentionally miss the point of everything or not, ngl.
Not documenting what the results of your tests are makes said tests unusable because it's hardly possible to implement changes based on test results that are documented nowhere - guess I'm close minded because I think you should document your test results if you want them to be useful.
I'm not sure how it's a sign of arrogance to assume that the people most invested into something would do most of the testing, but hey, whatever makes you feel good, guess I'm arrogant and close minded

Actually, you're the one missing the point.

When I say "independent, undocumented tests", I'm referring to tests done independently of Schine's and QF's work and not part of their official records or config notes. As such, it is arrogant and closed-minded to assume that anything that is not part of their records is automatically invalid. ...which is something that several of them did at first.

It was recommended by "some", whatever that means. My perception was that the players in favour of this change are far more numerous than it's opponents (from what I saw you and 1 or 2 others), so it's more like community input (community input regarding vanilla p2) over your personal preferences.
Here, I even have something to back up my claims (wow, not just unsupported claims):

Please note that the agree ratings on the OP don't seem to show up, but even if you doubt they ever existed, just look at the multiple posts supportive of the OP in the thread. And yes, I intentionally quoted the post that says that inverting the distance and removing it are effectively the same so you don't claim the people in that thread support something different.

Funny how in spite of all those "numerous supporters", one of the key members of QF wasn't onboard with this...

Spoiler

So what will be the point of stabilizers then? If multiple reactors could be active per vessel it could have its uses but with only one reactor running at a time stabilizers that must be placed close don't seem to have any point to their existence.

You could just give reactors a bonus to energy generation depending on how tightly their blocks are packed. Say a full cube gives 25%-100% more energy than a line with the same block count. Done.

The fact is; he knew that this change would result in masses of pointless blocks that take up space and add unnecessary mass. He wasn't the only one who came to this conclusion.

Likewise; Lancake knew that this would be the polar opposite of what Schine was trying to do.

Spoiler

The current meta has always been to fill most of your ship with systems, as empty space would be a waste if it could hold more systems (or armor).

We moved away from that with this power system, as it's impossible to get a good oversight what is in your ship and where all of the groups are if it's filled to the brim. Adjusting the end result of your systems is also a frustrating experience as you need to find a specific system (which could be placed in multiple locations, in different amounts) and either removing them, or replacing them with other systems till you find the proper balance.

Has Schine considered that, well, perhaps it's a good idea to fill most of the ship with blocks?

Yes, we've considered that and we did not agree with that notion. It's why the new system is like it is and that's what I explained in the post you've quoted. Is my post confusing, does it miss crucial information?


As for the filled ships not being ideal, perhaps an example will help.
If I gave you a 500 000 block ship that's fully filled with systems and tell you to give me more weapons, less shields and more thrust.
Would you be able to achieve said values without making a mess of the ship? Or would you first empty the ship entirely and rebuilt it from scratch?

If the latter is your answer in all cases, then filled ships are not easy at all to tweak/overhaul.

Having a larger group supporting the removal of stabilizer distance doesn't change the fact that this plan failed to fix the P-2.0-related issues Schine has openly (and repeatedly) stated that they want to fix. In some cases, it actually made these issues worse.

In any case, reverting to "death bricks" with little to no interior, that only use 1-2 of the 12 available weapon types (because the rest are next to useless in most situations), and essentially forcing people to build specifically to chase QF's chosen META, while ignoring virtually all other possible play-styles, is neither balance nor representative of the full or even majority of community input. It's a preference; one of several and a far cry from what makes logical sense or what Schine intends for the game.

I do have an idea that would fix this issue once and for all; across all play-styles (including PVP) but my observations of both parties suggest that Schine probably wouldn't read it and QF probably wouldn't consider it. No hard feelings though; I know they have a lot of work to do to make sure this game is released in time for Windows 12 in the year 2030.

 

[Zoolimar]

Please do not use only parts of the conversation I had out of context. If you actually read it you know that I was in favour of scrapping stabilisers outright. We did not agree on this in QF discord but overall I consider stabs staying a minor point.

 

[Scypio]

The complete removal of stabilizer distance was unwise. Now we're back to block spam, minimal/no interiors, borderline-forced building methods and glorified death bricks. They have exacerbated nearly every building problem that Schine set out to correct via power 2.0.

No. Internal space and armoring your interior is good. I don't care whether my ship is 20 block longer if it can be tankier and as such stronger. And that has been tested and approved many times, even before the current power system came out and many times after. With our configs this is even stronger. Cramming out your internal space with blocks is not the best way to go. It's the laziest though.

In any case, reverting to "death bricks" with little to no interior, that only use 1-2 of the 12 available weapon types (because the rest are next to useless in most situations), and essentially forcing people to build specifically to chase QF's chosen META, while ignoring virtually all other possible play-styles, is neither balance nor representative of the full or even majority of community input. It's a preference; one of several and a far cry from what makes logical sense or what Schine intends for the game.

If you believe this is the case then prove it. Build two ships with identical systems, one with interior one without. Then find another player pilot and fight each others in both ships. It's the best way to prove that you are right anyway. We can turn in circle claiming stuff and whatnot but if nothing is done on the ground then nothing can be proved and we cannot move forward.

--- Quickfire ad time ---
​

A lot of the changes have been documented as well as the thoughts behind it. However, nothing is better than doing some sort of FAQ. So please, throw in your questions and we'll answer them.

 

[Code North]

If you believe this is the case then prove it. Build two ships with identical systems, one with interior one without. Then find another player pilot and fight each others in both ships. It's the best way to prove that you are right anyway. We can turn in circle claiming stuff and whatnot but if nothing is done on the ground then nothing can be proved and we cannot move forward.

​

I mean no offense, but two identical ships that are different from each other sounds like something yet to create, anyway.

Lets just take that idea as is: two ships looking the same,
one has a wonderful interior with kitchen, bunk beds, med bay, maybe a command center in the middle.

The other uses the available mass that would be used for decoration for a few extra armor blocks well placed inside and
the unused volume of nothing to buffer out some additional spaced armor.

Now two identical pilots fight each other in empty space. equal RNG/luck/skill for both.
Ships have same outside appearance, turret layout, mass, thrust, all the fancy stuff.

i fear i could argue one has an slight advantage over the other.. in theory. How much in reality?
Properly as much as a single glitched cannon shot skipping all the shields and armor right into the core takes away.


The request of prove of this not being the case, is the same as asking to disprove that 3+3=5.

In practice: no one is ever going to fight fair/equal anyway and the difference would only matter in a spreadsheet game like eve online.
If Ai fleet battles with player flagships/heros are still the end goal, a small difference in "build quality" aka interiors should be drowned in all other factors. (-unless the ships are outright crap, then you need way more ships to throw at others XD)

There should be the perfect meta ship, and an specialized ship to hard counter it, if balance is done right. think rock-paper-scissors.

 

[Scypio]

I mean no offense, but two identical ships that are different from each other sounds like something yet to create, anyway.

If you believe this is the case then prove it. Build two ships with identical systems, one with interior one without.

Lets just take that idea as is: two ships looking the same,

The first sentence is wrong. You're using two ship of the same size/look and so. Which means you're using volume to compare ships. Let me show you how wrong it is. Here is a 300m long ship :

Spoiler

Is this ship worth comparing against this ship for example ? Yeah, you know already the answer. But mine is longer than the other.

What matter is block count or at the very least the reactor level. Stop comparing based on size and looks, i'll bring my stick everytime you do.

 

[Code North]

The first sentence is wrong. You're using two ship of the same size/look and so. Which means you're using volume to compare ships. Let me show you how wrong it is. Here is a 300m long ship :

Well you got me, its two identical systems, but then again, i did not ignore mass:

The other uses the available mass that would be used for decoration for a few extra armor blocks well placed inside and
the unused volume of nothing to buffer out some additional spaced armor.

And the point stands:

The request of prove of this not being the case, is the same as asking to disprove that 3+3=5.

 

[TheDerpGamerX]

Having a larger group supporting the removal of stabilizer distance doesn't change the fact that this plan failed to fix the P-2.0-related issues Schine has openly (and repeatedly) stated that they want to fix. In some cases, it actually made these issues worse.

Prove this. Prove that QF failed to fix most if not all of StarMades insane balance issues.

In any case, reverting to "death bricks" with little to no interior, that only use 1-2 of the 12 available weapon types (because the rest are next to useless in most situations), and essentially forcing people to build specifically to chase QF's chosen META, while ignoring virtually all other possible play-styles, is neither balance nor representative of the full or even majority of community input. It's a preference; one of several and a far cry from what makes logical sense or what Schine intends for the game.

Power2.0 forced people to build specifically to chase it's meta. QF is actually a step up as it encourages more rp interiors. If your reactor is taking up more than 1/3 of your ship you are making your other systems too large and have failed to understand the changes.
And no, all weapon types are very viable. Your statement is simply false. In testing, my ships have a large variety of weapons for different situational METAs. It is certainly a step up from Power2.0's META of using only one weapon (Beam Missile) and having immortal game breaking shield tanks.

I say Situational META as that's the only real META now. There is no end all weapon or tactic that will universally work in all situations. In Power2.0, immortal shield tanks that did 50+ million damage were the META. Those are no longer possible under QF.

I do have an idea that would fix this issue once and for all; across all play-styles (including PVP) but my observations of both parties suggest that Schine probably wouldn't read it and QF probably wouldn't consider it. No hard feelings though; I know they have a lot of work to do to make sure this game is released in time for Windows 12 in the year 2030.

The reason people don't listen to your ideas is due to the fact that you don't use any facts or evidence to prove your claims and spend most of the time attacking QF's work while not offering meaningful suggestions of your own other than "hurr durr its bad".

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Please do not use only parts of the conversation I had out of context. If you actually read it you know that I was in favour of scrapping stabilisers outright. We did not agree on this in QF discord but overall I consider stabs staying a minor point.

When you say: "stabilizers that must be placed close don't seem to have any point to their existence", then offer an alternative to the original idea, What exactly is there to take out of context?

Regardless of what you say here, you saw and pointed out a legitimate problem with that idea and even offered a counter/alteration to it. ...and rightfully so, as you ultimately were correct in your assessment; stabilizers do not have a point now. There were other ways to fix this system but the team settled on this one rather short-sighted resolution. ...one that Schine does not agree with.

No. Internal space and armoring your interior is good. I don't care whether my ship is 20 block longer if it can be tankier and as such stronger. And that has been tested and approved many times, even before the current power system came out and many times after. With our configs this is even stronger. Cramming out your internal space with blocks is not the best way to go. It's the laziest though.

When you're building a large ship, this is mostly true. However, under a certain scale, armor has no effect on weapons from ships of the same size and only serves as additional mass to reduce your manuverability and max speed. Hearing 45K mass thrown around as the "normal size for faction ships" in the QF Discord discussions, seeing the size of the ships you and SchnellBier are posting there, reading Chances repeatedly talking about his 35-100 layers of armor, observing that a lot of players seem to have a sort of capital ship fetish (until QF killed thrust and rotation for everything), and reading your "things to know" document, saying "don't expect to tank multiple shots with only 2 layers of adv. armor" (when in reality, any ship capable of fielding 2 layers is capable of defeating 2 layers; by a wide margin), I really have to wonder if you tested armor/space at a smaller scale.

I don't expect a frigate to one-shot a battleship, but the current setup does encourage block spam and giantism; while discuraging interiors and system diversity. ...and this is even before armor becomes a factor.

If you believe this is the case then prove it. Build two ships with identical systems, one with interior one without. Then find another player pilot and fight each others in both ships. It's the best way to prove that you are right anyway. We can turn in circle claiming stuff and whatnot but if nothing is done on the ground then nothing can be proved and we cannot move forward.

You are arguing a point that I am not concerned with or even talking about. I'm not talking about armor as there are counters to heavy armor.

To clarify; when I say "block spam" I'm talking about the need to fill your ship to the bursting point with systems to be able to move, fight or use shields with any level of relative effectiveness against similarly sized craft. Your ship shouldn't have to be 50% power-generation by physical volume with the rest being (nerfed) shields, (nerfed) thrusters and a giant clump of META weapon, just to have a chance at being somewhat combat effective, even before the (not universally usable) armor mechanic becomes a factor.

The "proof" people keep asking for.

These are two of my older "classic" designs refit to use power 2.0 under current QF configs. The left one (Challenger) has a basic interior and cargo bay with a combined mass of 7,704.

The one on the right (Pathfinder) was designed to have similar mass, exterior dimensions, power grid and defenses to the challenger but with a much greater capacity for cargo. For the hell of it, I filled the extra space as far as I could with system blocks to see how powerful I could make it. Now it too has only a basic interior but now has a combined mass of 12,539. Power grid and firepower are nearly double that of the challenger for a similar physical volume. While slower due to the increased mass of system blocks, it can now easily kill its lighter counterpart; whereas, before, they were very similar in terms of performance.

If you have to choose between having interior (for whatever purpose; be it for fighters, crew, cargo, decoration, RP, etc) and cramming a bunch of systems into every nook and cranny for the sake of PVP combat superiority over a ship of identical size and shape, then that's not balance. ...so yes TheDerpGamerX , QF did in fact fail to balance the game in this regard.

Regarding armor: Scypio , your statement does not apply to my situation or that of other smaller-than-average builders; as armor has little to no benefit at this size class unless you build specifically for armor that can stop CM/BM weapons from a ship in this size class.

...which is not as simple as it sounds.
Pathfinder stuck by another Pathfinder - 5000 BM array 1:1
Challenger armed with 2400 BM array 1:1 vs 10 layers adv
Pathfinder armed with 5000 BM array 1:1 vs 10 layers adv

In fact, armor at this scale is so trivial that I've built fighters less than 4% of the mass of this ship that can defeat its armor with other weapons besides missiles.

At the scale of what some of QF's members consider "normal faction ship sizes" this is far less of an issue since you have "more ship" to destroy so you won't be killing each each other in only a handful of shots; despite having much more powerful weapons. At the smaller scale, a few direct hits with these kinds of weapons will quickly drop your shields in a few shots, then vaporize a nice chunk of your ship regardless of armor or open space. This encourages META weapons and giantism. Once again; not balance.

Regarding META weapons themselves: While fun and impressive, they are the antithesis of balance.

You guys can get upset at me for pointing these things out if you like. If it helps you sleep at night, you can claim that I'm trolling, disruptive, or bad mouthing QF, etc. despite my trying to remain calm and diplomatic. You can even claim that I have "no proof"; in spite of the obvious examples of what I'm talking about. ...but the truth remains; this game is not being balanced but rather altered to suit one limited-scope play-style to the exclusivity of all others. ...and whenever someone grows a pair and points this out (whether diplomatically or in the crass manner; typical of online gaming forums), the tribe invariably gets defensive and then...

This is a key reason why I and other players test independently of QF, away from their records/documentation and outside of this forum. We know that no matter what gaps, exploits, bugs, solutions, breakthroughs, etc. we find and record, you simply don't want to hear it.

...and that's perfectly fine; as I'm sure we'll all be thoroughly revisiting this topic if/when Schine releases the universe update.

See you then.

 

[Keptick]

Dr. Whammy Beams are currently bugged against armor. They sometimes do much much much higher damage than they are supposed to, the reason is currently unknown (I don't have time to test atm). It's super random, so 1 tick might do normal damage, and the next 10 do stupidly overkill damage. From what I can tell this doesn't apply to normal system blocks. That could explain why armor feels "useless" in your test. Try a cannon based weapon with the same block count, it'll probably destroy less blocks (I say probably, because the bug doesn't occur all the time).

 

[Ithirahad]

At the scale of what some of QF's members consider "normal faction ship sizes" this is far less of an issue since you have "more ship" to destroy so you won't be killing each each other in only a handful of shots; despite having much more powerful weapons. At the smaller scale, a few direct hits with these kinds of weapons will quickly drop your shields in a few shots, then vaporize a nice chunk of your ship regardless of armor or open space. This encourages META weapons and giantism. Once again; not balance.

Smaller ships are naturally more maneuverable, meaning it's inherently going to be harder to land a hit. Do you really want corvette/FAC or fighter battles to take an hour because defenses and 'damage sponge scales' are scaled perfectly to how they work with face-tanky capital ships? Also from the looks of it you're mostly complaining about /M weapons, which aren't that easy to hit another small craft with in the first place. If those were nerfed, not only would they be pretty useless, but there would be no counter to small ships that are basically giant armor blobs with minimal systems except for having a bigger ship. Now that would encourage gigantism ._.

 

[TheDerpGamerX]

When you say: "stabilizers that must be placed close don't seem to have any point to their existence", then offer an alternative to the original idea, What exactly is there to take out of context?

Regardless of what you say here, you saw and pointed out a legitimate problem with that idea and even offered a counter/alteration to it. ...and rightfully so, as you ultimately were correct in your assessment; stabilizers do not have a point now. There were other ways to fix this system but the team settled on this one rather short-sighted resolution. ...one that Schine does not agree with.


When you're building a large ship, this is mostly true. However, under a certain scale, armor has no effect on weapons from ships of the same size and only serves as additional mass to reduce your manuverability and max speed. Hearing 45K mass thrown around as the "normal size for faction ships" in the QF Discord discussions, seeing the size of the ships you and SchnellBier are posting there, reading Chances repeatedly talking about his 35-100 layers of armor, observing that a lot of players seem to have a sort of capital ship fetish (until QF killed thrust and rotation for everything), and reading your "things to know" document, saying "don't expect to tank multiple shots with only 2 layers of adv. armor" (when in reality, any ship capable of fielding 2 layers is capable of defeating 2 layers; by a wide margin), I really have to wonder if you tested armor/space at a smaller scale.

I don't expect a frigate to one-shot a battleship, but the current setup does encourage block spam and giantism; while discuraging interiors and system diversity. ...and this is even before armor becomes a factor.




You are arguing a point that I am not concerned with or even talking about. I'm not talking about armor as there are counters to heavy armor.

To clarify; when I say "block spam" I'm talking about the need to fill your ship to the bursting point with systems to be able to move, fight or use shields with any level of relative effectiveness against similarly sized craft. Your ship shouldn't have to be 50% power-generation by physical volume with the rest being (nerfed) shields, (nerfed) thrusters and a giant clump of META weapon, just to have a chance at being somewhat combat effective, even before the (not universally usable) armor mechanic becomes a factor.

The "proof" people keep asking for.
View attachment 55820
These are two of my older "classic" designs refit to use power 2.0 under current QF configs. The left one (Challenger) has a basic interior and cargo bay with a combined mass of 7,704.

The one on the right (Pathfinder) was designed to have similar mass, exterior dimensions, power grid and defenses to the challenger but with a much greater capacity for cargo. For the hell of it, I filled the extra space as far as I could with system blocks to see how powerful I could make it. Now it too has only a basic interior but now has a combined mass of 12,539. Power grid and firepower are nearly double that of the challenger for a similar physical volume. While slower due to the increased mass of system blocks, it can now easily kill its lighter counterpart; whereas, before, they were very similar in terms of performance.

If you have to choose between having interior (for whatever purpose; be it for fighters, crew, cargo, decoration, RP, etc) and cramming a bunch of systems into every nook and cranny for the sake of PVP combat superiority over a ship of identical size and shape, then that's not balance. ...so yes TheDerpGamerX , QF did in fact fail to balance the game in this regard.

Regarding armor: Scypio , your statement does not apply to my situation or that of other smaller-than-average builders; as armor has little to no benefit at this size class unless you build specifically for armor that can stop CM/BM weapons from a ship in this size class.

...which is not as simple as it sounds.
View attachment 55819Pathfinder stuck by another Pathfinder - 5000 BM array 1:1
View attachment 55816 Challenger armed with 2400 BM array 1:1 vs 10 layers adv
View attachment 55818View attachment 55817Pathfinder armed with 5000 BM array 1:1 vs 10 layers adv

In fact, armor at this scale is so trivial that I've built fighters less than 4% of the mass of this ship that can defeat its armor with other weapons besides missiles.

At the scale of what some of QF's members consider "normal faction ship sizes" this is far less of an issue since you have "more ship" to destroy so you won't be killing each each other in only a handful of shots; despite having much more powerful weapons. At the smaller scale, a few direct hits with these kinds of weapons will quickly drop your shields in a few shots, then vaporize a nice chunk of your ship regardless of armor or open space. This encourages META weapons and giantism. Once again; not balance.

Regarding META weapons themselves: While fun and impressive, they are the antithesis of balance.

You guys can get upset at me for pointing these things out if you like. If it helps you sleep at night, you can claim that I'm trolling, disruptive, or bad mouthing QF, etc. despite my trying to remain calm and diplomatic. You can even claim that I have "no proof"; in spite of the obvious examples of what I'm talking about. ...but the truth remains; this game is not being balanced but rather altered to suit one limited-scope play-style to the exclusivity of all others. ...and whenever someone grows a pair and points this out (whether diplomatically or in the crass manner; typical of online gaming forums), the tribe invariably gets defensive and then...

This is a key reason why I and other players test independently of QF, away from their records/documentation and outside of this forum. We know that no matter what gaps, exploits, bugs, solutions, breakthroughs, etc. we find and record, you simply don't want to hear it.

...and that's perfectly fine; as I'm sure we'll all be thoroughly revisiting this topic if/when Schine releases the universe update.

See you then.

Except you dont need to fill every block with systems. If anything QF encourages interiors, as you're not supposed to fill every inch with systems. If you are filling your ship with mostly reactor it means your systems are too big and you clearly are doing it wrong. Just because you don't know how to use the system doesn't mean its bad. It means you are simply too incompetent to understand them. All of my QF ships function fantastically and yet have a decent interior. I could have put even more interior but i chose to fill the extra space with armor instead. If you are filling up your ship completely, you need to re think your design, as your systems should be nearly as big as before.

This same thing has been said so many times its insane. Let me put it in big bold text so you don't forget it this time:

DO NOT BUILD LIKE BEFORE. ALL SYSTEMS SHOULD BE SMALLER. IF YOU ARE FILLING YOUR ENTIRE SHIP WITH REACTOR IT MEANS YOUR SYSTEMS ARE TOO LARGE AND NEED TO BE SHRUNK. YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE PLENTY OF SPACE FOR ARMOR AND INTERIOR.

 

[klawxx]

Hello there,

I'm a average guy that have a job and a family to look after. I use my sparse free time to build some starships, some from EVE Online, a game I cannot play due to time/family limitations. I'm giving this "background" to justify my question: Is there some general guidelines on how to build a somewhat future prof ship?

In the past I used to even modestly help some players with building, but now I don't have the time to keep up with the changes being made and it seems that you're the ones giving the directions.

To tell you the truth, I'm considering even dropping starmade in favor of some freeware version of 3d max or something since they give more creative freedom and have less computational requirements. I will dearly miss the logic and rail mechanics tho.

Maybe one option would be to just build shells and forget about the innards and shenanigans... Oh another info to guide your response, I just build in single-player creative. Will this continue to be a possible? or just competitive multiplayer server based? Sorry, I've been really away from a while and I did not figure out how all this discord thing works The old chat was so much easy and Schine used to answer questions directly on the docks but now it seems they ignore it except for general statements.

Lets say I'm the kind of guy that used to follow Tshara, Rayben and SkylordLuke but I'm kind lost now... Any pointers, general tips would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,
Klawxx

 

[Tsnonak]

Beams are currently bugged against armor. They sometimes do much much much higher damage than they are supposed to, the reason is currently unknown.

It has something todo with angles; high angles = more damage, and possibly because beams are that distant weird cousin to salvagers.
... adv.armor: higher angles / standard & basic: squared, it's wierd

DO NOT BUILD LIKE BEFORE. ALL SYSTEMS SHOULD BE SMALLER. IF YOU ARE FILLING YOUR ENTIRE SHIP WITH REACTOR IT MEANS YOUR SYSTEMS ARE TOO LARGE AND NEED TO BE SHRUNK. YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE PLENTY OF SPACE FOR ARMOR AND INTERIOR.

Maybe you guys enjoy blockspamming 30+ layers of armor, but fact is; game assets, almost all community content, and casual players do not build to this codex.

This config is fine for MP-servers that want to play like this, but Forcing it on the entire community (singleplayer included), is BS.

I do not doubt the quality or intention.
The intention is clear, it is all about elite hardcore Pvp...

I recall reading something about hopes that the current code-limits will be lifted so that more than 32 layers of armer are possible.

This was not just "balancing", everything has been re-written to fit accordingly to the elite PvP agenda (of this small closed group), and as far as I can tell; balance issues are still prevalent.

... and it is a very restrictive config, it's that simple.



community project they said...
feedback they wanted...

Fact is; almost all Feedback was ignored, apparently they did not even listen to their own fan-club (thrusters being the prime example)...
why even bother when they don't listen to anything the community conveys.

~ transmission end ~

 

[Tsnonak]

Hello there,

I'm a average guy that have a job and a family to look after. I use my sparse free time to build some starships, some from EVE Online, a game I cannot play due to time/family limitations. I'm giving this "background" to justify my question: Is there some general guidelines on how to build a somewhat future prof ship?

In the past I used to even modestly help some players with building, but now I don't have the time to keep up with the changes being made and it seems that you're the ones giving the directions.

To tell you the truth, I'm considering even dropping starmade in favor of some freeware version of 3d max or something since they give more creative freedom and have less computational requirements. I will dearly miss the logic and rail mechanics tho.

Maybe one option would be to just build shells and forget about the innards and shenanigans... Oh another info to guide your response, I just build in single-player creative. Will this continue to be a possible? or just cometitive multiplayer server based? Sorry, I've been really away from a while and I did not figure out how all this discord thing works The old chat was so much easy and Schine used to answer questions directly on the docks but now it seems they ignore it except for general statements.

Lets say I used to follow Tshara, Rayben and SkylordLuke but I'm kind lost now... Any pointers, general tips would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,
Klawxx

Have no fear, as modding possibilities open up to the community, servers and single-player will have more options; custom / modded servers with customConfigs are coming!

Diversity in fits will be a thing and there's also the simple solution of saving empty hulls so you can fit them for whatever server...
after all, building / modifying / optimising is part of the fun!

I will also be releasing an updated customBlockBehaviorConfig.xml for v0.202.86, that aims to give the "build-freedom" this release has taken away back, soon! ...works for single-player too!

QF Notes (shortform) Here... be sure to read the bottom!

 

[klawxx]

Have no fear, as modding possibilities open up to the community, servers and single-player will have more options; custom / modded servers with customConfigs are coming!

Diversity in fits will be a thing and there's also the simple solution of saving empty hulls so you can fit them for whatever server...
after all, building / modifying / optimising is part of the fun!

I will also be releasing an updated customBlockBehaviorConfig.xml for v0.202.86 soon!

QF Notes (shortform) Here... be sure to read the bottom!

Thanks for the quick repply!

- Klawxx

 

[Scypio]

If you have to choose between having interior (for whatever purpose; be it for fighters, crew, cargo, decoration, RP, etc) and cramming a bunch of systems into every nook and cranny for the sake of PVP combat superiority over a ship of identical size and shape, then that's not balance. ...so yes @TheDerpGamerX , QF did in fact fail to balance the game in this regard.

As i said earlier, you ARE comparing ships based on looks. NOT SYSTEMS. To compare two ships they have to have the same SYSTEMS. Stop comparing based on volume. Volume is worth nothing in starmade. Decoration blocks and hull are worth little to no mass on your ship and unless you have your ship made out of 60% of interiors it won't perform so badly that you cannot win vs someone not doing any interiors. IT CAN EVEN BE USED AT YOUR ADVANTAGES as several users and more pvp players did and proved it. And don't tell me that minimalist interiors are not realistic. Today's submarines are very minimalists. You could look at the u-boats plans online if you want to get some idea how minimalistic interiors can be. They even share beds and sleep in shifts to gain space.

This whole rp ship vs pvp ship is nonsense. This is just the Pygmalion effect going over and over and the people believing it spreading even further the misinformation. I'm not a pvp player, i do not play enough to consider myself one however i want my ships to be the bests engineered ones. As such i take time, trials and errors to get the best of my ships. Looks is part of it. If you do not want your ship to be on par with people that build with efficiency in mind then it's not a problem. It is fine. But do NOT call out others if you do not want to. It just make it look like you're asking for YOUR build style to be the meta. I know from the little discussion we had on our discord that you are not that stubborn and can understand when you care to listen compared to some others. So please try to listen before doing a tsonak and rejecting any sort of changes. But from your message i guess you made already your choice regarding anything. Might as well tell me why you even bother coming here if you do not care to listen to anyone besides starting a war against qf ? Besides you four i'm having some good feedback on the starmade discord server concerning qf changes.

Is there some general guidelines on how to build a somewhat future prof ship?

Copy of QF notes

Quickfire Systems Changes- Full summary and notes - First of all, this part won’t include a full list of all the changes made by the QF team - the reason being that it is impossible to describe in detail every change, as almost every aspect of the game changed. Plus, there is no point going ove...

docs.google.com

At the end of the document are some general guidelines to build with intended qf configs. Please note that eveything is subject to context. For example high rof weapons are not good against armor (and so some claim that they are useless) but they are good if you fight non-heavy armored ships. On the contrary if you use low rof weapons you'll be good against armor. But said weapons are much easier to dodge due to low fire rate. And so it's better to use light armored ships to dodge more easily.
Again, QF configs encourage specialized ships, which enhance even more the chamber system. And so there is no jack of all trade ships good in every aspects. Everything turning in circles.

Maybe one option would be to just build shells and forget about the innards and shenanigans... Oh another info to guide your response, I just build in single-player creative. Will this continue to be a possible? or just competitive multiplayer server based? Sorry, I've been really away from a while and I did not figure out how all this discord thing works The old chat was so much easy and Schine used to answer questions directly on the docks but now it seems they ignore it except for general statements.

Why wouldn't you be able to peacefully build your ships in solo ? Fleets and balance doesn't prevent you from doing so.
If you just want to build, disable npc's and pirates then build. If you want survival use the fleets functionnality, adapt yourself to your ennemy or just build big enough so that you win vs npc's.

It has something todo with angles; high angles = more damage, and possibly because beams are that distant weird cousin to salvagers.

If you know anything about a BUG you would be of nice help to fill out a bug report and help track down this issue. If not then this is not relevant to the balance of the game. Beams were not that bugged when we set up the numbers for them. Now they're even worse.

Maybe you guys enjoy blockspamming 30+ layers of armor, but fact is; game assets, amost all community content, and casual players do not build to this codex.

Maybe you don't but actually some people here do. THAT'S CRAZY RIGHT ? I've even met people whoose smallest ships are 300k mass. Let me take an example. Your friend, troll82 here, do not build anything smaller than several hundreds of thousands of mass. And he's not alone. So i guess, because you don't like this way of building you disaproove their ships too ? Or is that just so you can tackle a bit QF so you take anything you can get ?

Anyway. Why armor needs to be so thick has been explained countless times. And it has been done so that SMALL SHIPS some people complain about here can be balanced. Or y'know. I can make it so that armor blocks are the equivalent of 5 but with 5 times the mass and so he cannot even consider putting armor on his beloved ships because too damn heavy. Welp, your choice. We tested both and people complais about both. So we keep the one giving more freedom.