What is Wrong with Starmade

    Because Democracy is fun


    • Total voters
      28
    • Poll closed .
    Joined
    Mar 22, 2016
    Messages
    58
    Reaction score
    269
    My fellow Starmadians, Shine, hear me please.

    Our beloved Starmade is suffering from a terrible condition, one that I believe may become fatal if not addressed properly. Many have recently become aware of it, though without truly realizing it, and it has never been more obvious than now with the Power 2.0 update. As it is I can no longer sit and lurk on the sidelines.

    Shield Penalties, Thrust Penalties, Stabalizer Penalties, what does it all add up to? Players being punished for their choices.

    Gone are the days when players were rewarded for being imaginitive and dedicated. Rather than a boost here or a bonus there for layering shields, or clumping systems together, or designing a ship that looks like a (well you know what) players are recieving penalties so severe that design choice outside of these mechanics is not just ineffecient, but factually impossible.

    Many will list the detriments of this new power system (of which there are many) and say "this update encourages players to build cubes" and while this is true, this is not new and in fact has been ture for some time. So why then is there so much criticism of this new system? The answer is obvious, where as before player where only ENCOURAGED to build "doom cubes" if only out of an urge to min-max, we now see that choice has been removed altogether and we are now FORCED to build our (you know what) shaped "doom cubes" or be faced with imminent overheating.

    In short rather than feeling rewarded for our engenuity and creativity for making a well functioning ship, we feel as though we jumped through the hoops and did ok. Rather than having the choice of building some large impractical tentacle like ship, we are the borg.

    This problem can be remedied, we can change our mindset to a reward based approach rather than a punitive one and we can create an environment where creativity and practicality can coexsit. (albeit in a perpetual state of war) but first we must restore choice to Starmade. This is my hope.
     
    Joined
    Jul 29, 2013
    Messages
    1,167
    Reaction score
    479
    Holy tits... the real thing that's wrong with Starmade is that it isn't a finished product. I'd love to live in a world where all of Starmade's elements, designs, and mechanics could be implemented into the game in a complete state, perfectly balanced all at once, but that's not how this works.

    I'm not trying to fanboy this game into oblivion but holy hell. Can we just focus our critical attention onto individual systems working before we jump to doom and gloom predictions about the balance being antithetical to Schema's vision?
     

    Sachys

    Hermit.
    Joined
    Nov 30, 2015
    Messages
    632
    Reaction score
    287
    You missed out the fact stations are entirely pointless now unless a faction protected HB.

    Though yes, a reward based approach would be better, I doubt it would do anything to address the underlaying flaws in the new power system.

    None of the things people like about the new system required it at all on the face of things. Surely reprogramming (optimising and fixing?) the old system and adding the new (Liked) features may have been a better waste of time than what we currently see - nevermind the fact no shipyard (or other) intermediary infrastructure was put in place to allow easier refitting of older shells / ships etc and thusly make for a smoother transitory / feedback period.

    I've spoken little on the subject thus far, but its valid feedback (maybe if not 100% directed at your OP).

    Edit: for fun, please add the poll choice "stations are dead -____-" if possible! ;D
    [doublepost=1517982259,1517981726][/doublepost]
    The term vision is usually used without meaning. In this case, we have (or had?) a roadmap of where thinsg were pretty much going.

    However, in relation to other games in first / early access type situations... when a developer uses the term vision, it usually means they have none.

    Often its used to try and recruit free workers (often concept artists, 3d designers etc) into the fold because "we have passion for our vision" - even though its the very people being freeloaded who utimately create it. Its a common reason for such projects to become abandoned / drown and so on. Thats may seem offtopic, but its not, as I stated, here, for starmade, we have / we had a roadmap. The "vision" was laid out (even if meant to be taken with a little salt / changes along the way). If you cannot build in a creative manner in a creative sandbox game, then that particular part of the "vision" is null and void. Yes?
     

    Az14el

    Definitely not a skywanderers dev
    Joined
    Apr 25, 2015
    Messages
    848
    Reaction score
    323
    a lot of it feelsprettybad now, for myself block placement restrictions due to integrity especially are hurting creativity, even without considering that I can't use many system blocks decoratively anymore due to it, a lot of my CC upload ships would be just impossible while retaining much functionality as is (and as is, they are predictably highly explosive, doorstops now without abusing old jamming mechanics).

    These can probably be fixed without heavily impacting schines new design, not counting the state of legacy ships they're probably rip.
    That said, the lack of good shipbuilding considerations to make both a high function & aesthetically designed ship to fit a variety of standards (which we did have past a set mass) right now seem like a pretty harsh condition to push on players or at best an overly rushed schedule.

    All we can really do is wait and see what they cook up, the gamestate feels a lot like it did around yogswarm in terms of playability & predictability in the standard online mode, since it's their second (third?) take at this hopefully things should fall into place more quickly.
     
    Joined
    Dec 10, 2017
    Messages
    205
    Reaction score
    176
    From what I've read in the few days SMD has been back online, aside from one or two unintended exploits, most of the complaints have all been about the same thing: restricted building due to integrity issues. This is something I fully agree with. Integrity is very harsh at the current time; however, I don't see this as a reason to declare SM dead or dying. I don't doubt in the slightest that integrity values will be changing progressively over time. Even before the full release of the update, it became pretty clear that the values would need to be reworked. So, instead of saying the values restrict your build style and ruin your builds, why not suggest some new values that might work better? If we talk out ways to fix these issues instead of arguing over whether the new or old power is better, we may be able to improve on the new power.
     

    Non

    Joined
    Nov 17, 2013
    Messages
    296
    Reaction score
    155
    Can we just focus our critical attention onto individual systems working before we jump to doom and gloom predictions about the balance being antithetical to Schema's vision?
    No. This update has a conceptual problem that previous ones didn't. The chamber system significantly increases time spent in menus and decreases the possible complexity that a player can create outside of a menu. From my understanding Schema used to be very against menus, this update represents a complete 180 on that ideology towards a system that I find incredibly undesirable.
    I'd love to live in a world where all of Starmade's elements, designs, and mechanics could be implemented into the game in a complete state, perfectly balanced all at once, but that's not how this works.
    Same, but we are unlikely to ever get a finished product if they keep doing complete redesigns. Especially ones that achieve results as mixed as this one.
    So, instead of saying the values restrict your build style and ruin your builds, why not suggest some new values that might work better?
    Integrity needs to be gone. Weapons need about 4-8 times their current power consumption and capacity needs to be added back in. Power consumption for shield recharge needs to be dropped significantly, anywhere between 1/2 to 1/10 current values. As it is right now I can equip a ship with alpha weapons that can one-shot the shields and reactor (if ai could actually hit reliably) of a ship 5x my size, and the dps to keep it up should the alpha fail, for the same power cost as a good amount of recharge. 2.5 tmr is also way too easy, thrust needs to cost more mass and possibly more power.
     
    Joined
    Mar 22, 2016
    Messages
    58
    Reaction score
    269
    Can we just focus our critical attention onto individual systems working before we jump to doom and gloom predictions about the balance being antithetical to Schema's vision?
    I think you may have miss-interpreted, I was in no way trying to address balancing issues as I strongly believe that any attempt at a real or permanent balance will not be possible until much later in the game (perhaps after we have power and weapons). What I was trying to address was the way in which these systems are implimented and the possible impact they have both now and in the future on ship design styles.
    [doublepost=1518022644,1518022465][/doublepost]
    Integrity needs to be gone. Weapons need about 4-8 times their current power consumption and capacity needs to be added back in. Power consumption for shield recharge needs to be dropped significantly, anywhere between 1/2 to 1/10 current values. As it is right now I can equip a ship with alpha weapons that can one-shot the shields and reactor (if ai could actually hit reliably) of a ship 5x my size, and the dps to keep it up should the alpha fail, for the same power cost as a good amount of recharge. 2.5 tmr is also way too easy, thrust needs to cost more mass and possibly more power.
    I certainly agree that weapons need adjusting, though talking about that at this point is moot supposing that Shine has already started work on the next weapon update. As for thrust, and really weapons as they were, it was my thought that both should have had their stats increased twofold (abouts) so as to make weapon modules do more damage than a pistol (because yea it bothers me) and to make both modules require less interior space while keeping the power/mass costs the same. This was originally what I thought would make the most sense, be the easiest to impliment, and not require any significant rebalancing, though it seems Shine instead decided to make thrusters OP. Heres hoping for the weapons update
     
    Joined
    Dec 10, 2017
    Messages
    205
    Reaction score
    176
    Integrity needs to be gone. Weapons need about 4-8 times their current power consumption and capacity needs to be added back in. Power consumption for shield recharge needs to be dropped significantly, anywhere between 1/2 to 1/10 current values. As it is right now I can equip a ship with alpha weapons that can one-shot the shields and reactor (if ai could actually hit reliably) of a ship 5x my size, and the dps to keep it up should the alpha fail, for the same power cost as a good amount of recharge. 2.5 tmr is also way too easy, thrust needs to cost more mass and possibly more power.
    In response to this, you are making your assessment entirely off of an incomplete shift from 1.0. If you recall the recent announcements, the next update is going to involve a complete overhaul, rebalancing, and restructuring of current weapons, armor, and shields. We currently do not know whether shields right now are overpowered, underpowered, or whatever, because we don't know what kind of damage 2.0 weapons are going to do. As for integrity, wait about 20 minutes or so and I will post something that could make you very happy (spoiler, it's how to reconfigure/remove integrity's effects in your private worlds).
     
    • Like
    Reactions: jstenholt

    madman Captain

    Self-appointet Overlord of the Scaffold
    Joined
    Jan 11, 2015
    Messages
    264
    Reaction score
    488
    No. This update has a conceptual problem that previous ones didn't. The chamber system significantly increases time spent in menus and decreases the possible complexity that a player can create outside of a menu.
    I love building ships, but I HATE building systems cause I HATE to rebuild my ships everytime when I want to ajust systems. The old system was extremly anoying in that case. I greatly welcome shines attempt to make systems less anoying and time consuming and more exploring and testing frindly.

    Integrity needs to be gone. Weapons need about 4-8 times their current power consumption and capacity needs to be added back in. Power consumption for shield recharge needs to be dropped significantly, anywhere between 1/2 to 1/10 current values. As it is right now I can equip a ship with alpha weapons that can one-shot the shields and reactor (if ai could actually hit reliably) of a ship 5x my size, and the dps to keep it up should the alpha fail, for the same power cost as a good amount of recharge. 2.5 tmr is also way too easy, thrust needs to cost more mass and possibly more power.
    Why not wait for the weapons update mabe it fix your problems.

    And for thrust, well thrusters arent to strong or to weak, the entire movement system is fundamentaly crap in both balancing and enjoyment, its not just boring, its so anoying that it is one of the major reasons why I do nothing than building ships in this game.
    Not only this, it feels like movement works "detachet" from other systems and I go so far that I say movement works against other systems and features of the game.
     

    Thadius Faran

    #1 Top Forum Poster & Raiben Jackpot Winner
    Joined
    Oct 13, 2013
    Messages
    5,103
    Reaction score
    1,304
    In response to this, you are making your assessment entirely off of an incomplete shift from 1.0. If you recall the recent announcements, the next update is going to involve a complete overhaul, rebalancing, and restructuring of current weapons, armor, and shields. We currently do not know whether shields right now are overpowered, underpowered, or whatever, because we don't know what kind of damage 2.0 weapons are going to do. As for integrity, wait about 20 minutes or so and I will post something that could make you very happy (spoiler, it's how to reconfigure/remove integrity's effects in your private worlds).
    There's a problem in itself. We got half an update here so the game is literally broken for who knows how long till they release the weapons changes and then we get to see both things probably beyond broken.
     
    Joined
    Dec 10, 2017
    Messages
    205
    Reaction score
    176
    There's a problem in itself. We got half an update here so the game is literally broken for who knows how long till they release the weapons changes and then we get to see both things probably beyond broken.
    Define your idea of broken without saying using any part of the definition of broken. In other words, you can't just say it doesn't work or doesn't work right.

    Better yet, tell me HOW you perceive power 2.0 as broken.
     

    Thadius Faran

    #1 Top Forum Poster & Raiben Jackpot Winner
    Joined
    Oct 13, 2013
    Messages
    5,103
    Reaction score
    1,304
    Define your idea of broken without saying using any part of the definition of broken. In other words, you can't just say it doesn't work or doesn't work right.

    Better yet, tell me HOW you perceive power 2.0 as broken.
    It rewards brick builds and as previously stated was released without any balancing to weapons. You can build an 8k drone that's just a long tube that is capable of 1 shotting pretty much anything that is unfortunate enough to get the drone's barrel aimed at it.

    I'd define that as broken.

    That along with the integrity system being so absurd that most salvage arrays are in the negatives without obscene changes is just ridiculous.

    The removal of shield recharge underfire only compounds the glaring weapon issues.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Az14el and Non

    Edymnion

    Carebear Extraordinaire!
    Joined
    Mar 18, 2015
    Messages
    2,707
    Reaction score
    1,500
    It rewards brick builds and as previously stated was released without any balancing to weapons.
    Because that would have been a waste of time and effort.

    They've said the weapons revamp is next on the list. They're working on redoing them right now. Why would they spend all the time and effort to try and rebalance existing weapons when they're getting rid of them entirely in the very near future?

    Yeah, competitive PvP builds are borked. We're in a transition period where they're fixing systems in stages. The new stuff doesn't mesh well with the old stuff, but the old stuff is going away too.

    So, take a month or two off of the hardcore PvP and work on bettering your ship aesthetics, or doing some station design, or work up some fleet mining designs. This one area of the game is broken, so do one of the other things available until it gets fixed.
     
    Joined
    Dec 10, 2017
    Messages
    205
    Reaction score
    176
    Integrity is a WIP. The values are not set in stone. However, this:
    The removal of shield recharge underfire only compounds the glaring weapon issues.
    I somewhat agree with. I understand that nobody wants an indefinitely recharging shield, but I think there should be some level of recharge while the shields are taking damage. However, the devs made an interesting argument around the use of secondary shields that may make things a little more interesting (although it will definitely take some finesse-ing). As for the balancing, as Edymnion said, none of that is going to be staying much longer. Damage and how it works is going to be changing drastically over the next few months. Just be patient.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Dire Venom

    Thadius Faran

    #1 Top Forum Poster & Raiben Jackpot Winner
    Joined
    Oct 13, 2013
    Messages
    5,103
    Reaction score
    1,304
    Because that would have been a waste of time and effort.

    They've said the weapons revamp is next on the list. They're working on redoing them right now. Why would they spend all the time and effort to try and rebalance existing weapons when they're getting rid of them entirely in the very near future?

    Yeah, competitive PvP builds are borked. We're in a transition period where they're fixing systems in stages. The new stuff doesn't mesh well with the old stuff, but the old stuff is going away too.

    So, take a month or two off of the hardcore PvP and work on bettering your ship aesthetics, or doing some station design, or work up some fleet mining designs. This one area of the game is broken, so do one of the other things available until it gets fixed.
    My point is that by pushing the game into a state where it's in a transition they're effectively killing the game. It's not worth playing right now and most people including myself won't bother coming back when they finally finish what they started.

    The proper way to do this would have been to wait until BOTH were done because now we're waiting for crucial balancing and updates to the other half of the system and when they do finally get here I guarantee there'll be a good 2 months after of balancing still having to happen.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Az14el
    Joined
    Dec 10, 2017
    Messages
    205
    Reaction score
    176
    My point is that by pushing the game into a state where it's in a transition they're effectively killing the game. It's not worth playing right now and most people including myself won't bother coming back when they finally finish what they started.

    The proper way to do this would have been to wait until BOTH were done because now we're waiting for crucial balancing and updates to the other half of the system and when they do finally get here I guarantee there'll be a good 2 months after of balancing still having to happen.
    But would you really have wanted to wait a year, year and a half for just one update? Most people would get tired of waiting by then.
     

    madman Captain

    Self-appointet Overlord of the Scaffold
    Joined
    Jan 11, 2015
    Messages
    264
    Reaction score
    488
    My point is that by pushing the game into a state where it's in a transition they're effectively killing the game. It's not worth playing right now and most people including myself won't bother coming back when they finally finish what they started.
    Well youz go another one come I dont think this will kill the game.
     
    Joined
    Sep 14, 2017
    Messages
    669
    Reaction score
    928
    a lot of it feelsprettybad now, for myself block placement restrictions due to integrity especially are hurting creativity, even without considering that I can't use many system blocks decoratively anymore due to it, a lot of my CC upload ships would be just impossible while retaining much functionality as is (and as is, they are predictably highly explosive, doorstops now without abusing old jamming mechanics).

    These can probably be fixed without heavily impacting schines new design, not counting the state of legacy ships they're probably rip.
    That said, the lack of good shipbuilding considerations to make both a high function & aesthetically designed ship to fit a variety of standards (which we did have past a set mass) right now seem like a pretty harsh condition to push on players or at best an overly rushed schedule.

    All we can really do is wait and see what they cook up, the gamestate feels a lot like it did around yogswarm in terms of playability & predictability in the standard online mode, since it's their second (third?) take at this hopefully things should fall into place more quickly.
    I think your mouse slipped when you voted...

    No. This update has a conceptual problem that previous ones didn't. The chamber system significantly increases time spent in menus and decreases the possible complexity that a player can create outside of a menu. From my understanding Schema used to be very against menus, this update represents a complete 180 on that ideology towards a system that I find incredibly undesirable.

    Same, but we are unlikely to ever get a finished product if they keep doing complete redesigns. Especially ones that achieve results as mixed as this one.

    Integrity needs to be gone. Weapons need about 4-8 times their current power consumption and capacity needs to be added back in. Power consumption for shield recharge needs to be dropped significantly, anywhere between 1/2 to 1/10 current values. As it is right now I can equip a ship with alpha weapons that can one-shot the shields and reactor (if ai could actually hit reliably) of a ship 5x my size, and the dps to keep it up should the alpha fail, for the same power cost as a good amount of recharge. 2.5 tmr is also way too easy, thrust needs to cost more mass and possibly more power.
    Especially agree with the power capacitors and thrust.

    Alpha has intrinsic advantages over DPS in its very nature of being able to front-load damage, capacitors where a natural balance to that. The OP nature of DPS weapons in certain situations was not from an imbalance in power system, but rather an imbalance in OverDriven DPS weapons and under-fire penalties (and in a few cases, beneficial lag glitching). The weird shit with Alpha and DPS damage mitigation (to try to balance them?) also needs to go, it's so counterintuitive and unrealistic. It makes the game feel like it's just glitching out instead an intentional feature; whereas, capacitors where a balancing feature that blended the realism of the game. I can't even determine when I am or am not supposed to be reporting damage bugs anymore.

    As for thrust, there are mechanical advantages to move fast that are so pronounced, that it made light armor more survivable in most cases than heavy armor. Rather than making movement worth the cost or vise-versa, they just made every ship easy to turn into a max-speed racer. IMO, they need to make Armor able to sink 100% of damage into aHP (using chambers), make armor lighter, and systems heavier. This way, the trade-off one must consider becomes a question of chamber count, shields, and firepower vs thrusters with armor and ornate hulls being a minor issue to consider instead of the other way around.

    I love building ships, but I HATE building systems cause I HATE to rebuild my ships everytime when I want to ajust systems. The old system was extremly anoying in that case. I greatly welcome shines attempt to make systems less anoying and time consuming and more exploring and testing frindly.
    You clearly have not tried resysteming a Power 2.0 ships yet. In the old system, if you for example wanted an extra turret, you could spawn in a new turret with its own power system and some thrusters to offset its weight, and your ship will continue to function exactly as it did before (with just a tiny bit of extra draw from the extra docked thrust). Now, that turret will put strain on your reactor that was not there before so you need a bigger reactor which also means bigger chambers. You then have to remove your entire power system AND large chunks of hull to fit the new system just to accommodate the extra turret.

    This also demonstrates another flaw: all-or-nothing chambers. If I had to add an additional system to an old power ship and my passives became to small, they would still work but at a small malice (oops! my ion is now 58% instead of 60%, I can fix that later.). With chambers, if an addition to your reactor drops below the hard size cap you lose 100% of its effectiveness.