Thermite is Fun!

    jontyfreack

    Pipe-God-Emperor of starmade
    Joined
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages
    603
    Reaction score
    773
    • Legacy Citizen 9
    • Community Content - Silver 2
    super titans would be encouraged instead of drone carriers - on the simple premise of "thousand ships cause more lag than one ship."
    from my experience a ship with 100 entities causes more lag than 100 single ships. however a lot of drones adding up to the mass of a larger ship will cause more lag than that larger ship on its own.
     
    Joined
    Jul 22, 2016
    Messages
    76
    Reaction score
    17
    We're aiming to have reactors slowly (1-5 minutes) die on their own after getting hit [...]
    I could make the explosions tiny but numerous that last for a long time.
    I could make them strong and medium in radius that last for a very short amount of time.
    I could make them low damage but huge radius so that unarmored reactors can cause some serious system damage.
    I could make it so that advanced armor on the outer layer of the reactor and armored layers inside would be enough to prolong your reactor's life/usefulness just long enough to justify for the added cost, used block space and added mass.
    ...power supply will be nerfed when used on its docked entity (or any chain to it), maybe even completely disabled.
    I love the dangerous reactors, but I would still like them to be able to function as a docked reactor. If the explosion occurred briefly after getting hit, perhaps 5-30 seconds, the chain reaction explosive quality would mean that it would rapidly self destruct removing lag problems, which I understand to be the main reason to remove/nerf power supply. If the radius of the explosion was sufficient to damage surrounding systems this would encourage interesting design choices to between: logic push systems setup to push damaged reactors near the surface out of the ship, deeply buried & armored reactor areas, and perhaps small distributed reactors which would damage but not trash your ship as they are inevitable detonated. Or simply sticking with the current safe, but less powerful reactors (I assume that's the role they will have.)
     
    Joined
    Jul 15, 2014
    Messages
    506
    Reaction score
    111
    Then the soft cap plus all other nerfs and diminishing returns for big ships should simply be removed instead of adding exploding reactors. So building super titans would be encouraged instead of drone carriers - on the simple premise of "thousand ships cause more lag than one ship."
    On the other hand, the game could be optimized to handle a variety of different ship sizes working in tandem, and designed in a way to encourage fleet diversification etc instead of making the game about who can bring the biggest ship. The explosive reactors are a part of that.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: NeonSturm
    Joined
    Mar 2, 2014
    Messages
    1,293
    Reaction score
    230
    • Thinking Positive
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    On the other hand, the game could be optimized to handle a variety of different ship sizes working in tandem, and designed in a way to encourage fleet diversification etc instead of making the game about who can bring the biggest ship. The explosive reactors are a part of that.
    I'm all for diversity, but I'm against killing each and every way of modular ship building.
     
    Joined
    Jul 15, 2014
    Messages
    506
    Reaction score
    111
    The problem with modular building isn't just that "more ships = more lag". It's that having a fairly large entity nestled inside of a bigger entity means you have lots of fairly intensive collision calculations happening pretty much all the time. Especially in combat, where it has to share processing with the various turrets etc (larger turrets are a server load hog). Even especially-er if the docking modules are destroyed, and the server has to process the modular part repeatedly colliding into the mother ship. And the only real benefit to it from a game design standpoint is some kinda neat gimmick builds, so it doesn't strike me as worth it, beyond as was previously said, the RP element.

    Drone ships (up to a point, if you have hundreds of drones this goes out the window) are generally less intensive, since they are usually launched before the combat actually starts, and don't take much collision checking as they're tiny (in my experience a few medium docked entities causes more lag then a larger group of small entities). Depending on the launch sequence there may be a bit of a spike, but it's nothing compared to a reactor undocking etc. There's also more of a potential benefit from a game play stand point imo.
     
    Joined
    Mar 2, 2014
    Messages
    1,293
    Reaction score
    230
    • Thinking Positive
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    The problem with modular building isn't just that "more ships = more lag". It's that having a fairly large entity nestled inside of a bigger entity means you have lots of fairly intensive collision calculations happening pretty much all the time. Especially in combat, where it has to share processing with the various turrets etc (larger turrets are a server load hog). Even especially-er if the docking modules are destroyed, and the server has to process the modular part repeatedly colliding into the mother ship. And the only real benefit to it from a game design standpoint is some kinda neat gimmick builds, so it doesn't strike me as worth it, beyond as was previously said, the RP element.
    There are other ways to solve this. If an internally docked entity gets undocked and there is no place for it to move anywhere, no collision checks would be necessary. Also, externally docked modular ship parts like armor plates surely don't cause more lag than turrets.
     

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,115
    Reaction score
    1,229
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 11
    There are other ways to solve this. If an internally docked entity gets undocked and there is no place for it to move anywhere, no collision checks would be necessary.
    The point is that it's better and easier to either disable internally docked systems (shield injectors) or give a better, easier to balance real system (docked reactors and batteries). I'm pretty sure the only reason docked thrust exists is because so many people have moving rail engines, which are almost always external.

    Also, externally docked modular ship parts like armor plates surely don't cause more lag than turrets.
    It's moreso that docked armor plates in COMBINATION with turrets causes more lag than just the turrets would. We shouldn't ENCOURAGE the use of it (like some current bugs do.....) but it should be allowed, like how docked thrust is.
     
    Joined
    Sep 18, 2014
    Messages
    621
    Reaction score
    448
    On the other hand, the game could be optimized to handle a variety of different ship sizes working in tandem, and designed in a way to encourage fleet diversification etc instead of making the game about who can bring the biggest ship. The explosive reactors are a part of that.
    Why is there the syndrome "the biggest is the strongest" ? Because everything is linear. Then, why should i get 2 ships with a gun if i can get one ship with a gun twice the first one ? The best thing is that until your shields are down you won't have damage and block to repair so the most shield you got the best it is. It's a summary but it's basically why. I'll never understand why some things are linear while some others not.
    It's not just about power regen, it's everything.
     
    Joined
    Mar 2, 2014
    Messages
    1,293
    Reaction score
    230
    • Thinking Positive
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    The point is that it's better and easier to either disable internally docked systems (shield injectors) or give a better, easier to balance real system (docked reactors and batteries).
    I definitely won't miss power/shield injectors, I'd just like to keep other modular stuff, if possible.

    Because everything is linear. [...] I'll never understand why some things are linear while some others not.
    Er, what?
    I really don't understand the point of your post.
     

    The Judge

    Kill me please
    Joined
    Aug 12, 2014
    Messages
    409
    Reaction score
    176
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    Making Reactors smaller and high mass to be more vulnerable as well as removing power supply beams to make docked reactors
    Did I predict the future? Probably not, but hey it looks fun.
     
    Joined
    Sep 18, 2014
    Messages
    621
    Reaction score
    448
    Er, what?
    I really don't understand the point of your post.
    What i point out is that i don't find anything logical in the starmade formula. Like encouraging smaller ships instead of bigger ones. If you want to do so then it's the whole gameplay mechanic that need to encourage that, not one thing.

    For example, if i take a cannon. With 1 bloc i'll do 10 damage per shot. If i take 10 000 blocs it'll be 100 000 per shot. Then why should i do different ships with smaller weapons when i can do a bigger one ? I'll say mine is bigger than yours but i don't have my ruler with me...
    If you take for example the shield formula, it gives a logarithmic curve, something that encourage to do smaller things instead of bigger ones to use your blocs the most optimized way.
    What gives the actual power cap ? Just a arbitrary cap that says: "No, nothing bigger will be build and be useful". Nothing else.
     
    Joined
    Mar 2, 2014
    Messages
    1,293
    Reaction score
    230
    • Thinking Positive
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    What i point out is that i don't find anything logical in the starmade formula. Like encouraging smaller ships instead of bigger ones. If you want to do so then it's the whole gameplay mechanic that need to encourage that, not one thing.
    • Power systems: Soft cap
    • Thrust system: Diminishing returns for thrust, slower rotation for bigger ships
    • Shield system: Diminishing returns for shield capacity
    • Structure: Damage penalty from systems amount
    • Armor: Thickness, which is more important than block count, scales terribly with ship size
    • Weapons: Escalating power costs for multiple weapon groups, high damage weapons are less effective (see below)
    All the core systems discourage big ships, not just one.

    For example, if i take a cannon. With 1 bloc i'll do 10 damage per shot. If i take 10 000 blocs it'll be 100 000 per shot. Then why should i do different ships with smaller weapons when i can do a bigger one ? I'll say mine is bigger than yours but i don't have my ruler with me...
    If you take for example the shield formula, it gives a logarithmic curve, something that encourage to do smaller things instead of bigger ones to use your blocs the most optimized way.
    What gives the actual power cap ? Just a arbitrary cap that says: "No, nothing bigger will be build and be useful". Nothing else.
    A 100 000 damage shot isn't as good 10 000 shots at 10 damage each, since a lot of damage will go to waste if the former hits unshielded blocks. I agree on the power cap.
     

    NeonSturm

    StormMaker
    Joined
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages
    5,110
    Reaction score
    617
    • Wired for Logic
    • Thinking Positive
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    For example, if i take a cannon. With 1 bloc i'll do 10 damage per shot. If i take 10 000 blocs it'll be 100 000 per shot. Then why should i do different ships with smaller weapons when i can do a bigger one ?.
    If you would make it a logarithmic curve, peoples would build checker-board guns.
    gun, free, gun, free, gun, free
    free, gun, free, gun, free, gun
    And that on all 3 axis.​

    If you take for example the shield formula, it gives a logarithmic curve, something that encourage to do smaller things instead of bigger ones to use your blocs the most optimized way.
    If you have less shields per entity, you can't sum up the hit-points of your fleet into one single pool.
    Half would be dead already when 2/3 of your pool is eliminated and can't contribute to battle anymore.
     

    Captain Tankman

    Cake Build Server Staff
    Joined
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages
    500
    Reaction score
    460
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Legacy Citizen 8
    If you would make it a logarithmic curve, peoples would build checker-board guns.
    gun, free, gun, free, gun, free
    free, gun, free, gun, free, gun
    And that on all 3 axis.​

    I highly doubt that because the power cost of firing that many outputs at once explode.​
     

    NeonSturm

    StormMaker
    Joined
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages
    5,110
    Reaction score
    617
    • Wired for Logic
    • Thinking Positive
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    I highly doubt that because the power cost of firing that many outputs at once explode.
    Then you would make 30x as many barrels as computers because then computer purchase costs are about 25% and use logic-triggers.
    Or you would use the free space for computers.
     
    Joined
    Jul 15, 2014
    Messages
    506
    Reaction score
    111
    What i point out is that i don't find anything logical in the starmade formula. Like encouraging smaller ships instead of bigger ones. If you want to do so then it's the whole gameplay mechanic that need to encourage that, not one thing.

    For example, if i take a cannon. With 1 bloc i'll do 10 damage per shot. If i take 10 000 blocs it'll be 100 000 per shot. Then why should i do different ships with smaller weapons when i can do a bigger one ? I'll say mine is bigger than yours but i don't have my ruler with me...
    If you take for example the shield formula, it gives a logarithmic curve, something that encourage to do smaller things instead of bigger ones to use your blocs the most optimized way.
    What gives the actual power cap ? Just a arbitrary cap that says: "No, nothing bigger will be build and be useful". Nothing else.
    Pretty much the only thing that scales linearly is weapon size. Even then it's a bit deceptive, as it's only really shield damage that's linear. Penetration has some diminishing returns, and multiple outputs have a power penalty that can add up on larger weapons. Shielding, armour (well, sort of, armour dips and peaks at various sizes), thrust and handling all diminish as you get bigger. Power storage, and to an extent power gen, get better as your ship gets bigger.

    And even without docked reactors (or the new power batteries) going over the soft cap with power can make usable ships. They're just likely going to lose in a head on fight against a group of more energy efficient ships. That's not a bad thing, encourages more diverse ship groups and (along with the other mechanics) stops the game from being about who can build the biggest ship.

    Then you would make 30x as many barrels as computers because then computer purchase costs are about 25% and use logic-triggers.
    Or you would use the free space for computers.
    Another thing to bare in mind with it is that lots of little projectiles are pretty much neutered by armour if they're not hitting the same spot.
     
    Joined
    Sep 18, 2014
    Messages
    621
    Reaction score
    448
    Pretty much the only thing that scales linearly is weapon size. Even then it's a bit deceptive, as it's only really shield damage that's linear. Penetration has some diminishing returns, and multiple outputs have a power penalty that can add up on larger weapons. Shielding, armour (well, sort of, armour dips and peaks at various sizes), thrust and handling all diminish as you get bigger. Power storage, and to an extent power gen, get better as your ship gets bigger.
    I took shield damage as example because it's the true damage the weapons do, without armor and so on.
    Multiple output weapons aren't a thing, except for some c/c weapons so taking into account the penalty well... I didn't wanted to.
    But you resume the situation, i don't understand why things like power get better the bigger the ship become while shield, thrust, handling don't. And why the weapons are between both, linear ? If you want to promote smaller ship then everyhing need to be kinda logarithmic, not exponential. That's the whole thing i don't understand. The power is exponential with the ship's size so why using something abitrary like a soft cap and not something drastically logarithmic ?
    I just don't understand why adding game mechanics while this could be easily corrected with a simple formula. The mechanics can be cool but luckily shooting the power lines stays a problem for any ship. They can be titans with tens of docked reactors or just small corvette that this won't change anything, hitting the power regen is a problem for any ship.
     

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,115
    Reaction score
    1,229
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 11
    Why is there the syndrome "the biggest is the strongest" ? Because everything is linear
    Right, except shield capacity, power generation, weapon penetration, thrust, amount of SHP you can lose before overheat, and the cost of the same thickness of armor?

    I'm pretty sure the only thing that gets BETTER with bigger ships is power capacity.
     

    Matt_Bradock

    The Shrink
    Joined
    Aug 4, 2013
    Messages
    798
    Reaction score
    464
    • Purchased!
    • Thinking Positive
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    Scypio The "everything" that's linear is the weapon shield damage per block, armor HP/added block and system HP/added block. That's about it. The weapons' capability to destroy blocks, is a whole other story.

    I'd really like to know more about these new thermite blocks though. How exactly do they work? How do they provide power? How do they overload and blow up other than getting hit?