1. Our cache and search server are currently experiencing issues, this may result in frequent logouts and failed search results. This is a host side issue, we are unable to fix it on our side.
      Dismiss Notice

    Why exactly is power broken?

    Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Ghent96, Feb 27, 2017.

    1. kulbolen

      Jan 4, 2015
      did i say anything of the sort? no. its a common sense fact that people who are passionate and emotional about things can get heated and say stupid shit. that doesnt mean everyone always does otherwise they dont care.

      you actually dont have to act careful as long as youre willing to accept the consequence of your actions. in this case it may be you no long talking to whoever said something you dont like. theyre probably fine with that though...

      ^ this guy got it right. this is a consequence of acting improperly that he may or may not care about.
      • Agree Agree x 1
    2. Master_Artificer

      Master_Artificer Never Finishes Anything

      Feb 17, 2015
      guies pls don't get thread locked k thx.
    3. Lecic

      Lecic Custom Titles Were A Mistake

      Apr 14, 2013
      I find it interesting that RP players, who claim that the current power system encourages doom CUBES, also claim that the system requires ships to have at least one long dimension...

      Actual Translation: Other scifi sources already having a systems mechanic is not a requirement for Starmade to have it.

      His point was that it doesn't matter if other scifi uses or doesn't use our line reactors- the game should be balanced based around what is good for the game, not around what other scifi has.

      I thought it was more of a suggestion that, if the main thing you want to play the game for is interior design and roleplay, you should use something else designed for that (like a doll house) instead of damaging the rest of the mechanics in the game for that purpose, and not an attempt at an attack on someone's "manhood"(???????????).

      Actual Translation: If you were experienced in PvP and meta level system designing like me, you would immediately be able to see the severe negative gameplay consequences that things like heatboxes, ships composed of 90% filler, and what is essentially the return of core drilling would have on combat and ship design.
      • Agree Agree x 2
    4. KiloZulu

      Sep 5, 2013
      My response was to the OP, who asked for our opinions, and did not require that I read and adjust that opinion based on the 11 pages of comments it has so far generated.

      Perhaps you should recognize that this game is not what you're looking for. It has been built, from the very start, to be more than a PVP game. Were it only PVP, we would not need asteroids, planets, NPC's, and all the other content that has been implemented and is still to be included. The crew features I suggested in my OP are in line, and mesh well with, those that have already been slated for development by Schine. If this were a PVP game, they would have just created a single-sector arena where players can fight the ships built in creative mode. The opinions that you are, frankly, ranting about in this thread, do not have any reality to the game being developed. Perhaps it is time you take your ball and go home if you don't want to play the actual game and can't play nice with the other players on the field.
      • Funny Funny x 3
    5. Groovrider

      Dec 17, 2014
      The proposals will bring a much needed... something to the game. Thats a good thing. It will also bring back a form of core drilling by the back door. Thats a bad thing.

      Why is power broken? Well its sort of not in that it gives "bulk" a purpose and taking a hit doesn't cripple your power system. you can create redundant lines that can protect your softcap when it gets hairy. You can put it anywhere you can squeeze it in which is nice as far as creativity goes.

      It is pretty bulky though and yeah it gets spammy and once its in it kind of a dead stick. You can't give them any characteristics other than regen and cap and thats purely about stacking on more. Its decentralized aspect is genius but it makes an odd barrier to the game mechanics in that it goes against expectations from other games (good and bad) but is unique in that no other block shares that aspect.

      Without knowing more about whats coming I cant say what effect it will have on my ship design. I can say that: New player will wonder what we are griping about and existing players will come up with designs of every conceivable shape and size to push it to its limits.
    6. KiloZulu

      Sep 5, 2013
      Core drilling was the result of the targeting reticle being tied to the core, and destroying the core meant death regardless of the status of the rest of the ship. All they need to do for the reactor system is make it so that the loss of a block or two does not mean that the reactor cease working altogether. That, and the fact that reactors aren't tied to any specific location on a ship means that they don't have to be an easy target.

      That said, it makes real sense that destroying the reactor on a ship would result in power loss and/or crippling of a ship. There's a reason that auxiliary power and batteries are a thing. If players can't accept the idea of critical systems being damaged on a ship, then we're rapidly devolve to floating health kits and power-ups.
      • Funny Funny x 4
      • Agree Agree x 1
    7. Dvaren

      Feb 4, 2015
      This is what you got from, "F*ck your sci fi?"

      (a) No one is arguing that Starmade power generation should be a carbon copy of the systems depicted in other venues. Taking 1000's of examples of those who came before you into consideration is not normally frowned upon.

      (b) If this is his point, he should have stated as such, not resorted to an F-bomb dropping foot stomping tantrum

      Grow up, young man, you do little to further your point of view by labeling me with schoolyard insults.

      You are superimposing your own sense of reason over the ramblings of another poster, who presents himself as an angry child. I'm sure you are quite aware what his intent was when he instructed others to go play with their doll houses. Also, few are interested in solely interior design and roleplay. At most, some will lean further to one side than the other. It is not "us versus them". I build solely for PvP and efficiency, yet I still spend a phenomenal amount of time on cosmetics, for instance.

      I am quite experienced in PvP, my designs are among the most complicated and logic riddled on my server, and I am quite aware of the issues with heat boxes and such (I am no fan of heat boxes whatsoever). The original poster assumes that he is the be-all end-all of pvp knowledge and incessantly denigrates the knowledge and experience of others without justification. I pointed out his ignorance and overinflated sense of self worth.

      You are defending infantile and insulting behaviors on this forum for no other reason than you happen to share specific viewpoints with the offender. Why? Is there not a plethora of other posters here who agree with you and do so in an intelligent and thought provoking manner?
      • Agree Agree x 1
      • Funny Funny x 1
    8. Crashmaster

      Oct 18, 2013
      I thought Rasinbat's points came through just fine already knowing what has been discussed so far in this thread. Your entire (now conveniently deleted) 'translation' post was intentionally troll-y though and I think you're still at it with such gems as;
      A thin veil over insults does not constitute the moral high ground. We're all in the same cess-pit here. If you are indeed, 'no fan of heatboxes,' what is the point related to this discussion that you are arguing contrary to the people who also hold that same opinion? I'm pretty sure even Raisinbat has agreed in one of these threads that his posts are harsh, so it's not that.

      Lots of people have made justifications for power-changes with reasoning based in their specific sci-fi favorite. No-one suggests carbon copies.

      He can state his point however crassly, imprecisely and ineffectively as he wants. People are free to ignore it or ask, 'what the hell?' but it is bad form to re-state it in such a way as to twist the meaning, put words in his mouth and denigrate his character and opinion especially when you presented nothing else of any merit. The point that non-StarMade sci-fi should not overwrite StarMade has been made so often one would hope it would be recognized immediately as a main tenant of 'our side's' collective opinion.

      Look, your counter-argument has nothing to do with what Lecic posted. The sci-fi argument was brought up as a point that StarMade's power generation system was not similar to any sci-fi setting and for that reason was immersion-breaking or illogical and should be changed regardless of balance or meta-building concerns. I maintain that this view should have no bearing on how StarMade is balanced because StarMade is not a simulator for other Sci-Fi's. The reasons it should not try to do so have been covered better elsewhere.
      • Agree Agree x 2
    9. AtraUnam

      AtraUnam Maiden of crashes

      Oct 15, 2013
      Can everyone please stop arguing about what is essentially a non-issue? Raisinbait and myself are on completely opposite sides of this argument and even we were able to agree that it is currently very possible to build a highly effective PVP ship while still having a good interior.
      • Agree Agree x 3
      • Like Like x 2
    10. Scypio

      Sep 18, 2014
      Dude, i don't need a nav marker to drill through any ship with a decent weapon. Escpecially if i can find it easily, it's fine, there is plenty of interior around your power reactor so i'll find out where to shoot easily.
      #230 Scypio, Mar 21, 2017 at 7:13 PM
      Last edited: Mar 21, 2017 at 7:24 PM
      • Agree Agree x 3
    11. Master_Artificer

      Master_Artificer Never Finishes Anything

      Feb 17, 2015
      The problem is people in PVP love to win. they make a ship, and test it against another one of roughly equal size, then see if they can beat it, whoever loses is going to try and win the next time, so they either optimize or go slightly bigger (usually a bit of both). Fight again, and cycle repeats. Then you have a very few select people that make a big ass ship. When ones faction's faction-mate unveils their big ass ship, everyone in an opposing PVP faction freaks out and goes though everything they have seeing if they can make it. They can only counter it through numbers or a bigger better ship. This happened in real life with warships from the 1890's through the 1940's, with several nations spending vast sums of money (trillions adjusted to our time over the 50 or so years) to keep up, with some ship advances, like HMS dreadnought, completely obsoleting fleets of ships before it and resetting the score.

      This doesn't happen anymore in star-made, as we had advanced to the limit of the engine a year or so ago. Their are already huge monsters of ships out their, no matter how optimized or impressive your ship its not good enough. Thankfully now we have fleets, and a dozen or so 20k mass ships can cripple lone titans due to numbers and the power advantage. But for one on one fights, people feel like they have to build big so if they go to show off their ship, they are still relevant.

      If you make a system where you give us filler blocks and then say "place them if you want, its up to you", and they are ever so slightly better than not placing them, then you didn't give us a choice at all. All it takes is for someone to "game" the system, and if you don't follow suit, you handicap yourself, your ships, and your faction friends. It's not a choice about "well then just don't do it", because when someone else will, you follow suit. If you enjoy combat and enjoy winning that is. Why would you spend huge amounts of time to lose after-all?

      Hey I'm sure plenty of Americans would of loved it if our military hadn't of spent so many billions on the F-35, but it follows this same logic. If your not absolutely pulling all the stops and putting every advantage you can into it, why bother when it comes to pvp?
      You see pvp ships with interiors, large ones that is, and the interiors are around the core and the outside. You want to impress people with what you built, you spent many days/weeks/months on it after all, and the better it looks the deadlier it is :-p. So interior around the core is sensible, as long as it is kept small, and you see interior around the outside because of spaced armor for missile explosion radius. Why not decorate it for extra show? the better it looks the deadlier it is, and the more coveted a prize.
    12. kulbolen

      Jan 4, 2015
      aside from the hypocricy in a lot of your statements where you stooped to the same level you were criticizing... i actually agreed with a lot of your post, except this bit here stands out pretty harshly.

      i have personally witnessed an us vs them mentality. you may not see it, but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist. it is pervasive throughout this community. im sure ill be called biased for making this observation, but i find the rp crowd to be much more vocal in their hatred for pvpers than the other way around; maybe thats just because most of my friends playing this are in the pvp crowd....

      but heres why i think i see this from my perspective:

      the "rp crowd" is quick to call me all kinds of names, hacker, cheater, exploiter, shitty builder who relies on pvp for validation, etc... (my nickname on several disc servers now is "that guy with hacky bullshit") but most of my ships have rp elements in them that the rp people either ignore or are quick to criticize my lack of building skill compared to them, etc. (i thought looks were subjective folks, i like my interiors)

      on the other hand, the pvp crowd doesnt call me an rp carebear, shitty pvp builder who relies on rp for validation, rainbow flavored unicorn interior designer, (outside of jokes) even though i have some full on rp ships with tons of useless logic, display fluff, and rail doors/elevators etc.

      maybe its just because i can still put up a good fight, but nearly all the criticism and hatred directed at me has come from one direction, and ive seen it with others, too.
      --- Updated post (merge), Mar 22, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Original Post Date: Mar 22, 2017 at 1:20 AM ---
      this is of course wrong, but without a qualifer to "not good enough" it hard to talk about specifics.

      this is so obvious im almost ashamed that you have to explain it, it was cringy to read. but youre dead on accurate...
      • Agree Agree x 2
    13. Drybreeze

      Dec 29, 2014
      Thank you for an adult response.
      You make some great points and I totally understand what you're saying.

      I also agree completely.

      The point I make is this:
      If we're going to make a more realistic and interesting power system, it should be done by making it more in the direction of realism.

      This means having a power generation system and a coolant system (there are other models of course, but let's look at this one for now), attached with fluid exchange pipes.

      Having a spacing system seems arbitrary to me. To be honest the entire concept would work equally well (I'm sure many would argue that it would work BETTER) without the "heat box" concept. It is a nice idea but let's face it, it is far more troublesome and objectionable than just simply the concept of increasing the complexity of a power generator set up without the heat box penalties.

      HOWEVER, if they insist on having a heat box (or EM field exclusion zone or whatever you wanna think of it as), then I ALSO understand the complaint that it is being filled with unnecessary mass - to a PVP'r my understanding is that every kg matters, so why have mass that serves no other purpose than a very light armor effect. I get that.

      But if you want to avoid huge sections of systems, the solution is smaller more powerful sections of systems, right?
      And if you want smaller more powerful systems, then you also want them to have more complexity and interesting setups which encourage a greater degree of experimentation, right?
      So that EITHER means:
      1) smaller ships, in which case all you've really done is simply reduce the scale of ALL ships in the game for the same system output, OR
      2) you have same size ships with smaller systems within them.

      The first option seems pointless. You've reduced the resolution of the blocks per ship, basically. Yuk. If anything I want to see GREATER detail in skins, not less, for a ship with X dps and Y speed.

      Option (2) seems to be what the devs are suggesting, in which case you either

      2a) space out the systems to fill the previous skin's area, OR
      2b) you have the small cluster of systems in the middle of the ship surrounded by no systems (void or junk), OR
      2c) you simply fill the entire ship (as before) but now because you have more powerful systems you've simply made the same size ship have bigger better systems... inflation, nothing more.

      (2c) is pointless. Why not just increase the output of all existing modules... same net effect except a more interesting time designing the system... so you'd have to make the systems LESS powerful to balance that effect. Yuk.
      (2b) is pointless. With a vast space around your core systems, obviously you'd fill the remaining area of the skin (unless you were forced not to by system output caps), which means that you'd end up defaulting to (2c) - see above... pointless.

      So that leaves (2a) as the only logical solution. Smaller, more complicated, more interesting, and more powerful systems, but forced to be spaced out to have an overall Gross volume something comparable to current systems. This can only be achieved by having systems interfering with each other's output, forcing space between them so that (2b), and therefore (2c) aren't the inevitable end result of the arms race you describe in your post.

      So there we have it. Gaps are necessary if we make smaller and more powerful systems.
      In which case we needs EITHER voids (occlusion problems and a zillion other complaints that have been vocalised a LOT), OR "junk blocks" which help stop the passage of fire, and also reduce occlusion problems leading to performance problems.

      So, really, the inevitable conclusion to all of this is:

      1) Make a more complicated system of power that is LESS powerful per block and so forces the current amount of GROSS OVERALL VOLUME being taken up in a skin to be about the same, OR
      2) Make them smaller, more complicated and interesting to build with, but pad out the distance between them with junk blocks that provide RP'rs with space to do what they want, while allowing PVP'rs to simply fill the area with these blocks so they don't have to worry about all that cumbersome RP crap, and at the same time you have successfully closed the gap between the output of RP built ships and PVP built ships (if done right).

      So in short, what Schine have done makes perfect logical sense to me.

      Everything in life is about balance and compromise... and it seems to me that the devs have made some good choices on this one so far... and even in the face of that are listening and taking on board everything that has been said in response to the suggestion.

      I look forward to what I know will be some excellent improvements to the game, and I'll bet that those that are crying the loudest now will have very little to complain about once it is implemented.

      (Sorry for the essay.)
      • Like Like x 1
    14. Captain_Boroski

      Apr 19, 2013
      Didn't think I'd see a Nuremberg Trials: My Feelings Were Holocausted boogaloo, but here we are.
      • Like Like x 1
    15. Vvolodymyr

      Jan 2, 2016
      This topic seems to evoke some very negative emotions. Kinda ugly.

      My views are more laid back.
      I don't have strong attachments to previous creations, maybe cos I just didn't make that many, maybe cos I keep on looking for new possibilities and quickly tire of my previous stuff. So that might be part of the thing, just as the dev team correctly predicted from the very start.
      I am attracted to the idea of healthy sportsmanship and friendly competition (healthy PvP) - but people being people, things get ugly fast :(
      I am attracted to cool looking space stuff. My motto "add space and/or scifi to anything to make it better" :) - that's why I'm here.
      I like making virtual stuff - both functional and good looking (the balance is a challenge!)
      When making ships I can't just let the space be wasted, it's gotta be filled in with useful stuff (systems, efficiency, etc) or I'll feel wrong, lol. But I'll also feel wrong, if after being done with systems, I haven't done everything in my ability to make the final thing look good too.

      Now to the Power System.
      The only problem I have now, is the somewhat artificial soft-cap. It's like after 2mil regen , the rules on power design change. Up to soft cap is one set of rules we all know, and above soft cap - the design considerations are different (how you place the power, modular design, aux power etc).
      I feel that it'd be better if there was no such abrupt and somewhat artificial-feeling difference (I mean sub-cap and supra-cap). One smooth increase of difficulty of considerations in power system design with size. I think that is what the dev team was trying to achieve with their proposal. It looks like many things will depend on actual number and formulas rather than the general ideas outlined in proposal. It is difficult to support/oppose their proposal without those actual numbers/formulas. I'm saying - the idea of heat-boxes & cooling systems could totally work for everyone, it all simply depends on details. I am sure the dev team is well aware of this as well.

      But again, to be honest, in sub-soft cap ships - right now there is not much issue with power. There is this weird abrupt change in how one goes about designing power, after the soft-cap (I'm sure everyone here knows why).

      There was a cool solution by the community before - the modular design. And I gotta say - I find modular designs really clever and fun, not just the docked reactors&shields, but any kind of modular ship designs. The problem with that was (as I understandit) ~ docked entities, many cores, lag and in certain situations collisions. I feel if there was no lag problem - StarMade could benefit from allowing (or even supporting) modular designs of any and all systems. I have no idea how this can be achieved - but It got me thinking about the ship cores. I often find myself wondering - 'why do I need another ship core, even if I'm just making a sliding rail door?' I always feel that if I intend to be a part of the ship to be a permanent part of the ship (stuff on rails), then I shouldn't need to have another ship core. If that part of the ship gets blown off, it becomes it's own ship... this seems wasteful and unnecessary. Maybe part of the power solution could be addressed from this point of view? Maybe there could be a .. different kind of core - a "internal component" core or.. (I'm not a programmer).

      But that's just a related thought, since modular design is related to power in this context.

      In the end, I do understand that this is an Alpha stage, and I try to remind myself not to get too attached to anything in the game so far, knowing changes are inevitable. I'm looking forward to new possibilities, so I can keep making & testing & flying & shooting new stuff in a new way :) I feel the dev team has indeed created the game the way it is now - and it IS enjoyable, so I naturally trust them to continue doing the same.

      CheerZ all :)