Read by Council Tiered System Modules: Compact and backwards compatible

[nokturnihs]

Concept:

A new block consisting of up to three tiers, the System Component Module and a System Configuration Controller



Name: System Component Module
Function: Each tier allows one control computer to be attached. All linked component modules take the attributes of the modules normally attributed to the control computer. Tier two and three allow one master, and up to two slave systems to be attached to create a single combined system. When more than one computer is linked to a group of System component Modules, the power requirements and mass are increased as though a second or third module were added to the system.
Cost: Each tier of component module is significantly more expensive to buy or produce than the previous tier.
Negative impacts:
While complex weapons/support systems take less block space, the combined systems still increase the power and mass of the ship as though the blocks were present as normal. The system component modules impact armor and ship health only as one block, but count as three systems for reductions in said elements.

Name: System Configuration Controller
Function: Allows fine tuning the percentages of each of the Tier 2 and higher System Component Modules - connect the two/three combined computers to the System Configuration Controller and then link the SCC to the system component modules. The configuration controller would contain a simple GUI listing the three connected systems, a name field and sliders for each connected computer.
Example:

Name: (enter text here) - when added to the hotbar the name will present in the tooltip
Optional: A custom icon for the hotbar using an image selector
UP/Down arrows to configure which system is primary and secondary systems.
Optional: A Color selector for the primary system (in relation to weapons)
Sliders: Range from Default (100%) down to 25% (when providing more emphasis to a particular system) up to the maximum of 250% (where both secondary systems are rated at 1/4 of a block per System Component module and the primary computer attached is considered 2.5 blocks per System Component Module. These percentages and contributions are limited to 175% and 25% on Tier 2 systems, which only allow two computers to be connected.

Other Notes:
- Only one SCC can be linked to a group of Component Modules.
- This simple GUI provided offers more "personality" and charm to created structures as well as offers a neat way to simply label particular weapons for the hotbar.
- This could also be used to connect multiple defensive systems together for a master toggle (when possible) - for example, you could connect a overdrive computer to a Stop computer and name it "Atmospheric Racing mode". Both systems kick in upon activation and the power consumption of both systems is used while active. (also, think jammer and cloaking device for the one-stop shop for stealth ships)
- This component module could also be attached to a "special Hull" block and be used to control the associated texture of the block. For some examples - have and advanced hull that is configured to look like wood, but offers the protection of advanced armor. It's an advanced painting system. Other sample uses would be hidden doors or even "Adaptive Hulls" that switch from a visible white or red to a hard-to-see black when activated. Great way to escape a dedicated bounty hunter or infiltrate your enemies.
- Could also be used as "Programming modules" to wire up and/not/or logic.
- Could also be adopted to be used as a "Combo system" for Refineries, Factories and Enhancers....

Sample use:

Original ship configuration:

Fighter craft has a Damage Beam + Cannon + Overdrive system. the master system is 20 blocks in size.

To get 100% on all secondary systems you would need to add another 40 blocks to the ship, adding 120 to the size of the fighter craft.

Using System Component Modules:

Beam + Cannon + Overdrive system using Tier 2 System component modules -
20 blocks for the beams and cannons. Tier 2 is limited to two total connected computers, so an overdrive computer and 20 blocks of overdrive modules need to be added to the ship - this reduces 20 blocks from the ship size. Power consumption and mass are not changed as the Tier 2 modules weigh twice that of a single module, and consume the power of a beam module and cannon module (meta data inherited from connected computers.)

Using Tier 3 Systems:
20 blocks for beams, cannons and overdrive modules. Blocks weigh three times normal and consume the same power as a beam, cannon and overdrive module per block. 40 blocks less size, but the same power requirements, yet no bonus to ship health, and less "layers" to drill through to hit the deepest parts of the ship. Also repairing/replacing the tier 3 modules is more expensive and when one system module is destroyed all three systems (beam, cannon and overdrive) are all damaged.

End Notes:
This is a future proofed suggestion. it doesn't break backwards compatibility or old ships at all. It can be used to offer a variety of new strategies, new customization options and has some great possibilities for use in other areas of gameplay. It could potentially increase performance overall by quite a bit - it reduces entity block counts, and that can negate some of the size-related issues with things like AI. It definitely could improve the player's experience as we can enjoy smaller builds when we want to, but also utilize new tools to make even more unique configurations and elements. It is balanced and has the potential to reduce some developer overhead, as well as provides a uniform method of combining systems. It will DEFINITELY result in cleaner builds and allow for more creative and aesthetic interiors and ship exteriors.


So Schine, what do you think?

 

[Dragleones]

One block for everything?
Seriously. Your idea is way too overloaded.
You propose a block somehow interacting with everything. Making it absolutely mandatory for anything.

And the whole thing just doesn't fit into the game.
The current master/slave/effect-weapon system is super simple and intuitive once you get behind yet allows costumizable setups. You just need to connect the computer to their retrospective module and can connect the computer to each other however you want.
You propose a overloaded, overcomplicated shortcut to get around the current weapon system instead of working with it. Basically a system in order to replace it with a single module block and a ingame gui.


And i had to read the text way to often to get a rough idea what you are actually proposing. Way to unspecific.

New block.
Replaces the weapon system entirely.
Can be used for anything.
Like a sonic screwdriver.

"It can even make hull transparent"

 

[Comradecolonel]

I like the overall idea behind this but I think this implementation is far too complicated. I think we should just be able to alter percentages from the ship menu. I'd also like to see the ability to link weapons systems together.

Other than that I don't see much reason to add a counter-intuitive and confusing block to the game.

 

[paladin.oa]

"It can even make hull transparent"

By way of removing said hull? :P

 

[nokturnihs]

That was a typo, paladin. I meant skinning the hull to another block.

Dragleones, you did not properly read the post as you pretty much stated yourself. The idea isn't to bypass anything, nor sonic screwdriver anything as well. I proposed a system that would allow for smaller builds while still allow you to make useful vessels. Also quoting the basic mechanics of the system when I obviously am aware of the system and familiar with it or I wouldn't be proposing such an idea is a little offensive, but forgiven because I'm sure you didn't intend to offer offense with the tone of your comment.

I love starmade and play it quite a bit and have for many months.

The basic principle is to offer a framework that offers a little more personality to the existing systems and simply make small but useful ships. Schine is adamant about not incorporating any kind of microblocks and I understand their reasoning why. They encourage large builds because of the way the gameplay mechanics work, and fighter craft are almost a joke and mostly. Small ships can be aesthetics friendly or function focused, not both. Most craft only get useful at around 40 to 50 meters. The fleet contest has a limit of 100 meters, which means they're aware that vessels over that size cause massive performance issues.

My suggestion offers one way to address some of these shortcomings. If they don't eventually address the issue they have created by encouraging large builds that also encourage performance issues, then they will probably regret it as it would discourage potential players in the future.

There's nothing cheaty about the concept either. It's not intended to make things easier. It's a proposal that could resolve potential problems the developers might face and offers players another way of doing what we're already doing, but with its own peculiarities and possibilities.

I can guarantee you I'm not the only person playing starmade who feels a little upset when they finally finish their massive ship that incorporates the new fleet functionality, some clever rail systems and some turrets and then finds that the same ship crushes the server or local client. Look in the forums. How many server admins have asked about limiting ship sizes server wide for these very reasons?

Anyway, I see some issues that need to be addressed. I offered a possible solution.
[DOUBLEPOST=1464147709,1464147358][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, it's not really that complicated. I'm not sure how linking one to three computers to a config block, then linking the config block to component blocks (just like you would link missile tubes to missile computers) is any more complicated than setting up a rail system that lands multiple drone vessels and uses the fleet mechanics and such. It's actually way more straightforward than any kind of complicated logic system. Look at the USD TYPE 1 template Saber added - that logic system takes a hell of a lot more brain power to control a docking system and a door. I maybe explained it poorly if it's coming across as seriously complicated.

 

[Madman198237]

There's no need to bypass the system in this way. Small ships have weaker weapons and faster motion than large ships. Always. All you're proposing, in effect, is to reduce the size of killing machines....and to make every ship move slower, as their density will be multiplied.

Which will make it hard (Since projectile speeds won't change) to use an adequate fighter, because said fighter can no longer dodge incoming fire, since it's three or four times heavier than it should be.

 

[nokturnihs]

I'm proposing a method of reducing ship size for building attractive and somewhat useful ships. It's up to the players how they use it. Yes, you could add heavy Weapons systems into a small ship, but lose the maneuverability. I personally would like to use it to do something like a recent experience I had building a small ship with room for four fighters. The fighters needed to land in an area that limited their size to 10 high, 20 wide and 13 long. I didn't care if they had exceptional firepower, just some rapid fire stuff to keep hammering at shields while I could bring the main vessels weapons to bear. I eventually was able to build them but the original idea for their aesthetics had to be abandoned because I couldn't fit in the appropriate weapons systems to have a rapid fire anything in those parameters. I had to sacrifice looks for some pretty pathetic functionality. I would have been able to fit a weaker version of the weapons systems and the aesthetics I had planned with the system above. Their maneuverability would've been the same, and I didn't have a problem with that, because I never intended them to do more than harass other craft. Yes I could've dropped their weapons sizes down to say 2-4 blocks per system, but then what's the point other than to say they're there. Harassing is one thing but nothing but eye candy as the weapons systems is just dumb and a poor use of system performance as the larger your ship, the more the strain on the game, just as the more vessels, the more strain. I know starmade is really big ship friendly, but the fleet contest is limited to ships 100 blocks or less - they know massive ships cause serious performance problems. It needs to be addressed. This is one way.

Just as you said, it could make ships that were fast slow and chunky. That's fine. That is game balance. We build ships of all kinds. Some are epic killers, some beautiful but ultimately useless in Combat. We want to build fighters and drones and freighters and miners and carriers and (etc) and the things limiting us are blocks available, our Intellect and creativity, and performance issues. I can learn more, get new inspiration on my own. I can upgrade my system to run starmade more efficiently (although my system is relatively new and specifically built for high end gaming) but I can't change the ultimate limits of what the game engine can handle and I can't add systems blocks to the game through the block editor as far as I know. If I'm wrong on that last, please let me know. I'll hack out a bunch of custom blocks and leave my opinions to myself.

 

[kookster]

I like the thought of reducing the amount of needed blocks to get the same functionality. I feel like you cant really do a good battle ship and make it look good without going HUGE. What I think might be a better solution is:
- Weapons adding more blocks gives some sort of effect like requires less power/ increased range/ something else??
- Weapon computers have a new UI when interacting with them, in this UI you can specify how much damage this weapon deals, which also scales the power usage. So you can finely tune your weapon.

This way you could have a tiny ship that can deal a lot of damage, but would drain all its power and then it would take time for the power to build back up before it can fire again. Thoughts?

 

[nokturnihs]

Kookster, I like this idea you had even better. I think there'd still need to be some kind of upper/lower limit required by the modules/missile tubes/etc but it sure would make fighters an actual possibility and keep ships down to more Performance friendly sizes. Perhaps a modified combination of both would be to use the connected modules to offer a 1x to 10x ratio - each module would function as 1 to 10 modules, to restrict the upper/lower limits and to simply outputs. Power scales within the limitations as well as the mass of the combined modules. Keeps a genuine balance to existing mechanics as well as offers backwards compatibility while meeting all the performance needs and aesthetics as a simple weapons computer GUI would allow you to name your array and set a color. I personally am really getting tired of the bloated ship size and performance issues interfering with Making interesting and fun ships.

 

[kookster]

So let's discuss what linking more modules could do:
- Reduce power by 0.5 per additional module, up to a max of 50% reduced power.
- Increase range.
- Reduce cool down.
- ??

I think I would choose the reduce power part or the reduced cool down. But since cannons kind of do the reduced cool down I would say reduced power usage I think would be the best pick. Since there isn't a module that does that.

 

[Lecic]

I eventually was able to build them but the original idea for their aesthetics had to be abandoned because I couldn't fit in the appropriate weapons systems to have a rapid fire anything in those parameters. I had to sacrifice looks for some pretty pathetic functionality.

You only need 4 blocks, minimum, for a rapidfire weapon. How can you not fit 4 blocks into your design?

Overall, this suggestion is pointless. Sure, you could increase the strength of one block, but you're also increasing mass, so you need to add more thrusters, completely negating what you're going for.

This would only be useful for turrets, and I don't really think tiny turrets should magically be able to pack in more power, so... no. This suggestion is irrelevant. Can people stop asking for tiers already?

 

[nokturnihs]

You only need 4 blocks, minimum, for a rapidfire weapon. How can you not fit 4 blocks into your design?

Overall, this suggestion is pointless. Sure, you could increase the strength of one block, but you're also increasing mass, so you need to add more thrusters, completely negating what you're going for.

This would only be useful for turrets, and I don't really think tiny turrets should magically be able to pack in more power, so... no. This suggestion is irrelevant. Can people stop asking for tiers already?

The idea is sound but apparently there's a lot of people who just are stuck on something or another. Yeah, four blocks for a one damage per ticket rapid fire weapon... So basically aesthetic. Are you telling me you would actually fly such a ship with such crappy armaments in survival?

This is why I don't get tremendously active in gaming communities - nothing but people who very rudely crap on any idea they don't like. Listen dude, not an idiot. Can people reply to suggestions without being rude and condescending?

Do this then: figure out what is going to fix the performance issues starmade has with over 100+ blocks and/or tons of AI and allows for functional AND aesthetic builds. You say that you can make a rapid fire weapon with four blocks, but do the math dude. How much does a single shield recharger provide to two shield capacitors per second. How much damage does a four block rapid beam or Cannon system do per second? How many points does a single block of standard hull have? Can your four block system ACTUALLY do anything to the a ship with two shield capacitors and a single recharger? Not likely. How many of fighters with said weapons would you need to have any kind of capability of beating a ship with twenty shield blocks and ten rechargers? What kind of performance cost is that having all those fighters running around wasting themselves against the old asinth craft? The asinth craft don't even have rechargers! How many of your fighters will it take to beat a single one?

I'm sick of people who respond with pointless observations shutting this idea down because they're either incapable of reading the post entirely or unwilling to examine the problems the idea proposes to address and have an intelligent discussion about it.


Kookster is the only person so far who's attempting a constructive dialog. Shame on the rest of you.

 

[Madman198237]

Shame on us? Did I not raise a valid point?

 

[nokturnihs]

Shame on us? Did I not raise a valid point?

Your point assumes that the proposal is to miniaturize killing machines, and that isn't really plausible in very small craft anyway, considering the average size of most vessels. Also, I can make a heavy, turtle fighter now, although small craft like stated in my example above that's arguable as far as "heavy" is concerned. The impact comes more into play on larger vessels, reducing that block count and size to improve performance. Yes, you are right, the game mechanics for momentum don't change.

By prefacing the statement as "there's no need to bypass the systems in this way" you also stated that there isn't currently anything needed to be addressed regarding the very issues that I am trying to get addressed.

But you were at least more polite than some of the other replies.

If this is a game about building ships that are unique and cool and diverse in function and aesthetics then why does schine encourage massive builds, deny any kind of microblocks and yet in contests to acquire content from their players encourage ships that are small, yet aesthetic. In their own announcement they acknowledged indirectly that ships should be attractive and it isn't about building the best warships... They realize that they have problems and I would like it addressed. It is a major issue that will require major changes of some kind and the earlier it is addressed then the less problems it will cause in the future. For a long time schine has been receiving feedback on this but instead of addressing the issue they spin off onto other features. Those features are nice but it is getting incredibly disappointing to be forced into one or the other - a ship with a decent interior (or exterior for small fighters, etc) or a ship that can function as a playable, enjoyable ship as far as weapons or support systems go.

The module system is clunky as is, and bugs besides. Furthermore it isn't a uniform system. The various different computers haven't uniformity in their own mechanics. The very least they could do is pick one mechanic and roll with it. The radar jammer and a cloaking device follow their own rules, as does the scanner and the rail enhancer. The cargo system works like weapons systems which is good, but there's problems.

If Schine wants us to have many craft to perform our various tasks (Combat, salvage, fleet management, etc) then it needs to either significantly improve the performance of its engine or address it some other way. I have a decent ship around 100 blocks long with a ton of little (easily swatted but really cheap to replace) drones. I can't use it because the AI completely chokes when I have all of them out there to mine. The idea behind the craft was a ton of small drones being defended by their mother craft. I can cut some of the drones out and opt for larger drones but that defeats the purpose of the build in some ways.

I have adversely a ship I had to make enormous - a carrier. I had to make it enormous to fit a couple squads (10 total) fighters and a bunch (over 20) of turrets. Again, performance issues. Why? Because the ship is so large it crushes the client when I move. It's a beautiful ship, best interior I've ever done with tons of interior and exterior detail. It probably could've been at least 100 blocks shorter in each direction (well, not in height) with this solution. It's 400*120*400 - it will never turn or accelerate quickly and no matter how small the weapons systems get, over about 120ish in a direction and that is a near absolute law.

 

[Lecic]

The idea is sound but apparently there's a lot of people who just are stuck on something or another. Yeah, four blocks for a one damage per ticket rapid fire weapon... So basically aesthetic. Are you telling me you would actually fly such a ship with such crappy armaments in survival?

Uh, no, I wouldn't fly a crappy ship in survival. However, fighters should not magically be able to be better just because poor little old you can't design a small ship that can hold any systems and still look good. Mind sharing a picture of that?

 

[Zekester81]

Sounds like what you are waiting for is major optimization to the game, which seriously does need to happen. I would assume they are working on it as that affects everything in the game. I doubt all these other additions to the game are detracting from the work of major optimization, but probably being done while they try and figure it out. In fact, I know they are working on massively optimizing the game as it affects online servers the most, which is very important to an online game. It's just common sense. I am of the opinion that if you want large powerful weapons(or systems), you're going to need a lot of room for them. I have also not had a problem with making ships of any size that can both look decent and be functional, and include a full RP interior.

BTW, may carrier is HUGE compared to yours. You must be on low end machine to have that much trouble with it. That's not bad, but is a reason they really need to do some serious optimization, and we'll just have to wait till they figure it out. I have a station in the works that I may abandon unless there are major optimizations done. The 12m block count is murderous, less than half done, and is making my not-low-end machine crawl. My game crashes when I try to save the blueprint. Trust me, I'm just as eager to have the game running smoother on less resources as you are. I have a drone carrier with the same issues as yours also. I looked at it this way, if someone attacks me and I have to launch all drones, they can't kill me if the game crashes. Undock-all ftw!

The fleet contest, if you have read any of it, is about smaller craft this time. They will be looking for bigger ships later, as they have stated, to address your concerns. They are not worried about systems in those, as they will make their own for them, as stated.

 

[nokturnihs]

Sounds like what you are waiting for is major optimization to the game, which seriously does need to happen. I would assume they are working on it as that affects everything in the game. I doubt all these other additions to the game are detracting from the work of major optimization, but probably being done while they try and figure it out. In fact, I know they are working on massively optimizing the game as it affects online servers the most, which is very important to an online game. It's just common sense. I am of the opinion that if you want large powerful weapons(or systems), you're going to need a lot of room for them. I have also not had a problem with making ships of any size that can both look decent and be functional, and include a full RP interior.

BTW, may carrier is HUGE compared to yours. You must be on low end machine to have that much trouble with it. That's not bad, but is a reason they really need to do some serious optimization, and we'll just have to wait till they figure it out. I have a station in the works that I may abandon unless there are major optimizations done. The 12m block count is murderous, less than half done, and is making my not-low-end machine crawl. My game crashes when I try to save the blueprint. Trust me, I'm just as eager to have the game running smoother on less resources as you are. I have a drone carrier with the same issues as yours also. I looked at it this way, if someone attacks me and I have to launch all drones, they can't kill me if the game crashes. Undock-all ftw!

The fleet contest, if you have read any of it, is about smaller craft this time. They will be looking for bigger ships later, as they have stated, to address your concerns. They are not worried about systems in those, as they will make their own for them, as stated.

i7-4700 (2.4Ghz)
16 GB RAM
Nvidia 870 GTX
Running on Win 8.1, Java 8, Using the Physical HDD for starmade, but the main OS is on an SSD. A little over a year-and-a-half old. The carrier I was pretty big, but it's likely the turrets and other rail stuff were the majority of the accomplices, since AI in this game is crap most the time....

Yeah, the game needs serious Optimizations in a few areas, but I am also growing to despise Schine's "Build big or go home" mentality about everything, no ability to make refineries or factories on ships "Because, not yet" is dumb, planets still offer a lot of issues, and Schine is basically using their fleet contests to save them a lot of what other games would call "Level design". I understand it's a small company, with a handful of people, but if they're offloading some of the work onto the players, then I want real progress in game content/optimization/mechanics with their updates. Call me an A-hole but I feel like the Main Menu update was something that could very easily have landed in the beta, or pre-release for that matter. It's pretty, but what was there before wasn't broken, while that main menu update DID break things (for a bit anyway).


And -

Uh, no, I wouldn't fly a crappy ship in survival. However, fighters should not magically be able to be better just because poor little old you can't design a small ship that can hold any systems and still look good. Mind sharing a picture of that?

No. I don't do requests from rude half-wits, please go scratch yourself elsewhere.

I'm done. continue on with this topic if you want. If a moderator kills the thread, even better. It's a damn shame that it takes days to get two or three useful bits of dialogue....

Thanks to those who actually had constructive input. I probably won't be back.

 

[therimmer96]

it's likely the turrets and other rail stuff were the majority of the accomplices, since AI in this game is crap most the time...

The crappy AI isn't the cause of lag. the crappy collisions are. if you're gonna insult the game, insult the right bit :P

but I am also growing to despise Schine's "Build big or go home" mentality about everything

They don't do that. They are agaisnt the tech that most large ships are forced to use, they want most of the basic ships in the game to be under 140m etc. What gave you that idea?

no ability to make refineries or factories on ships "Because, not yet" is dumb

That's for the genuinely valid purpose of making Stations worthwhile.

Schine is basically using their fleet contests to save them a lot of what other games would call "Level design".

That's because the community, myself included, frequently bitched about schine ignoreing the talent in the community, bar a few selected favorites. These contests are the result of that, and a good thing. The important factions are all having their stuff built by Schine, ships, stations everything. Community stuff is for the procedural factions where it is not feasible for schine to build enough varied designs to fill the universe.

I want real progress in game content/optimization/mechanics with their updates.

So do we all, but things have to take priority. The features they're working on right now are the major additions of crew/NPC's and everything along with them. that's alot of stuff that needs to be done right before they can release anything. Ignoring the main menu, the last few updates have only included bug fixes and minor things.

Call me an A-hole

You're an A-hole. Sorry. Too easy. Couldn't resist.

I feel like the Main Menu update was something that could very easily have landed in the beta, or pre-release for that matter. It's pretty, but what was there before wasn't broken, while that main menu update DID break things (for a bit anyway).

Ordinarily, I would agree with you. But the main menu was needed. The connection menu worked as a dev tool back when the game wasn't really sure where it was going and could have completely changed and losing players because the main menu was confusing wasn't a major concern.

However, the game will have lost people to the main menu, how complex it was beyond the basic settings, how hard it was to find something specific, and how it handled game crashes. Before the main menu, if a server kicked you off for any reason, you had to go back to the desktop and start again. That's frustrating. Imagine being a new player experiencing the game kicking you back to the desktop simply because the server shut down. It's going to leave a negative impression, and that player many never launch the game again. Fixing the main menu, to make it

1. simple to use
2. make you want to play the game
3. keep you playing the game if something goes wrong

was completely needed. I myself have been working on things, the server crash, and rather than waiting for it to come back in the main menu, be facing my desktop and wind up doing something else.

Any other pointless feature, I'd agree with you. But because of how much of a mess the games release has been, with it coming to fame far too early, and then releasing the steam version far too early, a main menu was needed to try and maintain what little playerbase is available.

 

[Zekester81]

i7-4700 (2.4Ghz)
16 GB RAM
Nvidia 870 GTX
Running on Win 8.1, Java 8, Using the Physical HDD for starmade, but the main OS is on an SSD.

Wow, you're running a (slightly) better system than me and getting worse results. (shitty FX-8120 3.2ghz, 8g ram, R270X radeon, no SSD just HDD, win 10 pro) I consider it not low end, but it is definitely not high end, because I can run most games I play on high to max graphics without many exceptions. I don't know how the GFX cards stack up against each other, but I bet your intel CPU works better even if it's slower, and you have twice as much ram to play with. Not to mention your OS should be much more responsive.

I assumed you were on a lower end because of what you were saying about lag vs the lag I get on my machine. My carrier is being rebuilt, was 700m x 300m x 100m with 210 docked entities. I have no idea how many dockings there are on my space station, it's a shit ton. It's also 700m x 900m x 500m

 

[terra mining corp.]

the points brought up on here are interesting,but I kind of like how the system works right now(could use a few tweeks,but it still works) if your ship systems get damaged you can uncouple slave systems and reconfig on the fly for something usable to carry on fighting or save your sorry ass to fight another day.Maybe if the dev team could nail down a solid list of combo's and make a sticky it could level the playing field. m2c