Why exactly is power broken?

[Panpiper]

Personally, I want a build system that is NOT easy to master. I want a system that takes hundreds of hours of iterative building to get to the point where you can go up against seasoned PvP builders. For those just starting out who don't want their ships to be pushovers while they learn, there is always community content.

I like the current build system. It has taken me hundreds of hours of play to figure it out sufficiently. The prospect of it all being tossed out and replaced with something entirely different means to me that those hundreds of hours of learning are now wasted. The new system seems largely motivated to do away with much of that complexity, to do away with the 'exploits' that are the essence of mastery. The new system may well be easier for new people to understand, easier to master. That to me is NOT a positive thing.

Yes, the current system leads to issues with entity profusion creating lag. The solution to that is to examine ways to reduce and in some cases eliminate entirely entity collision checks, etc.. This will have to be done even if the build system is scrapped, as ultimately fleet profusion is going to create every bit as much issue as docked entities (it already does in fact).

Finally I would point out again, others have said it too, that the build system is pretty much all we've got right now. There is no actual 'game' other than the build system. If we are going to chuck out the build system, then frankly we have nothing at all. Far better in my opinion would be to finish the actual 'game', add in those game features that will make Starmade more than a ship building exercise. Finsih the game with what we've already spent years building and testing.

Once this is done, then perhaps think about Starmade 2.0 and a completely new build system.

 

[Jaaskinal]

The Braids strengh are not the Efficiency without suffering damage, their strength is efficiency when they have suffered damage at sizes bigger than 50 meters. That is the reasson i think nobody that use it go for "medium" ship sizes, their go max ship size can handle or small ones.

If you think im not correct only said it and i put some examples that you can recreate inside the game.




Define "large" ship or im not going to get your point please.




The the "heat power" system is not going to solve anything more, is going to be only a kick to the next bottleneck.

First off, I absolutely despise that you feel the need to quote every third line to get your point across. It's really a pain to understand your point, especially when your text is riddled with spelling, grammar, and formatting mistakes. I still suggest that you use Reverso, it will make everyone respect you a little bit more.

Reverso English spellchecker

Secondly, unless you can anticipate exactly where you are going to be damaged, it's quite difficult to create any reactor that maintains efficiency whilst taking damage. If you have a long ship, with a long reactor in it, so long as you're facing the enemy, your reactor has the minimum profile, as it's only 1 meter by 1 meter, so it is the least likely design to be severed by any form of damage. If you want to design reactors with more survivability, armor them with doors or normal armor.

Third off, I thought it would have been abundantly clear given the context of the rest of my statement that what I'm mean by "large" ships is any ship with multiple auxiliary groups.

Finally, the problem I was referring to in my statement would be mitigated or removed entirely by a heat mechanic. You can't abuse docked armor on a reactor if the reactor melts the docked armor.



As a side note, I don't think Az14el is advocating for his own ships, nor do I think the power system would necessarily favor gigantism. If you make it more efficient to have a single reactor, then your issue of "big ships get to have multiple reactors is bad!!1!" is resolved. You could choose survivability and inefficiency, or you could strive for efficiency at the expense of survivability. I love the idea of trade-offs in game mechanics, where you have two or more options that optimize one strategy or the other, while both strategies are valid. Currently with the power system, there's no real trade off. I can make the most efficient reactor take so little damage that it's unbelievable.

 

[Az14el]

Fun fact:With a decent computer is more probably that the server gets crazy than a player computer i have no idea if you are trying to manipulate again or not.

what do i have to gain by manipulating you? the chance to rebuild all my ships? think.

 

[Jaaskinal]

Personally, I want a build system that is NOT easy to master. I want a system that takes hundreds of hours of iterative building to get to the point where you can go up against seasoned PvP builders. For those just starting out who don't want their ships to be pushovers while they learn, there is always community content.

I like the current build system. It has taken me hundreds of hours of play to figure it out sufficiently. The prospect of it all being tossed out and replaced with something entirely different means to me that those hundreds of hours of learning are now wasted. The new system seems largely motivated to do away with much of that complexity, to do away with the 'exploits' that are the essence of mastery. The new system may well be easier for new people to understand, easier to master. That to me is NOT a positive thing.

Yes, the current system leads to issues with entity profusion creating lag. The solution to that is to examine ways to reduce and in some cases eliminate entirely entity collision checks, etc.. This will have to be done even if the build system is scrapped, as ultimately fleet profusion is going to create every bit as much issue as docked entities (it already does in fact).

Finally I would point out again, others have said it too, that the build system is pretty much all we've got right now. There is no actual 'game' other than the build system. If we are going to chuck out the build system, then frankly we have nothing at all. Far better in my opinion would be to finish the actual 'game', add in those game features that will make Starmade more than a ship building exercise. Finsih the game with what we've already spent years building and testing.

Once this is done, then perhaps think about Starmade 2.0 and a completely new build system.

I'm somewhat in the same boat as you. I've spent hundreds of hours on this game, and I know how to abuse every system in it.

I have logic that can de-synch anyone in the same sector as it. I have logic that can render any ship with an open docking port virtually useless. I have a 140 mass entity with two million regen and capacity. I have perfectly efficient auxiliary groups that take almost no damage from their own explosions.

I had logic that could charge a jumpdrive instantly, it wouldn't even need a module, only the computer. That instant jump-drive would bypass any jump-drive inhibitor, regardless of its size. I had a shield supply unit that could provide hundreds of times more shields to a ship than any shield reactor of the same size. I had ships that could nullify the damage from any missile or beam.

Most of these weren't even of my own creation, but given to me from other people. The build system is nice and complex, but it's abuse-able, always has been, but I'd love to see a day where there is good complex design, without any exploits. I know this day will never come, but we could at least step closer to it.

This is an alpha. Be prepared for every ship of yours to fail every single update. It's part of what makes the game fun.

 

[kulbolen]

if its not related, why did you mention it in the first place? you know, the thing i replied to with literal qoutes?

aside from that, no, its not a constant interruption, you arent spending all of your building time laying power lines every other block placement. (if you are, thats your decision, not a requirement.) its dimensions arent an issue as you can still place your silly bulk systemblocks wherever you like aside from it.

i think a new proposal might have some merit here but allowing for mindless chunks of fully efficient systems doesnt seem like the goal theyre going for.

 

[Scypio]

How do you STILL not understand that excessive docking is the problem here and is encouraged under the current power system (literally all you need to know to figure this out is that a reactor soft cap exists), for both the (dubious) "balance" complaints AND the performance complaints, and that localising the cost of these weapons will mean less need to have them all offboard with their own power & large moving parts. Moving docked entities into equivalent onboard entities is a significant reduction in lag, period.

I mean... Seriously. If we would use docked entities only for going through the power cap, dude. I know that you know that isn't the case. Sure using docked entities help to get through the power cap but using this only for this purpose is just a waste.

 

[Az14el]

I mean... Seriously. If we would use docked entities only for going through the power cap, dude. I know that you know that isn't the case. Sure using docked entities help to get through the power cap but using this only for this purpose is just a waste.

True its not the only reason, but it is the most common & practical reason for stacking docked entities by far, because they can help you both deal more damage and take less damage than a counterpart that isn't making use of them, without meaningful diminishing returns for the player themselves.

 

[Jaaskinal]

Jaaskinal I bring a like at your other post for that link, but i do not think that magically i start to speak english perfectly sorry if that piss you. If i quote each paragraph is to try people that read it get the point better.

If our combat experiences are similar, the fighting you've fought follows the "rail" tonic, this means that someone goes backwards while the other goes forward most of the time.

Knowing this it is easy to assume that parts of the ship must have more layers of advanced blocks.

Still wanting how mass you use usually, perhpas is hard to believe but "the mount talks a lot about the rider"




That is a sugestion and i do not think Schine is going to implement it, doing that you can use "heat" as a "weapon".




Well for some reasson you ignore some stuff [you are free to do it], change some of my words context [that is manipulating], put some argumentation i said on a incorrect way[check my previous post] or directly change the words i said[check the other tread where you change current for correct on a stuff i said].

If that is not manipulate, i need a new dictionary.

Just for you, the smallest ship I've flown in combat is 3k mass, and the largest is 228k mass.

 

[Az14el]

If that is not manipulate, i need a new dictionary.

Maybe you do but honestly try answering the question, even if its only in your own head, not making more implications and raising more questions to try and explain it but actually just directly answering the question.
What do i have to gain by manipulating you?

My answer is absolutely nothing, the reason I'm mad and my language and responses are slipping is because i've been arguing against some terribly idiotic ideas that would greatly diminish the enjoyment of a game i've played for almost 3 years. Not that "remove real time calculations" is an idea i think would ever catch on, because instead of removing them schine has been continuously optimising them for that entire 3 years. And i fully expect them to simply continue doing that, so no I have nothing to gain by manipulating you, but also nothing to lose. I'm just here to yell at your shitty circular logic by this point and i should probably give up on trying to talk any sense into you, not worth my time.

 

[kulbolen]

can confirm at least in past encounters, jaaskinals group typically fights in a linear manner. =p

 

[Az14el]

Az14el The stuff about manipulating is there. Want some quotes?

Our positions are different and as you said well above do not share mine.

I have no idea if you are older than me or not at this game, but i have the same issue but with the "heat system".

I answered your question now please answer mine:

If giantism [more 200k mass] gets a nice cut, the noob turrets [bad shapped turrets that makes collision stuff] get damage at collisions and be destroyed and totally nerf of power at docked structures [like when you dock an advance shop] the current power mechanics are nominal on a crapy server/computer, and totally functional on a decent server/computer.

In which part of that paragraph you are going to "greatly diminish the enjoyment of a game i've played for almost 3 years."

AND PLEASE BE LOGICAL AND DO NOT START TO TALK ABOUT HOW SMELL THE CLOUDS.

1: Posing more questions IS NOT answering a question.

2: What part of your "question" is even a question, thats an assumption and as soon as i say its ******* wrong (which it is) you're going to write another really long post, if you want an 'answer' to your objectively incorrect bolded opinion then just reread the ***** thread. You're in denial.

3: Thank you, i get to remind you what you're actually asking for, if i destroy your computers, i want those computers to be rendered unuseable, while you may not accept it as fact, it IS a fact that the game needs some kind of check in place to determine whether or not it exists. If this check didn't exist, you would be able to continue using that computer, and I have gained no advantage but dropping your system HP by a tiny amount. Thats something that would greatly diminish my enjoyment of the game. Does this really sound worth throwing out real time calculations for? Or maybe should we do something about the actually unnecessary causes of lag?

4:

I have no idea if you are older than me or not at this game,

Would this knowledge change anything?

 

[kulbolen]

arkudo, block breaking alters a ships stats on the fly, this can affect combat. this is a fact. deal with it.

people always try to push the boundaries. if there arent any boundaries, people will keep pushing till something fails. making titans less useful wont make them go away, so stuff will still break when they show up, just less often. its a partial fix. making entities that cause collisiosn checks less useful wont make people stop building them, theyll just build them less often. this is a partial fix. who gets to enforce what is a "noob turret" vs a "good turret" and how do you quantify that into a coded rule?

and how do you do those things without enforcing arbitrary limits on the game, which seems to kinda be part of the issue they want to fix in the first place? why is your definition of gigantism the correct one? why not 400k? or 100k? 50k? you argue your opinion as fact then push back when people present contrary information. then you bring up manipulation as if its something youre not participating in yourself.

im sure most rational people agree "gigantism" (notice the lack of bracketed explanation) is an issue. as far as logic is concerned, you could probably smell the clouds if you stick your nose up and sniff.

 

[Az14el]

I'm sorry for being such a terribly manipulative person in your mind, you're still staggeringly misinformed & all around a really nice guy ^_^

At this moment you can do too many "unbalanced stuff", the problem about that is that impacts on the game perfomance.

I know right? so why are you arguing against changing the system that implicitly allows that?

 

[jayman38]

Remind me again why the incorrect assumptions of new players should influence game design? I mean, sure, some things should be intuitive and standard, like using wasd to move around the player, but does every mechanic have to be child proofed? Are we restricted by the lowest common denominator of the player base, can we not rise above them?

1. Basic gameplay mechanics should be either completely intuitive (bigger groups = better power) or presented in a tutorial (lines = better power). This goes for any game. This does not necessarily hold true for more advanced gameplay mechanics, but power generation is a basic aspect of entity building.
2. Not every mechanic needs to be child-proofed, but power generation needs to be. Power generation is the heart of Starmade. It is the limiter and the enabler of most gameplay-oriented systems. Without power generation, there is no thrust, no shields, no weapons, and insuffient gameplay. With inefficient power generation, there is quick, frustrating death at the hands of even simple pirate ships.
3. Good game design dictates that new players, the lowest common denominator, need to be addressed. They don't have to be pandered to, but they must be taught. See point 1.

The influence of the power system is one not only of non-intuitive design, but of discarded non-intuitive designs that are still presented in Youtube tutorials which misinform new players on how to make sufficient power systems. With a more intuitive power system (bigger groups = better power) and/or with a required tutorial, the issue of incorrect assumptions AND misinformation goes away, and this failure in game design is addressed.

On the other hand, if new players are not addressed, and left to their own devices, a few will hang on long enough to learn the literal ropes of power generation. However, that is the gaming public minority. If the majority of the gaming public is not addressed, it will diminish the Starmade gaming community.

To say that the power system should not be addressed with new players is equivalent to saying "What if we used a non-standard movement system for astronauts? WASD is for Call of Duty. New players can figure it out." If Starmade forced the player to move with arrow keys instead, it would be unreasonable to not expect some sort of movement tutorial, however short, or a change to standardized wasd-control bindings. I say that the power system is every bit as critical to the core gameplay as the astronaut movement system.

 

[Az14el]

If giantism [more 200k mass] gets a nice cut, the noob turrets [bad shapped turrets that makes collision stuff] get damage at collisions and be destroyed and totally nerf of power at docked structures [like when you dock an advance shop] the current power mechanics are nominal on a crapy server/computer, and totally functional on a decent server/computer.

But you just said the complete opposite you really awesome guy, you admitted that current power mechanics allow "imbalanced stuff" that impacts on server performance, and then contradict yourself saying that its "nominal" again as if its a valid explanation?

You're not imagining things, thats true, you're just wrong.
I'm not manipulating you, I'm telling you that you're making ridiculous assumptions.

 

[kulbolen]

if you know, why are you arguing against it when it suits you?

i dont care WHY you decided on your arbitrary limit over someone elses, my point is who are you to be the one to make that decision? you may get to decide for your own creation what constitutes a titan or a cruiser or a capital ship, but you dont decide for the game. you dont determine for the entire playerbase what is small, what is large, what is capital, what will and wont be regulated. single core ships can cause no lag at 500k and complicated ships can cause lag at 20k. you can have any opinion you want but when you use your opinion as some kind of concrete fact in an argument... youre wrong.

i agree that big ships are cancer, but its not my place to decide for them what is too big or how to prevent it. the quantifiers you use to identify problems like laggy ships etc is way too basic. "bad turret" hos do you prevent a bad turret but not a good one? etc...the biggest problem with your way is that it isnt even enorcable aside from player judgement (probably admin enforced not code enforced)

 

[Az14el]

Az14el I know i have a real big problems to express myself correctly on english language, but i think you have more to understand it.

If this is implanted, the current mechanics are Functional.

If giantism [more 200k mass] gets a nice cut, the noob turrets [bad shapped turrets that makes collision stuff] get damage at collisions and be destroyed and totally nerf of power at docked structures [like when you dock an advance shop] the current power mechanics are nominal on a crapy server/computer, and totally functional on a decent server/computer.

No your english is somehow quite fine despite the apparent superior intellect.

"my point is who are you to be the one to make that decision?" is probably the best sum up, I'm imposing no limits but explaining that without them there are problems, you are imposing your own arbitrary limits and telling us that if you build within them there is no problem. This is true but ultimately pointless because as has been demonstrated time and time and time again already (and honestly should be a natural assumption to make) that your view is not the only view in the game.

No really, Who are you to be the one to make that decision?

 

[kulbolen]

lol "if laggy stuff gets removed, the game will lag less"

i think thats what he means... i cant tell, its very complex line of reasoning...

but seriously if you turned on turret collision damage i bet youd see a lot more lag instead of less. soooo yeah.

 

[Az14el]

I am correct when i say that?

Again, no, it's not necessary

 

[Deserea]

kulbolen but you change seconds for minutes of lag.

Az14el
Most probably you are one of those guys that abuse from docked scaners, you think that is fairplay? or all people must dock an scaner to be like a "pro".

I am correct when i say that?

Quick, Someone inform an innocent unable to play online at the moment or probably would know about this, what and how to construct a docked scanner in a private message so i can then make one for my titan.