Why P2.0 is unbalanced

[Magrim]

First, a few "not trick" questions to ask yourself.

1. Personally, what metic do you use to determine ship size?
2. What attribute, would you say, is the main factor contributing to a ship's potential?
3. Would you compare a frigate sized ship to a battleship and call it a fair comparison?
4. Would you compare a ship outputting X amount of power to another ship outputting equal to or greater than 2X amount of power a fair comparison?

I might be preaching to the choir here but some posts have lead me to the conclusion that there is a disconnect in the community between the pro and anti p2.0 crowds that I believe comes down to these questions. Another factor at play is likely because it doesn't affect the players that generally play starmade non competitively, so they are indifferent to the changes and view those that aren't, as being whiney. Don't let me put words in your mouth, if you feel differently, say so. I am genuinely curious about the community's answers so hopefully I get some.

My answers would be:

1. Block count

When comparing two ships of similar block counts, I view each space inhabited by a block as a potential contribution to the ship's overall capabilities. What blocks one puts in those spaces is what sets it apart from other ships. In other words, all else being equal, the talented builder makes better ships.​

2. Energy output

So many ship functions rely on energy that this is a no brainer for me. More power means more potential.​

3. No, it's not fair

The frigate is so outclassed in offense and defense that the odds of it winning are just hilariously low. 10 frigates v 1 battleship is a different story.
​

4. Depends

Asuming similar block counts and a balanced power system: Was it becase the builder of the 2X ship is more talented, or was it achieved through an exploit. Talent yes, exploit no.​

Now that you have my answers, I'll explain why imo new power is unbalanced as simply as I can.

In the new system:

If the frigate stretches it's longest axis, it can also have similar capabilities to the battleship even though it's still a much smaller vessel.

• Should it be reclassified as a battleship at that point?
• Will the bulkiness of the battleship give it enough of an edge defensively to consistently win?
• Why build the traditional battleship if you can build three or more of these "battlefrigates" for the same cost?
• Would it win consistently in a fight against three of them?

Now take two ships of similar block counts. One is 150m long another is 300m long. Which ship would win in this scenario? My money is on the 300m ship. Even though they use a similar amount of blocks, have similar costs, and weigh nearly the same, the 300m ship wins, no contest. it brings far more offense and defense to the fight due to the power disparity between them and does it only because it's longer, not because there was any skill involved in making it.

This issue with power can't be balanced through the numbers involved, which is why I fear for the future of starmade. If you make the required stab distance shorter, normal ships will have an easier time running their systems but in the examples above it changes nothing with the power disparity. Make it longer and normal ships will have a tougher time than they do now and the disparity remains. The only way to "fix" it, if you can call it that, while keeping the system, is to add more restrictions which I don't think anyone would want at this point. We already have enough with integrity, stab distance, shields, and purple dongs.

 

[madman Captain]

Question: Did your math involve the agillity of both ships? I mean such "extreme" size differences can cause some serious trouble with the flight behaivor of ships. Should the more compact ship not simply outmanouver the bigger one? What bring big guns if you cant aim at something?

 

[Magrim]

In the first example between the frigate and battleship, the moment of inertia would be the same.

In the second example, turn rate doesn't account for much of an advantage in a 1 v 1 at this scale anyway. Especially considering how much more offense and defense the 300m ship can bring to the fight. Even if it did, the 150m ship would have to get close enough to the for it to make a difference. How would it do that when there is a max server speed in place?

 

[NeonSturm]

I agree, but you missed one point: Localized shields.
The 300 should require more shield groups - I guess it was meant to be that way.

That makes it essentially 2-4 ships.

 

[Magrim]

I agree, but you missed one point: Localized shields.
The 300 should require more shield groups - I guess it was meant to be that way.

That makes it essentially 2-4 ships.

Granted, I haven't messed with bubble shields a whole lot but I doubt the increased power would be offset enough by the need for more shield groups.

 

[MacThule]

I used to judge ships on mass+block count, but I feel like in 2.0 gross volume (or more conveniently if less precisely bounding box size) may be more informative; mass is less meaningful, decoratives contribute to block count but don't weigh much and will no longer count as ship damage, so 10% extra blocks could be something like decor that doesn't reflect actual economy of engineering.

Power is the thing, of course. In your example of a 300m ship versus a 150m ship they actually have nearly the same power potential if we look at volume (the maximum power difference may be less than 5-10% given similar volumes, but I don't know many MOBAs or shooters even with perfect balance, let alone sandboxes. When did we decide a sandbox could accomodate total freedom and simultaneously achieve perfect combat balance?). How wide are these ships? How tall? I am aware of the value of profile, but it is only serious edge when facing off 1v1, otherwise fighters and skirmishers will erase profile by flanking (although mines incoming now will increase the value of a low forward profile again). I'm not confident that the entire balance of StarMade combat should be fixed around 1 single scenario - 2 guys facing off 1v1. It feels reductive and likely to force all combat more into that scenario since other combat scenarios will become imbalanced.

It needs more balance, and hopefullu by the time weapons hit release they will sort out the kinks. I disagree - with all due respect - that there aren't good ways to balance it. I think there are probably several factors that can each be leveraged a little to balance in a rounded manner: stabilizer distance, stabilizer damage distribution, shield radii, and turn radii. More potential factors can also be implemented over time (crew compartments, surface-area integrity calculations, etc).

1. Shorten the stab distance just a touch. The extreme distances don't seem to serve much purpose.

2. Change the turn rate formula to a soft curve up to about 1km before it hits minimum, maybe flatten it a bit at the low end (<300m) to make staying short valuable.

3. Bubble shields - already got it! Tighter radii could put even more pressure on builders to compress ship volumes.

4. Stop distributing stabilizer damage. Multiple stabilizer groups would be a significant resiliance factor, except that currently hitting one stab group damages all your stab groups, so they might as well be in one ball.

At that point, needle ships and dongs would still be strong and viable, but would carry enough real vulnerabilities to make them more useful as a DPS component in fleets than a stand-alone mini-titan.

 

[YamiHikari]

You also have to consider that you say size=block count. If the 150m and 300m ships both have 5000 blocks, the 300m ship will be much narrower, giving the opponent much easier access to the stabilizer stream, stabilizers, and reactor. Furthermore, each individual shield bubble will protect fewer blocks, requiring more power for the same amount of shielding and less overall regeneration, as well as sparser distribution of capacity because only capacitors within the shield bubble are included in the capacity of that shield and you will be stretching out your ship and therefore your capacitors (sorry about how long-winded and roundabout that sounded). Before you make an assumption of "this one thing breaks it," why not take all of the other factors into account? The devs put a lot of thought into this, and these things do balance out to a certain extent.

 

[Scypio]

When did we decide a sandbox could accomodate total freedom and simultaneously achieve perfect combat balance?)

When did someone decided the invert ?