Starbase Progress Notes: Week 43 (2021) - Siege insight

[ElluFB]

Hello everyone, here are the progress notes of the week 43 of 2021!

This week's progress notes offer insight into the upcoming siege feature and destructible stations. To better demonstrate this, we've also included some footage and pictures from the recent station destruction test events that were held in the PTU. Please bear in mind that these are the current plans there are for siege and they might go through some changes still. We hope that you enjoy these snippets of the Starbase development!

You can find the latest extensive overview of all items in development, including siege and Capital Ships, in last week's progress notes:
https://forum.starbasegame.com/threads/starbase-progress-notes-week-42-2021.2784/

Please note that the "Progress Notes" are different from the Starbase "Patch Notes". Progress Notes are snippets from the development team and what has been worked on during the previous week, and many of the features might not be present in the current or upcoming builds of the Starbase Early Access. Some features, especially in the design portion, can be subject to change as the development continues.

Starbase Progress Notes: Week 43 (2021)
October 25th - 29th

• ❌ = Not started
• 🟡 = In progress
• ✔️ = Completed

Siege technology

Siege gameplay

Capital Ships in siege

Gallery



Videos

Footage from station destruction test events in PTU

Destroyed station

Welding obstacles at the station

Purchase Starbase Early Access now on Steam!

 

[Kenetor]

nice! really awesome screenshots!

but damn siege looks a LONG way off if coding hasn't started on most of it

 

[Coy]

hell yeah

 

[superwafflefry]

"There is room for only one military capital ship per siege battle." Is this true? I could have sworn in the past yall have said that multiple military capital ships could roll up to a station of sieging in order to raise the effective power of the siege for larger stations. That way smaller groups could band together and siege with their smaller capitals for a large station. I might be wrong, but I thought that was the idea.

 

[LauriFB]

"There is room for only one military capital ship per siege battle." Is this true? I could have sworn in the past yall have said that multiple military capital ships could roll up to a station of sieging in order to raise the effective power of the siege for larger stations. That way smaller groups could band together and siege with their smaller capitals for a large station. I might be wrong, but I thought that was the idea.

That is indeed incorrect; there is room for many attacking capital ships.

 

[Goodgu]

TLDR: FB seems to be developing the game backward, making flashy content (station destruction, moon mining/bases, etc.) that doesn't further the game's playability while putting aside crucial core mechanics like capital ship fast travel, and military capital ships, for later.


I respect that game development is a process. But the order in which things are being worked on and the state in which features are being released is starting to worry me. The team has finally marked station destruction mechanics complete... And yet coding hasn't even been started for the actual siege gameplay? Dynamic safe zones, initiating and ending sieges, and capturing stations and capital ships have not even started coding? Not to mention military capital ships or even fast travel? I'm sorry but what? As far as game mechanics go, capital ships and fast travel could be released as a prominent feature on their own, letting players get used to and find bugs with those while station destruction is still in progress. How can that possibly be the first thing to be worked on? Not to mention mechanics even more fundamental to gameplay like company ships, or just the ability to re-name ships. Features that have only been worked on for weeks. (Company ships having just been added to this update.)

I have no problem waiting for features to come out. I can understand being overly optimistic about deadlines, but based on the state of dev for these features, the October deadline for station siege was ridiculous. If I have to guess, based on the game's track record, station siege will hit the PTU sometime in February. With a migration to the main branch mid to late April if we're lucky.

What worries me is not the current state of the game nor the rate at which things are being accomplished. This game is in early access, things aren't expected to work, and development takes a LOT of time. What concerns me is that the deadlines don't appear to be anywhere close to reality, and the priority given to features doesn't seem to follow any logic other than what is the most "flashy" or fun to work on. Maybe there is some logic that we aren't seeing. But if so, FB isn't communicating it to us.

But with all this maybe constructive criticism, I also want to point towards something that might help. Coffee Stain Studios. This team has nailed basically everything in their development of Satisfactory. Devblogs are on point and fun. Their progress follows a logical plan of basic core gameplay first, then add features on top. (Look at trains, nuclear power, factory construction, etc.) If you want a role model to follow for how to develop a game and talk to the community, then look no further than Coffee Stain.

 

[LauriFB]

TLDR: FB seems to be developing the game backward, making flashy content (station destruction, moon mining/bases, etc.) that doesn't further the game's playability while putting aside crucial core mechanics like capital ship fast travel, and military capital ships, for later.

The development order is tech first, which is quite the opposite. If we would create features without having technology to back them up then we would be doing it in backwards order. The destruction part is vast majority of the feature, and now that we have been able to verify that it works it's safe to tweak the designs of the other features to reflect this.

While the listing makes it sound we have nothing done, this in fact is not the case: for most of the features listed the core tech needed to create them are there. Remaining work is mainly UI work, which, granted, is also something which will take time.

For capital ships, fast travel etc. are done, but that is listed in the capital ships progress report, not on this. This report focuses only the siege and military capital ship features, which are done once civilian version is done.

 

[IronGremlin]

... Remaining work is mainly UI work, which, granted, is also something which will take time.

For capital ships, fast travel etc. are done, but that is listed in the capital ships progress report, not on this. This report focuses only the siege and military capital ship features, which are done once civilian version is done.

So, alright, this makes sense.


But we've also been told we needed alloys to construct capital ships.


So also we have a whole industrial process and related assets and code before this can hit live, yes? Or am I missing something?


And with none of that even in the PTU heading into November we are still assuming that we're getting station sieges sometime this calendar year?


Frankly that doesn't seem like enough time to play test this stuff on the PTU let alone get dev work done and the same.


Don't mean to sound mad here - delays happen, and I'm happy to see FB taking whatever time you need to get it done right.

But I hope you folks can understand why we're all fairly well convinced there is a snowball's chance in hell that this feature set is going to make that target.

 

[LauriFB]

But we've also been told we needed alloys to construct capital ships.

So also we have a whole industrial process and related assets and code before this can hit live, yes? Or am I missing something?

Alloys indeed are needed for capital ships. However, the alloy furnace has been under work for already quite some time, it's actually hitting PTU in the upcoming weeks. Alloy furnaces and capital ship overall progress can be seen from previous notes, https://forum.starbasegame.com/threads/starbase-progress-notes-week-42-2021.2784/

Alloy side of the factory should be pretty close once furnaces (and factories itself) work.

Civilian capital ships will hit PTU before military ones. Fron there to live server it greatly depends how the ptu testing goes.

And with none of that even in the PTU heading into November we are still assuming that we're getting station sieges sometime this calendar year?

Frankly that doesn't seem like enough time to play test this stuff on the PTU let alone get dev work done and the same.

Don't mean to sound mad here - delays happen, and I'm happy to see FB taking whatever time you need to get it done right.

But I hope you folks can understand why we're all fairly well convinced there is a snowball's chance in hell that this feature set is going to make that target.

Having too optimistic dates on roadmap, even as estimates, were a clear mistake from our end. Rather than rushing to the estimated dates we'll rather create the features properly. We'll also change roadmap to not include dates in the future, as that's most fair for everyone.

While the progress on all large features has been significant, it's better to see when the features actually hit PTU and then estimate better the live side. But obviously this year has only two months left, with some of that also spent on vacations.

 

[Erador]

TLDR: FB seems to be developing the game backward, making flashy content (station destruction, moon mining/bases, etc.) that doesn't further the game's playability while putting aside crucial core mechanics like capital ship fast travel, and military capital ships, for later.


I respect that game development is a process. But the order in which things are being worked on and the state in which features are being released is starting to worry me. The team has finally marked station destruction mechanics complete... And yet coding hasn't even been started for the actual siege gameplay? Dynamic safe zones, initiating and ending sieges, and capturing stations and capital ships have not even started coding? Not to mention military capital ships or even fast travel? I'm sorry but what? As far as game mechanics go, capital ships and fast travel could be released as a prominent feature on their own, letting players get used to and find bugs with those while station destruction is still in progress. How can that possibly be the first thing to be worked on? Not to mention mechanics even more fundamental to gameplay like company ships, or just the ability to re-name ships. Features that have only been worked on for weeks. (Company ships having just been added to this update.)

I have no problem waiting for features to come out. I can understand being overly optimistic about deadlines, but based on the state of dev for these features, the October deadline for station siege was ridiculous. If I have to guess, based on the game's track record, station siege will hit the PTU sometime in February. With a migration to the main branch mid to late April if we're lucky.

What worries me is not the current state of the game nor the rate at which things are being accomplished. This game is in early access, things aren't expected to work, and development takes a LOT of time. What concerns me is that the deadlines don't appear to be anywhere close to reality, and the priority given to features doesn't seem to follow any logic other than what is the most "flashy" or fun to work on. Maybe there is some logic that we aren't seeing. But if so, FB isn't communicating it to us.

But with all this maybe constructive criticism, I also want to point towards something that might help. Coffee Stain Studios. This team has nailed basically everything in their development of Satisfactory. Devblogs are on point and fun. Their progress follows a logical plan of basic core gameplay first, then add features on top. (Look at trains, nuclear power, factory construction, etc.) If you want a role model to follow for how to develop a game and talk to the community, then look no further than Coffee Stain.

That might seems ridiculous, but with game development, sometimes it goes smoothly by whole branch by little, rather than completing one node and going to next one.
That's because of implementing mechanics. For example, you are making a robotic leg with shoulder, elbow and palm. Logically, you need finish shoulder first, then go with elbow and finally palm.
But the thing is, you need test the palm, will it fit the requirements or not. If not, there will be changes. And now, shoulder/elbow needs to be modified too, to allow support full functionality of the new version of palm.

It's hard to implement initials nodes, because it's hard to guess will it fully be compatible with next nodes, that will be added.

Hope it makes the sense.

 

[fr4me01]

I know I am super critical of some aspects of this game sometimes. But with 1300 hours and having taken the last week and a half off I am very passionate about it.

Thank you FB Team for dealing with us and being passionate about the game you are developing. This game has a lot of potential and that point is very hard to argue against.

If we the players would sit back and comprehend the mechanics and how they all work together and how FB are trying to implement them into the SB Universe I feel like people would relax a little more.

That ultimately is what is causing strife with the more negative players I feel like. They either dont have a picture of the end goal at all, or theirs is so different from the devs that there seems to be a massive disconnect on what is happening development wise. Not that I have any way to make this better, or that it even needs to be solved. Some people just want to hate and moan.

I hope that cry baby crap doesn't get any of you Frozenbyte people down. Keep making the game you guys want to make. At the end of the day this game wont be for everyone and it doesn't need to be. This is fine.

 

[mikan]

It may be easier to edit by limiting public information, but I would like to know the progress of the development of new features released every week so far. Ship repair function mainly on the moon and at the station!

 

[LauriFB]

If we the players would sit back and comprehend the mechanics and how they all work together and how FB are trying to implement them into the SB Universe I feel like people would relax a little more.

That ultimately is what is causing strife with the more negative players I feel like. They either dont have a picture of the end goal at all, or theirs is so different from the devs that there seems to be a massive disconnect on what is happening development wise. Not that I have any way to make this better, or that it even needs to be solved. Some people just want to hate and moan.

It's true that the overall big picture has not yet been presented. First reason for this is that we are still working on some details, and I've noticed that the details will be something people demand right away, even if the overall big picture would be presented. Second reason is that it seems unfair to present grandiose plans before we have delivered the currently promised big features. And third reason aligns with the second, massive plans would have no credibility before the currently worked on features have been delivered.

Our plan is to present the next level of big picture once moon mining, capital ships and core of the siege are available on PTU at least. This also aligns pretty well with the current development.

I hope that cry baby crap doesn't get any of you Frozenbyte people down. Keep making the game you guys want to make. At the end of the day this game wont be for everyone and it doesn't need to be. This is fine.

I would lie if I'd say it didn't have a toll on us, but at the same time we (or I at least) made grave mistakes with the EA launch and we had to deal with the consequences. Now we have survived the worst part and it's again looking good from a developer's point of view, and hopefully after some time also from player perspective.

 

[Geronimo553]

And with none of that even in the PTU heading into November we are still assuming that we're getting station sieges sometime this calendar year?
Frankly that doesn't seem like enough time to play test this stuff on the PTU let alone get dev work done and the same.
Don't mean to sound mad here - delays happen, and I'm happy to see FB taking whatever time you need to get it done right.

Atleast they have roughly shown us where the progress of siege and capital ships is now. Its nice to know where things stand instead of "it will be out on x date" then that date is delayed several times. As we can see they are no where near release of this update planned for only three months after EA release, originally planned for a month before EA release. Atleast the design is done across the board. They sat everyone down in a room for a few days and got the concepts written down. Yay progress!

 

[Venombrew]

I would lie if I'd say it didn't have a toll on us, but at the same time we (or I at least) made grave mistakes with the EA launch and we had to deal with the consequences. Now we have survived the worst part and it's again looking good from a developer's point of view, and hopefully after some time also from player perspective.

@LauriFB Lauri you guys just take your time and do what you been doing, if we didnt believe in you we wouldn't be here supporting you guys. not only do we got ya back, but many of us love and appreciate the work you guys been doing.

 

[IronGremlin]

Atleast they have roughly shown us where the progress of siege and capital ships is now. Its nice to know where things stand instead of "it will be out on x date" then that date is delayed several times. As we can see they are no where near release of this update planned for only three months after EA release, originally planned for a month before EA release. Atleast the design is done across the board. They sat everyone down in a room for a few days and got the concepts written down. Yay progress!

Yeah, no complaints here regarding transparency or direction on design.

Honestly the date slipping didn't really bother me anyway, what I found confusing was that it never got updated when it seemed fairly obvious that making it was going to be a long shot - made me think maybe they were trying for crunch or just hesitant to break bad news or something.


But seeing Lauri's response makes me think the studio is just more concerned with doing the right shit the right way in the right order than they are with meeting a release target, and that's a really good thing, so I'm happy.