More Types of pouwer

[Jippie]

I have a small (maybe) Suggestion since I am trying to make bigger ships with more and more space to walk in I notice that I seem to have a not enough power. Now I feel like we need more types of power say nuclear since that is more "Explosives" it can blow up if hit. and it needs a more advanced block that conceals it but the output is massif.


I hope this might work


Thanks for reading

Jippie

 

[CyberTao]

I think the point of the lack of power on Large ships is to try to Balance them some. Its to counteract the "Bigger is Better" by not allowing Large weapons arrays to be power stable and Large ships not being speedy.

Try Power Storage for large ships :u (I think I heard plans of making power storage explosive at some point as well)

 

[ltmauve]

These types of power would have to balanced somehow, possibly through fuel costs or the danger of explosives, or both.

Came up with this, in order to least to greatest.
1. xm3.4: what we have now
2. turbine cell: can use anything for fuel
3. fission cell: uses refined ores for fuel
4. RTG cell: uses refined ores for fuel, chance to explode on damage
5. fusion reactor: uses refined gas for fuel
6. SGIF reactor: uses refined gas for fuel, chance to explode on damage.

Names and all that aren't final , the reactors and cells might wind up with the same fuel or whatever. (Actually, this (fuel type, explosive) might wind up being a property of the blockBehavior.xml file)

Cell-type power blocks work in the following way: they can produce up to x energy/instant if your ship energy is about to drop to zero. In other words, they are batteries that must be refueled, not recharged, and with a limited discharge rate. They do not waste energy.

Reactor-type power blocks work in the following way: as long as they are fueled, they produce incredible power, but burn through fuel at a constant rate. In other words, they increase power regeneration by a constant amount for a given period of time.

 

[Jippie]

I think the point of the lack of power on Large ships is to try to Balance them some. Its to counteract the "Bigger is Better" by not allowing Large weapons arrays to be power stable and Large ships not being speedy.

Try Power Storage for large ships :u (I think I heard plans of making power storage explosive at some point as well)

That is what I do now ore just give up on larg parts of the walking space.

 

[Jippie]

These types of power would have to balanced somehow, possibly through fuel costs or the danger of explosives, or both.

Came up with this, in order to least to greatest.
1. xm3.4: what we have now
2. turbine cell: can use anything for fuel
3. fission cell: uses refined ores for fuel
4. RTG cell: uses refined ores for fuel, chance to explode on damage
5. fusion reactor: uses refined gas for fuel
6. SGIF reactor: uses refined gas for fuel, chance to explode on damage.

Names and all that aren't final , the reactors and cells might wind up with the same fuel or whatever. (Actually, this (fuel type, explosive) might wind up being a property of the blockBehavior.xml file)

Cell-type power blocks work in the following way: they can produce up to x energy/instant if your ship energy is about to drop to zero. In other words, they are batteries that must be refueled, not recharged, and with a limited discharge rate. They do not waste energy.

Reactor-type power blocks work in the following way: as long as they are fueled, they produce incredible power, but burn through fuel at a constant rate. In other words, they increase power regeneration by a constant amount for a given period of time.

that works very well, a nuclear cell could work but you will need some space to set it up (radioactive) and if it explodes... welp xD

(also for the radioactive part I think special block/room need to be build els in a larg area you should slowly die.

I dunno about fuel that is one of those things. I dunno if it could work or not.

 

[ltmauve]

The entire point of those mechanics is fuel -> power. No fuel, mechanic is entirely broken.

Also, I don't think that having radioactivity a) promotes any sort of good design or b) encourages any sort of balance.

 

[Fwyrl]

I think a nuclear reactor might be a good idea, but you would have to balance it carefully.

1-It would need to explode MASSIVELY if hit, like the explode-y blocks, but way bigger, like, enough to wipe out that ship, and anything within a few hundred meters, shields or not.

2-You would need to limit the number you could have on one ship, somehow.

3-It would need to be HUGE, big enough that it was only slightly more efficient than having a solid block of generators the same size. (By like 50%-100% or so - you can easily triple a 10-cube's output with good block design)

4-It would need to be extremely expensive - half the total cost of the ship.

5-Call it something else, like a "X56L ion/quantum foam generator"

 

[ltmauve]

See comments about fuel. That's really going to be the balancing mechanic. Yeah, you can put 700 fusion reactors on your titan, but then it would take a month to get enough fuel to power it for an engagement.
The explosive mechanic is another balancing factor, is the ability to use full weapons worth the risk of getting a third of your ship get taken out by your reactors? If not, switch them off.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention this above, but the larger/more reactor-type generators you have on your ship, the longer you have to wait after turning them on to start using them, and the longer they keep burning fuel and being an explosive risk after you shut them down.

 

[Jippie]

I think all of the ideas would work but it will be a careful balancing act

 

[Fwyrl]

See comments about fuel. That's really going to be the balancing mechanic. Yeah, you can put 700 fusion reactors on your titan, but then it would take a month to get enough fuel to power it for an engagement.
The explosive mechanic is another balancing factor, is the ability to use full weapons worth the risk of getting a third of your ship get taken out by your reactors? If not, switch them off.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention this above, but the larger/more reactor-type generators you have on your ship, the longer you have to wait after turning them on to start using them, and the longer they keep burning fuel and being an explosive risk after you shut them down.

The fuel thing though, would have to be very carefully implemented to fit in properly. Ideas?

I like the warm-up/cool-down time

 

[ltmauve]

You would have a fuel tank block. This holds fuel for onboard generators, but can also be linked to a docking port. When a ship lands on the docking port, fuel will be transferred into the ship from the tank. There would also be a junction block that can be used to allow multiple docking ports to fuel off one tank.

 

[Lecic]

I think a nuclear reactor might be a good idea, but you would have to balance it carefully.

1-It would need to explode MASSIVELY if hit, like the explode-y blocks, but way bigger, like, enough to wipe out that ship, and anything within a few hundred meters, shields or not.

2-You would need to limit the number you could have on one ship, somehow.

3-It would need to be HUGE, big enough that it was only slightly more efficient than having a solid block of generators the same size. (By like 50%-100% or so - you can easily triple a 10-cube's output with good block design)

4-It would need to be extremely expensive - half the total cost of the ship.

5-Call it something else, like a "X56L ion/quantum foam generator"

[EXPLETIVE REDACTED] NO. Do you have any idea how overpowered an explosion like that is? It doesn't matter how expensive it is, the thing is a one shot wonder. Slap on some engines and a handful of shield, and fling one at an enemy ship, then get the hell out of there, minus your suicide bomber. Their capital is now missing a few hundred thousand blocks.

 

[ToyotaSupra]

Now I feel like we need more types of power say nuclear since that is more "Explosives" it can blow up if hit. and it needs a more advanced block that conceals it but the output is massif.

This to the max, would make a good and balanced tradeoff.

 

[Fwyrl]

[EXPLETIVE REDACTED] NO. Do you have any idea how overpowered an explosion like that is? It doesn't matter how expensive it is, the thing is a one shot wonder. Slap on some engines and a handful of shield, and fling one at an enemy ship, then get the hell out of there, minus your suicide bomber. Their capital is now missing a few hundred thousand blocks.

... Just don't shoot at it.

Also, as I said, there would be a limited number per ship. You can't strap a nuclear generator onto a fighter...

(I should have mentioned that I meant it was limited based on ship size)

 

[Lecic]

... Just don't shoot at it.

Also, as I said, there would be a limited number per ship. You can't strap a nuclear generator onto a fighter...

(I should have mentioned that I meant it was limited based on ship size)

Seriously? First off, automatic turrets are going to shoot at the thing. Secondly, you could just put some disintegrators on the front of the ship, and when it hit an enemy, they would blow up, and then blow up the reactor.

Why couldn't you put a nuclear generator on a fighter? Because in game, there is no difference between a fighter and a capital. Would you use a certain mass limit? I guess you could, but what would you do if it drops below the mass limit? Just auto-magically self destruct? That's stupid.

I think new types of power generators would be pointless, and in the case of the nuclear generator, insanely overpowered.

 

[ltmauve]

I think new types of power generators would be pointless, and in the case of the nuclear generator, insanely overpowered.

If fuel was expensive enough, and the power curve for higher thrust was worse, then many larger ships would depend on alternate power sources that require fuel. This means that deploying a titan would not be an automatic option, but a decision based on fuel and the economic or political significance of the fight.

Also, I'm imagining the explosion from a power source that does explode should be less powerful than disintegrators.