Weapons 2.0 - :(

    Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by GnomeKing, Apr 29, 2018.

    1. Nebulon-B_Frigate_FTW

      Joined:
      Jul 4, 2013
      Messages:
      421
      I hate the crafting system so much. It's something that actually interests me, playing survival to build up ships from a planet etc., but it's just so overly complicated for no reason. I also really hate grinding.
      At the moment, I don't bother with survival anymore, and the times I do try it, I just sell ore instead of bothering to try to refine it. I also dislike the change to stations that prevented getting them easily and getting salvage...completely stupid; tearing apart one of those stupid asymmetrical square stations for hull to make my ship out of while home-basing at an intact one was fun and not OP; the new abandoned stations would be super OP to tear apart, but really, they should be NPC-owned and you hav to fight for them; instead they're just these empty set pieces you visit once to look at and then that's that.

      Now, all of that stuff about crafting aside, I'd say the tl;dr here is that a lot of StarMade's mechanics are just implemented half-baked without actually being fun, often with a cry of PERFORMANCE except that the game is never performant because everything is so high scale and complicated.

      I think Power 2.0 doesn't help things, and the current state of Weapons 2.0 won't either.
       
      • Like Like x 3
    2. Captain Fortius

      Joined:
      Aug 10, 2013
      Messages:
      271
      Have you been drinking the angry juice?
      Let's recap the whole thing, because I seriously think you're flipping for the wrong reason.

      - Some guy says the only cause of crazy recoil problems is the player's habit of building disproportionately large guns, and it's more realistic to have a very very low weapons to total mass ratio

      -I correct him, stating that ratio is actually much higher than he thought, even if we don't count certain parts.

      -You pop in, saying that ratio is even higher because we totally should count those parts (which I didn't say we shouldn't)
      -You also say we should count the entire turret as a weapon.
      -Then you go about spouting a lot of nonsense about RP and PVP building styles and certain shortcomings I'm pretty sure you imagined, or based on some of the least talented builders' stuff out there exclusively.


      -I tell you why we shouldn't count the entire turret as a weapon.
      -I let you know I'm aware of those extra parts that COULD be counted as weapons, but energy weapons doesn't necessarily have an ammunition storage and feed system.
      - I agree that recessed turrets are indeed a good idea, but it's not realistic for the actual gun part to hang so deeply into the ship's main hull as the pics you showed, as ships generally aren't built with enough room for such a contraption to swing around inside.
      -I also tell you, different designs exist as well, that doesn't allow for such a method.
      -I ask if you're aware that you mixed up the hallmarks of dedicated RP and PVP building.


      -You stay quiet about the turrets being counted as weapons in their entire weight, or the ammo storage that might not be there for an energy weapon, because one can't admit to being wrong when he's this loud.
      -You decide having one, single, very unrealistic barrel type is the norm and standard, and anyone who's not building a ship that can accomodate such a contraption is a moron.
      -By suggesting the other designs ought to make love to themselves, you also conveniently ignore the fact that not all turrets in existance are super heavy naval style dorsal mounted batteries.
      - You steadfastly deny that building a nice interior or cosmetic parts is actually an RP habit, essentially arguing that water is not wet.
      - Then you insist that enclosed empty space costs nothing, referring to your earlier explanation in a different thread:


      Now it's my turn.

      smwtf.png

      You didn't think it through, and worse, you only thought in two dimensions. This method of free interior space only stands up as long as you intend to bump a small section of a shape, As seen in fig. A1 and A2. Fig. A3 clearly shows that unless you want a single pipmple, interior space is in fact, not free.

      Now put the whole thing in three dimensions, as it's doubtful you'd fly a ship a single block wide, and it turns out, even a small bump costs you a small increase in mass (Fig. B2), and the larger your empty space gets, it naturally causes a greater mass increase due to the skin required to cover it(Fig. B3).

      All this is quite heavily derailing from the original meat of the topic, btw.
       
      #62 Captain Fortius, May 30, 2018
      Last edited: May 30, 2018
      • Like Like x 1
    3. Agame3

      Joined:
      Mar 23, 2018
      Messages:
      78
      He can actually use the same method on the sides too, getting a more or less pyramidal bump without needing to increase count of armor blocks.

      But what I loved was (approximate quote) "Bumping is doable only in direction of decorative outer elements (antennas and stuff) in order to not increase ship's overall dimensions".

      What outer decorations? I use under-hull missile drum turrets without turret base with vertical launch to keep my ship's overall dimensions in check and he talks about antennas on a ship he claims is a PvP ship? I know everyone has a different style in building, but still...
       
      • Like Like x 3
    4. Zoolimar

      Joined:
      Aug 14, 2017
      Messages:
      290
      It's not a waste of space if you build them right. You need to build them on outside and they should be bulging outwards.
      [​IMG]
      Something like this. Add some insane angles for additional intersecting corridors and insane looks and it should work as pretty nice whipple shield. Just don't make them out of advanced armour - hull is more than enough for the purpose of catching missiles.
      --- Updated post (merge), May 30, 2018, Original Post Date: May 30, 2018 ---
      Antennas make sense with old scanner system to get maximum power. If I remember right it was dependant on the largest dimension of the scanner modules block group. So you absolutely can have useful antenna as long as it doesn't stick beyond other features of your ship.

      Decorative antennas made out of lightweight blocks work as poor man's spaced armour.
       
    5. Captain Fortius

      Joined:
      Aug 10, 2013
      Messages:
      271
      Fair's fair. This is true.
      But it costs a serious amount of creative freedom, and at the end of it all, whatever interior volume was gained is still best spent at additional systems, rendering his whole argument moot.
       
      • Like Like x 1
    6. Zoolimar

      Joined:
      Aug 14, 2017
      Messages:
      290
      Nah. Amount of systems is gated by reactor power. Even before 2.0 you didn't want too many additional weapons or shields as it was starting to eat into your speed.
       
    7. GnomeKing

      Joined:
      Feb 21, 2015
      Messages:
      224
      "agree"

      [original text changed to black....but as all the main issues still stand switching the neon's back on]
       
    8. Valiant70

      Valiant70 That crazy cyborg

      Joined:
      Oct 27, 2013
      Messages:
      2,188
      Some of the points you make here are accurate. A lot of pure-RP builders are just really bad at making turrets. However, even ball turrets tended to be underpowered compared to the massive ship-mounted weapons that defense was balanced around. In what I term a PVPRP build, you'd start out much like a PVP ship, and then add roleplay decorations onto and around a functioning machine. Well-done PVPRP builds have always been rare to my knowledge.

      Power distribution is now the gold standard for designing and analyzing ships. That's almost without question now. However, I don't agree that this completely eliminates different ship doctrines. In the stable build it does, because so many things are broken or unfinished, but I don't see any reason to condemn the game based on that when we essentially got half an update with the new power.

      What *should* happen with a more complete system update is the emergence of ships designed to undermine the "sniper rifle" doctrine. Most likely this will begin with close-range stealth alpha once stealth is debugged and given an initial balance pass. To counter "ninja bombers," ships will need to detect them, avoid them, or withstand the attacks, and possible solutions need to be balanced against each other.

      If players are completely unsuccessful at countering any specific tactic, that should be considered an imbalance that needs to be corrected. Obviously like any game there will always be a strategy that is either more versatile than others or is marginally stronger than others, and that will become the meta. That could very well be the sniper meta, and that's okay as long as it isn't orders of magnitude more successful than competing tactics.
       
      • Like Like x 1
    9. Raisinbat

      Raisinbat Raging Troll

      Joined:
      Dec 29, 2014
      Messages:
      459
      The point of the entire argument is people suggesting that the mass of weapons should be lowered. The tank mass (33%) corresponds very heavily to how pre 2.0 fighters were made, usually 30-50% of their mass would be weapons. You SHOULD count everything in the turret setup as weapon, because everything that goes inside a turret in starmade is weapon.

      My points are, calling for 1-3% mass as the "standard" for ship mass is ridiculous, even from a REALISM standpoint, which is fucking dumb because we don't have realistic spaceships with plasma guns. Second, lowering the mass like this does not equal to ships having smaller guns, it results in ships having much higher DPS, unless it's accompanied by bullshit (2.0) that removes your ability to shift your mass, which, again, is the core of PVP shipbuilding.

      I was providing examples of how deviating from a standard turret design allows you to better accomodate turret designs that are aesthetically small. I am not suggesting ANYTHING should be the standard. What we want is for the concept of a "standard ship" to not be what the mechanics are focused around, as in the polar opposite of what you're calling for.

      My point is that ships that are not designed to be effective have no reason to be effective. Why should a ship that is built, not according to the rules of the game, but the whims of its creator be on par with a ship that is? Try complaining at the hearthstone forums that your deck comprised entirely of cards with pictures of dogs in them isn't competitive.

      It is not exclusive to RP builders. I am not an RP builder, and i make interiors, as does every single pvp builder i know.

      That post is shit on my part and nosajimko already chewed me out for it. The examples aren't right, and the whole point doesn't apply in them nor for very small builds. What i meant was that the empty space surrounding your ship, while inside the bounding box, has the exact same negative impact on your ship as the empty space inside it. It's not directed at PVP builds, but the RP and aesthetic builds that complain about empty space ruining your ship. It also applies to the ludicrous notion that filling the empty space inside your ship with system blocks makes it stronger, which is obviously true, but then again so would adding system blocks OUTSIDE your ship, and the actual mystery you've solved here is that making ships larger also makes them stronger.
       
      • Like Like x 1
    10. Nosajimiki

      Joined:
      Sep 14, 2017
      Messages:
      668
      I don't think he meant this this be "this is the meta". Rather, he was going for the idea that there are ways to add appropriate weapon mass to RP ships to make them PVP viable. If for example I was going for an enterprise type ship, I could use something similar to this to make the omni-directional phaser bank in the disk not suck without adding a giant floating turret that is 20% of my ships mass and not very accurate either. While I may have criticized this as a purely PVP weapon, it's a great idea for making RP builds strong enough to hold their own.

      My turn:
      His depiction of things in 2d were all accurate models of the trends of what happen in 3d: expanded armor DOES give free space, and that space can be used to either cram more systems or as a defensive system unto itself.

      upload_2018-5-31_9-36-15.png

      A few things to consider here include:
      • Expanding your hull always gives proportionally more space than it costs in new armor.
      • The wedge trick shown does give free space in 3D, but you have to pay for the caps if you don't angle it.
      • Added armor contributes to survivability, so it's not just wasted investment. While it may not always increase your survivability vs any one single shot, the less % of your armor you lose per shot makes it that much less likely for the next shot to bypass your armor through said hole. This is especially true of spaced armor, where your armor can keep an explosion max radius away from your systems completely wasting explosions and forcing acid damage to traverse it.
      • Also not illustrated here is that the larger an entity is, the less proportionally heavier your armor becomes as you begin to space it; so, while this small thing takes 255% more armor to add 3 spaces of armor too. Large battleships can be given 15 m spacing with very little extra investment relatively speaking.
      • Hugging your systems with armor such as in B1 necessitates heavy armor to mitigate any sort of damage. Spaced armor is much more practical with hull which is 5x lighter; so, in most cases, B3 is also going to be the cheaper and lighter solution even if it takes more blocks.

      Antinas used to be good for hiding certain exploit technologies on PVPRP ships. Particularly AI targeting disruptors. While these disruptors are far less practical than they used to be, that does not mean that similar technologies won't become simi-common in future versions of the game... but that all has nothing to do with this mechanic.

      PVPRP builds were much more common among the older factions, particularly the ones that left as a result of the Power 2.0 update since they were most negatively impacted by the changes. Trinova, Trident, Vaygr, Infinite Legion, Thrynn, etc were all prime examples. MagiTech was actually one of the only truly high-end PVP exclusive factions. Most other PVP factions just made cheap knock-offs of his stuff that actually could not survive against the major PVPRP faction ships.
       
      • Like Like x 4
    11. TungstenWall

      Joined:
      Aug 23, 2013
      Messages:
      23
      A little off topic, but has anyone had trouble getting Warheads to work? Ramming does not seem to set them off in my tests.
       
    12. Agame3

      Joined:
      Mar 23, 2018
      Messages:
      78
      Since pre-rails versions, I used to slave the warhead modules to one area detector in front of them. A whole bunch of warheads, one single detector. This detonates them every time. I mean, it does in older versions, try in current one yourself and please tell me how it goes. I hate pow2 with a passion, not going to install it anytime soon.
       
    Loading...