What madness are you talking about? You mean design things as honest tanks and not paintings?! What next, you are going to suggest building hangers of Bobby AI fighters to distract/take out enemy fighters when swarmed? Madness I say, Madness!
Why the shield change is good
- Thread starter Evilchicken
- Start date
Stealth is the real OP thing if you learn and master its fickle balancing. Turrets/AI don\'t know how to handle you, inexperienced combat pilots won\'t understand what\'s going on as nothing is on their overview let alone they litterally see nothing when they go into build move and do a 360 check.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2013
- Messages
- 61
- Reaction score
- 25
http://star-made.org/content/ship-armor
As long we only have 50% armor blocks..... I would add 20 layers.
As long we only have 50% armor blocks..... I would add 20 layers.
lupoCani
First Citizen
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2013
- Messages
- 504
- Reaction score
- 127
For once someone who can read the data and base sensible arguments on it.
I agree with most of what you said, except possibly for the removal of the regen delay. It does serve the same purpose as a drastical regen nerf, but instead of almost removing it completely, which would make for good battles but also make shield regeneration otherwise rather slow and overly time-consuming, the regen delay would allow for faster and more practical regeneration, and still keep non-existant as a factor in combat situations. Just saying.
As for the scenario of single fighters demolishing capitals, that could only happen if they can survive for the hour or so it should take for them to breach it\'s shields, without being shot to pieces by the turrets one can presume the ship is equipped with. I\'m not sure of your standing on the effectiveness of turrets, but if it\'s not positive, then it\'s they who need buffing, not the shields.
I agree with most of what you said, except possibly for the removal of the regen delay. It does serve the same purpose as a drastical regen nerf, but instead of almost removing it completely, which would make for good battles but also make shield regeneration otherwise rather slow and overly time-consuming, the regen delay would allow for faster and more practical regeneration, and still keep non-existant as a factor in combat situations. Just saying.
As for the scenario of single fighters demolishing capitals, that could only happen if they can survive for the hour or so it should take for them to breach it\'s shields, without being shot to pieces by the turrets one can presume the ship is equipped with. I\'m not sure of your standing on the effectiveness of turrets, but if it\'s not positive, then it\'s they who need buffing, not the shields.
BLASPHEMY. Why should my capital ship that is worth around half the max money cap in the catolog stand any chance to defeat the small fighter tailing me? It makes no sense at all! That\'s why this change is great. It makes it so that 3-4 fighter ships that have little shields and small weapons can take down huge giants! Because that makes sense!
...No. This change makes no sense. AMC\'s scaled faster then shields did even before the update. It basically meant that a big ship could take out a big ship. That made sense. Small ships aren\'t MEANT to take down large carriers and capital ships. That\'s not realistic at all. And your comment on surface area expanding faster then shield blocks is bullcrap, because volume (or shield blocks) is cubed, while surface area is squared. A 1x1x1 cube of shield block as 6 surface area. That\'s a 1:6 ratio. A 2x2x2 cube is 8:24. 3x3x3 is 27:54. The ratio gets larger as the shield block expands.
There are ways to fix gigantism that don\'t require screwing over captial ships that are MEANT to take damage and not break a sweat.
1. Completely screw over mobility for giants. They should lumber along as slowly as possible, without being able to turn or fire their main weapons on faster and more maneuverable fighter craft.
2. Make giants cost a SHIT TON more. Cost should scale faster then ship size. Not sure how you would do this, but oh well.
You guys all seem to think that big ships should be vulnerable to smaller ships. But they shouldn\'t. They should be vulnerable to BIG SHIPS. Smaller fighters should be left to defend the larger craft from enemy fighters, as well as to help bigger ships slowly eat through a captial ship\'s shields.
...No. This change makes no sense. AMC\'s scaled faster then shields did even before the update. It basically meant that a big ship could take out a big ship. That made sense. Small ships aren\'t MEANT to take down large carriers and capital ships. That\'s not realistic at all. And your comment on surface area expanding faster then shield blocks is bullcrap, because volume (or shield blocks) is cubed, while surface area is squared. A 1x1x1 cube of shield block as 6 surface area. That\'s a 1:6 ratio. A 2x2x2 cube is 8:24. 3x3x3 is 27:54. The ratio gets larger as the shield block expands.
There are ways to fix gigantism that don\'t require screwing over captial ships that are MEANT to take damage and not break a sweat.
1. Completely screw over mobility for giants. They should lumber along as slowly as possible, without being able to turn or fire their main weapons on faster and more maneuverable fighter craft.
2. Make giants cost a SHIT TON more. Cost should scale faster then ship size. Not sure how you would do this, but oh well.
You guys all seem to think that big ships should be vulnerable to smaller ships. But they shouldn\'t. They should be vulnerable to BIG SHIPS. Smaller fighters should be left to defend the larger craft from enemy fighters, as well as to help bigger ships slowly eat through a captial ship\'s shields.
MrFURB
Madman of the Girders
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2013
- Messages
- 1,116
- Reaction score
- 413
Nobody said a fighter is going to kill your giant battleship. Your giant battleship has vast statistical superiority over a fighter and this update did absolutely nothing to change that.
What this update changes is how ships of equal size fight each other, and how capital ships treat enemies at least half their size. The increased shield load leads to slightly longer fights as it takes more than one volley to disable a capital ship\'s shields.
The change also means that support craft now play a role, and you can make up for a lack of even size and statistical power by outplaying your opponent, instead of fights being two ships left-clicking at each other and the smaller one instantly vaporizes while the larger one doesn\'t take any damage.
That said, if you AFK for hours on end or log out in unprotected space, yes, a little snub fighter could spend eight hours shooting it\'s itty bitty cannon at your giant mothership and eventually get past it\'s shields... But anyone can see the problem with leaving a huge ship unprotected and unescorted.
Starmade isn\'t about building a bigger ship. It\'s supposed to be a massive sandbox where players have the freedom to do as they please. If someone wants to fly a dinky little stealth frigate around, sure thing! They don\'t have to worry about losing a ton of materials if they get shot down, and they can still feel effective, but in order to overcome the vast statistical superiority that ships only twice their size have, they would need to rely on skill, personal playstyle, and effective use of tactics, teamwork possibly sprinkled in there too.
Bigger is only a small part of better, not the definition of it.
What this update changes is how ships of equal size fight each other, and how capital ships treat enemies at least half their size. The increased shield load leads to slightly longer fights as it takes more than one volley to disable a capital ship\'s shields.
The change also means that support craft now play a role, and you can make up for a lack of even size and statistical power by outplaying your opponent, instead of fights being two ships left-clicking at each other and the smaller one instantly vaporizes while the larger one doesn\'t take any damage.
That said, if you AFK for hours on end or log out in unprotected space, yes, a little snub fighter could spend eight hours shooting it\'s itty bitty cannon at your giant mothership and eventually get past it\'s shields... But anyone can see the problem with leaving a huge ship unprotected and unescorted.
Starmade isn\'t about building a bigger ship. It\'s supposed to be a massive sandbox where players have the freedom to do as they please. If someone wants to fly a dinky little stealth frigate around, sure thing! They don\'t have to worry about losing a ton of materials if they get shot down, and they can still feel effective, but in order to overcome the vast statistical superiority that ships only twice their size have, they would need to rely on skill, personal playstyle, and effective use of tactics, teamwork possibly sprinkled in there too.
Bigger is only a small part of better, not the definition of it.
My problem with the current array is that you have to wait, say 3 seconds with my ship without being hit before they begin to regenerate. I believe that this should be removfed, and that shields should regenerate all the time (not in large chunks at a consant rate) but at a much slower rate. Also, my ship has 300000 shields and they were only halfway down fighting pirates yet they still destroyed my weapons computer and I had to fly off helplessly. I feel this should be fixed.
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2013
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 0
I well be honest, I think that a thoroughly thought through plan, decent fighters, and a carriar or maybie two, should be able to punch through a capitals sheilds, however a single fighter is not going to do shit to a properley defended capital. Using \"One sided\" in a circumstance of a lone fighter atacking a capital is inneffective, as, this isnt based on Navel engagements. I would be pleased to know how a capital and a Navel Aircraft Carriar are similar too eachother in any way, with the exeption of they both are capeable of carrying smaller fighters. They do, as well, have similar sizes in terms of random geusses. but I beleive size is irrelevent in terms of starmade and other voxel based games, an example of this, is, planets in starmade are much smaller in scale then real planets, assumeing the Starmade character is about the averzge size of a human. further more, capital ships are mobile in all three dimensions as they are in space, Aircraft Carriars are mobile in only two dimensions as they are water ships.if you must use realism as a defensive subject in what YOU beileve, I really dont care. Further more, your argueing over what YOU beleive fair is pointless. You simply should not expect everybody to worship YOUR opinion of this new sheild system. I am doing my best to not take sides in your useless arguements over your different opinios of the new system. But my comment so far is rather \"one sided\" so, on the other hand, nerfing speed (which makes less sense then whats currently goinng on with giants, as there is no/low gravity in space, larger ships would take longer to accelarate to full speed, and longer to turn 360 degrees, but a smaller speed cap for giants would work for gameplays sake, but for all the gamers who beleive in \"realism in games\" would be pissed) and Giants costing more,as Shiny suggested. I beleive some tweaks in the cattalog prices would greatly help balance gameplay, pherhaps a system where the more blocks on a ship, larger expense than just all of the blocks prices added together, an example of this solution could be: \"Jim made a ship that cost him 400000000(this being an example number) credits for all of the resources combined, he saved it in the catalog, this ship was a giant, he got killed by his bro when they were messing around, it cost him 600000000 credits to buy a new ship, instead of 400000000 credits\" So, maybe think of soloutions, instead of useless come backs full of nonesense and irrelevent facts.
Shush now, and think before posting a comment
~Blubs (I dunno why I always put a signiture made frome part of my username, on a forum lol)
Shush now, and think before posting a comment
~Blubs (I dunno why I always put a signiture made frome part of my username, on a forum lol)
I kind of \"like\" when people go \"X is not realistic, therefore argument that Y should be realistic totally don\'t count.\"
I could counter your argument myself, if this is a space game and thus naval analogy doesn\'t count, then why does the game still try to take mass into account(even if there are currently no limit on engine size or such)?
The fact remain, this is a science fiction game. And most science-fiction, even unrealistic ones, -have- had the habit of basing themselves on naval combat very much.
And in fact, do you want to know something which is very similar to a spaceship in many aspects and also move in 3 dimension?
It\'s not an airplane.
It\'s a submarine, and it\'s what most researched people would realistically compare a spaceship to when it comes to organization, the threat of hull penetration and so on.
And yes, it is -very- much vulnerable to the weapons carried by things smaller than itself.
Adding a third dimension changes nothing to the argument of what roles ships carry traditionnally. In fiction, a strikecraft carrer remains a carrier, a fast destroyer remains a fast destroyer, a battleship remain a battleship.... and a bomber dedicated to taking out all of the former when their covering screen of fighters is taken out remains a bomber dedicated to taking out capital ships much like the volley of torpedo seaplanes which crippled the KMS Bismark allowing it to be cornered and gunned down by a fleet of smaller cruisers if I recall well.
Or you know, the Yamato, which got taken out by a count of 8 bombs and a dozen of torpedoes. Again in great part from aircrafts.
The truth is that the system unrealistically portray how weaponry scale with size, and how traditionally even the greatest of defenses are easily trumped by weapons which can be small in comparison. In real life, and just physics in general a bigger weapon might pack a bigger punch but will also generally be much more unwieldy and generally take much longer to reload as well or charge up.
Right now, the system is such that not only a bigger weapon hit harder, reach farther, it also travels faster and reload faster despite all logic. A 800mm Dora railroad gun in the current system will be statistically even greater at anti strike-craft fire than a quad set of 20mm oerlikon while still remaining as potently destructive while the oerlikon remains as innefective against armor other than the light plating of strikecraft... which even it is relatively innefective against due to lack of \"blocks\" to get a proper firing rate..
I could counter your argument myself, if this is a space game and thus naval analogy doesn\'t count, then why does the game still try to take mass into account(even if there are currently no limit on engine size or such)?
The fact remain, this is a science fiction game. And most science-fiction, even unrealistic ones, -have- had the habit of basing themselves on naval combat very much.
And in fact, do you want to know something which is very similar to a spaceship in many aspects and also move in 3 dimension?
It\'s not an airplane.
It\'s a submarine, and it\'s what most researched people would realistically compare a spaceship to when it comes to organization, the threat of hull penetration and so on.
And yes, it is -very- much vulnerable to the weapons carried by things smaller than itself.
Adding a third dimension changes nothing to the argument of what roles ships carry traditionnally. In fiction, a strikecraft carrer remains a carrier, a fast destroyer remains a fast destroyer, a battleship remain a battleship.... and a bomber dedicated to taking out all of the former when their covering screen of fighters is taken out remains a bomber dedicated to taking out capital ships much like the volley of torpedo seaplanes which crippled the KMS Bismark allowing it to be cornered and gunned down by a fleet of smaller cruisers if I recall well.
Or you know, the Yamato, which got taken out by a count of 8 bombs and a dozen of torpedoes. Again in great part from aircrafts.
The truth is that the system unrealistically portray how weaponry scale with size, and how traditionally even the greatest of defenses are easily trumped by weapons which can be small in comparison. In real life, and just physics in general a bigger weapon might pack a bigger punch but will also generally be much more unwieldy and generally take much longer to reload as well or charge up.
Right now, the system is such that not only a bigger weapon hit harder, reach farther, it also travels faster and reload faster despite all logic. A 800mm Dora railroad gun in the current system will be statistically even greater at anti strike-craft fire than a quad set of 20mm oerlikon while still remaining as potently destructive while the oerlikon remains as innefective against armor other than the light plating of strikecraft... which even it is relatively innefective against due to lack of \"blocks\" to get a proper firing rate..
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2012
- Messages
- 790
- Reaction score
- 1
lol I though this was \"STAR\" Made with futuristic spaceships, not \"SeaMade\" and with submarines.
So this is not a sci fi games where there are \"shields\" (not existant for Submarines), we\'re flying paper planes cus you know, they are all weak as paper, so unprotected as \"shields\" doesn\'t exist and anything small can break you apart.
Hmm, then I\'m on the wrong game, I want.. \"SPAAAACE\" :D
So this is not a sci fi games where there are \"shields\" (not existant for Submarines), we\'re flying paper planes cus you know, they are all weak as paper, so unprotected as \"shields\" doesn\'t exist and anything small can break you apart.
Hmm, then I\'m on the wrong game, I want.. \"SPAAAACE\" :D
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2013
- Messages
- 28
- Reaction score
- 0
So, Now my titan that was really hard to beat for smaller ships, can be taken down real easy by 3 small 20k cred ships.... i love the idea of a regen nerf. but that much?? little over board... i lost a ship that cost 20mil to a ship that cost 60k, cus it moved faster... :l
MrFURB
Madman of the Girders
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2013
- Messages
- 1,116
- Reaction score
- 413
Eh, I find smaller ships are still not a problem. How you overcome their speed is by maxing out your own and keeping a straight heading while slowly turning to them. They\'re forced to either disengage or take the brunt of your forward firepower. Hope that helps against the little ones!
more dakka!!!!! :D- Joined
- Jun 30, 2013
- Messages
- 17
- Reaction score
- 0
Disputing something with someone else is a justified right that you own, but being an asshole whilst doing so is completely by choice.
The problem is that there isn\'t such a thing as a \"1km long airplane\".
That they move in 3 dimension do not make spaceships to be \"planes\" any more than than \"moving on water\" made ekranoplan \"true\" ships (for what I\'m talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea_Monster Back during the cold war era, the soviets once thought of loading those with nuclear missiles amongst other roles prior to that... and ships do not usually require an -airforce- pilot to pilots).
Ships still remain realistically the best comparison in the millitary role that they should fill, as well as in the effort they take to produces. You do not require something the size of a drydock to produces a fighter or airplane, even some of the big stuff like boeing(even if their assembly lines remain large).
You -do- require something akin to a drydock to produces something of a cruisers.
And last I recalled, I do not recall any \"airplane\" carrying the 800mm dora railroad gun seemingly set with a gatling rate of fire setup(despite all logic that makes it -extremely- hard to achieve any even remotely \"decent\" rate of fire with even the more advanced of heavy weapons) or you know, shields which as a technology should see only something with the hull size of a ship
In practice, yes, a starSHIP(it\'s even in the name) should be just that. A ship which just so happen to have the freedom to move in the Z axis ontop of the X and Y ones.
But I will admit it.
Fighters shouldn\'t be allowed to destroy a capital ship and utterly blast it into non-existence.
This doesn\'t really happen under the current system which has armor, but specifically shields, scale so drastically beyond proportions that would be normal. Especially when capital ships are still so agile.
But even a lone fighter should have the possibility to at least crippled critical component like the engines or a specific weapons.
The problem is the weapon mechanics combined with those shields which are wholly out of proportions with the realistic which favor this current gigantism which puts one and only one direction to ship design: Bigger is better, with no drawback for the bigger stuff despite all logic and realities that make bigger things more cumbersome to use in real life.
Last I recalled, even something like the large hadron colider wasn\'t something you could turn on with a single easy switch and not a single difficulty, and the 800mm dora railroad gun needed a crane and winch to actually load a -single- shell in it\'s gun...(similarly, even something like the nightimpregnable Sturmtiger required a crane to load it\'s \"smaller\" 300mm shells in the tank\'s hold, and had a \"little\" bit of an issue with both speed(horrendously slow) and fuel consumption(horrendously high because of the vehicle\'s weight and mass to the point most were abandonned on the field of battle from lack of fuel rather than destruction by the enemy).
But this said, I have many friends who would very much like to try this game, utterly love the concepts and even bought it.... but for now very much do not like the current mechanics favoring this gigantism and the elitist of those defending those design ideas with only \"Lol, it\'s space and has shields so who cares about realism or balance?\" for argument.
But right now the gameplay is such that there is little, if not absolutely none, drawback from \"building big\" except that now the shield change make it such that \"smaller\" capital ships now stand \"somewhat\" of a chance to blow up bigger ships, yet smaller ships designs like fighters or corvettes still stand as useless... and thus without reason to be built at all other than \"not having enough ressource to build bigger\".
This is actually something which many of my friends dislike since it provides little incentive to try to build anything unless you actually have the time and ressources(and thus, the time to gather the ressources) to spend to make it enormous... and without any logic.
That they move in 3 dimension do not make spaceships to be \"planes\" any more than than \"moving on water\" made ekranoplan \"true\" ships (for what I\'m talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea_Monster Back during the cold war era, the soviets once thought of loading those with nuclear missiles amongst other roles prior to that... and ships do not usually require an -airforce- pilot to pilots).
Ships still remain realistically the best comparison in the millitary role that they should fill, as well as in the effort they take to produces. You do not require something the size of a drydock to produces a fighter or airplane, even some of the big stuff like boeing(even if their assembly lines remain large).
You -do- require something akin to a drydock to produces something of a cruisers.
And last I recalled, I do not recall any \"airplane\" carrying the 800mm dora railroad gun seemingly set with a gatling rate of fire setup(despite all logic that makes it -extremely- hard to achieve any even remotely \"decent\" rate of fire with even the more advanced of heavy weapons) or you know, shields which as a technology should see only something with the hull size of a ship
In practice, yes, a starSHIP(it\'s even in the name) should be just that. A ship which just so happen to have the freedom to move in the Z axis ontop of the X and Y ones.
But I will admit it.
Fighters shouldn\'t be allowed to destroy a capital ship and utterly blast it into non-existence.
This doesn\'t really happen under the current system which has armor, but specifically shields, scale so drastically beyond proportions that would be normal. Especially when capital ships are still so agile.
But even a lone fighter should have the possibility to at least crippled critical component like the engines or a specific weapons.
The problem is the weapon mechanics combined with those shields which are wholly out of proportions with the realistic which favor this current gigantism which puts one and only one direction to ship design: Bigger is better, with no drawback for the bigger stuff despite all logic and realities that make bigger things more cumbersome to use in real life.
Last I recalled, even something like the large hadron colider wasn\'t something you could turn on with a single easy switch and not a single difficulty, and the 800mm dora railroad gun needed a crane and winch to actually load a -single- shell in it\'s gun...(similarly, even something like the nightimpregnable Sturmtiger required a crane to load it\'s \"smaller\" 300mm shells in the tank\'s hold, and had a \"little\" bit of an issue with both speed(horrendously slow) and fuel consumption(horrendously high because of the vehicle\'s weight and mass to the point most were abandonned on the field of battle from lack of fuel rather than destruction by the enemy).
But this said, I have many friends who would very much like to try this game, utterly love the concepts and even bought it.... but for now very much do not like the current mechanics favoring this gigantism and the elitist of those defending those design ideas with only \"Lol, it\'s space and has shields so who cares about realism or balance?\" for argument.
But right now the gameplay is such that there is little, if not absolutely none, drawback from \"building big\" except that now the shield change make it such that \"smaller\" capital ships now stand \"somewhat\" of a chance to blow up bigger ships, yet smaller ships designs like fighters or corvettes still stand as useless... and thus without reason to be built at all other than \"not having enough ressource to build bigger\".
This is actually something which many of my friends dislike since it provides little incentive to try to build anything unless you actually have the time and ressources(and thus, the time to gather the ressources) to spend to make it enormous... and without any logic.
If you\'re in a ship with that much shielding, im assuming its a pretty sizable ship. Is your weapons computer on the outside???