My Stupid Power Mechanics Thesis

[Raisinbat]

Starmade's power system is shit, and the auxilliary system hasn't done anything to fix it. Splitting ships into multiple entities provides an enormous power bonus, and the new auxilliary system has zero depth to it's design; it's just another blob.

Part of the problem writing suggestions for starmade is that the game lacks a clear vision for how it's supposed to play. Since the game has no idea how combat is supposed to flow, you have to elbow drop the game with your own vision for what the game should be; as such this is going to have a lot of my personal preference in it, which is why i'm splitting it up over multiple posts, but i'll put a TL;DR here because this is going to be pretty long:

Spoiler: TL;DR

• Remove power drain from thrust, greatly increase strength and energy cost of overdrive to compensate
  
• Remove capacitor as it works now, all systems have their own power storage like scanners and jumps
• Remove power bonus. Period.
• Add battery systems that absorb excess e/sec not going into other systems when excess power is produced, and shovel it back into systems when generation can't keep up.
• Add heating mechanic to reintroduce depth to power design (see section for details)

What should power be in starmade?

This is really up to schine. The game currently doesn't have any real vision for what power's role is supposed to be, except as an arbitrary limiting factor for systems, which currently just means adding in enough e/sec to match system drain.
I would like to see power have a more profound impact on gameplay, following a few basic premisses:

• Power should be limited in availability so ship designs carrying different systems will want to choose between them instead of everything always being active.
• Ships should have different power profiles; some ships focussing on maximum generation to maintain steady performance, while others have peak performance windows with greater power generation in quick bursts
• Power should not be a trivial design concern as it is now

Remove power drain from thrust

The first issue with the powersystem are the demands imposed on it, specifically from thrusters. It's a huge energy drain, and the drain is non-stop. What's worse, it's not like a ship without thrust is an option; all ships need to move, so all ships need to have high, constant power generation. This has completely dictated the power system for the game, and it's why power drain for thrusters need to go. Problem with removing it though: lightspeed titans. This needs to be matched with a decrease in thrust per thruster block, i think to about 20% (50% of ship must be thrusters to reach 1.0 TWR.) you can then add much higher benefits to overdrive effect, so ships can be brought back up current max speeds, or at least somewhere more sensible. +1000% thrust bonus from overdrive, matched with exponentially scaling power requirements depending on thruster count like we have now. Fighters are more easily able to reach max speed and titans can't possibly meet the power requirement for

Eliminate the power bonus

The power bonus just offers a massive incentive for moving power systems into turrets, docked entities or multiple smaller ships. When power isn't needed for thrust the bonus can be removed while keeping ships functional. The 25 e/sec output of reactors without bonus is just silly though, just means adding huge lumps of reactor tumors all over the ships making the most important part of ship design boring and lumpy like shields. Increasing power per block while adding a power scaling mechanic seems like a good solution; i've added a suggestion for a heat system that generates more heat the more power you're producing at the end of this tripe.

Remove the capacitor mechanic and give weapons internal power storage instead

You can't allow high power capacity on ships. This is due to the way weapons draw power; since it's pulled out of capacity in bulk having a huge power capacity pool means ships can mount overdrive effect weapons and instakill each other. Game needs to eliminate power capacitors as they exist, but giving each weapon system it's own internal system similar to jumpdrives or scanners doesn't fix the problem, it just makes it worse. What i would sugest instead is for weapons to be toggled on/off; as long as the weapon is online it will draw e/sec to remain active. While active it will charge like a scanner, but it doesn't stop draining power when it's fully charged; it keeps draining the same amount of power or it will start rapidly losing charge. This prevents players from charging exteme alpha overdrive weapons outside combat to instakill opponents, and with the current capacitors removed this also opens the door for a better capacity system:

Introduce batteries for longer power storage

Most fights in starmade last several minutes, mass for mass capacitors can barely store 20 seconds of power generation unless power is exceptionally inefficient. For ships in peak generation it's closer to 3 seconds. For power storage to work as actual power storage in combat it needs enough capacity to allow burst weapons to fire a single volley before retreating to recover, and must be able to output more power per mass than reactors for this timeframe. The lowest amount of time that would be useful would be around 30 seconds i think, and 1 minute would not be overkill. Best way might be multiple types of batteries with different capacities and output speeds, with linear output speed but exponential capacity.

Batteries should output only when all active systems drain more power than reactors can produce, and recharge in the opposite case.

Example values:

• Reactor 200 e/sec - unlimited output
• Fast battery - 500 e/sec - 30.000 capacity (1 minute)
• Medium battery - 375 e/sec - 67500 capacity ( 3 minutes)
  
• Slow battery - 250 e/sec - 300.000 capacity (20 minutes)
  
• Marathon battery - 150 e/sec* - 3.000.000 capacity (6 hours)

*still recommend counter-scaling mechanic for reactors that would make these make sense, see later section on heat

This also introduces a new mechanic for more effective fighters; instead of reactors they can be powered entirely by batteries, but they will only have a limited flight time. This adds better mass efficiency for fighters, letting them carry much more powerful weapons when compared to larger ships, and also makes carriers operate as more than just glorified transports, having to resupply fighters during combat so they can't just be parked in an adjacent system without needing to follow engagements. You can run much larger ships on batteries too, but that starts to add enormous requirements to infrastructure since they need jump drives and a lot more relative power to maintain high speed.

Add heat mechanic for depth and to limit how much hull can be assigned to reactors

With the other changes i suggested you could pile on as many reactors as you want and get insane power generation again, which isn't the point. A counter scaling mechanic is needed as well, a heat system is my idea for it.

Heat would be a negative buildup on a ship that limits how much power can be generated. Each reactor block generates power AND heat. Ships would have a basic heat capacity like shield or armor HP based on it's mass (and power capacity just opened up a vacancy ) When reaching certain thresholds, the ship gets negative effects.

Heat effect examples:

• 25% Heat capacity -> -10% thrust, +10% shield damage taken
  
• 50% Heat capacity -> -20% thrust, +100% shield damage taken
• 60% Heat capacity -> -30% thrust, +200% shield damage taken, +100% armor damage taken
• 70% Heat capacity -> -40% thrust, +300% shield damage taken, +200% armor damage taken, +100% structure damage taken
• etc
• 100% Heat -> ship explodes with no survivors

(values arent important, principle is just to introduce heavy penalties to the ship for accumulating too much heat)

Other heat controls could include heat sinks for raising the ship's heat capacity as well as active heat vents that rapidly drop heat but exposes weakpoints in your ship. I know it's hard to add parts that are "exposed", but simply making it work like a damage pulse that hits your own ships (vent blocks not affected) should have designs exposing these, while still allowing rail doors to cover them up during combat. Have the vents require large amounts of power, but never more than the heat vented would generate in power.

The powerline design is a really great mechanic for starmade; it encourages people to have reactors running all over their ships, making them more vulnerable to hull damage since they start loosing efficiency quickly. The current design principle could be kept, but instead of adding power, dimensionality would reduce how much heat is produced by that reactor group.

 

[MrFURB]

Ah, a more complex and customizable way to do power generation.

I wonder, how would different weapons (of varying block counts) dictate how much power their individual capacitors need? Would it differentiate between alpha and DPS weapons?

 

[Spoolooni]

I do agree with having batteries, but I am really unsure about a heating system. I do think we're trying too hard to find ways to replace auxiliaries rather than trying to improve them while creating more and more elements for newer players to worry about which isn't orthodox at all if we consider the game's current growth. Though things like allowing larger ships to handle a lot better by not having thrusters drain power seems like a valid starting point to me.

 

[Raisinbat]

I wonder, how would different weapons (of varying block counts) dictate how much power their individual capacitors need? Would it differentiate between alpha and DPS weapons?

I didn't want to drag weapons into it because it's allready such a huge disaster but i think its just the amount of power needed to fire a single shot for weapons.

I do agree with having batteries, but I am really unsure about a heating system. I do think we're trying too hard to find ways to replace auxiliaries rather than trying to improve them while creating more and more elements for newer players to worry about which isn't orthodox at all if we consider the game's current growth. Though things like allowing larger ships to handle a lot better by not having thrusters drain power seems like a valid starting point to me.

Auxilliaries are a fundamentally stupid addition, the same results could've been accomplished just increasing the power generation for reactors. If you're worried about complexity, eliminating superfluous systems should be a priority.

Stop worrying about new players and complexity. Starmade is NOT a complex game; go play space engineers (more successful than starmade) or any tekkit mod for minecraft, or just vanilla redstone, then compare that nonsense to starmade it's a hundred times more complicated, starmade is just poorly explained. People aren't fucking stupid, millions play MOBAs and starmade is not harder to get into than LoL or Dota.

Heating wouldn't affect new players at all unless they're building reactors stupidly (ie in big cubes) and in that case it even provides a friendly smack in the face so they might try something different to solve their heat issues.

 

[Spoolooni]

I didn't want to drag weapons into it because it's allready such a huge disaster but i think its just the amount of power needed to fire a single shot for weapons.


Auxilliaries are a fundamentally stupid addition, the same results could've been accomplished just increasing the power generation for reactors. If you're worried about complexity, eliminating superfluous systems should be a priority.

Stop worrying about new players and complexity. Starmade is NOT a complex game; go play space engineers (more successful than starmade) or any tekkit mod for minecraft, or just vanilla redstone, then compare that nonsense to starmade it's a hundred times more complicated, starmade is just poorly explained. People aren't fucking stupid, millions play MOBAs and starmade is not harder to get into than LoL or Dota.

Heating wouldn't affect new players at all unless they're building reactors stupidly (ie in big cubes) and in that case it even provides a friendly smack in the face so they might try something different to solve their heat issues.

It's not a matter of stupidity, it's the matter of whether the game has elements that can entice players enough to look past the penalties, exceptions and complexities of its combat system. I was never really comparing Starmade to anything, and I have played Tekkit, Industrial Craft and Space Engineers, in fact, those titles are the reason why I am tired of complexities that I have relearn over and over again every time the game makes a sudden shift. I too, agreed with your argument in my thread regarded docked armor and how some of the changes warrant an environment that isn't fun or rewarding to play in.

While I do agree that auxiliaries are absolutely retarded to the point where people are yet again creating very unconventional tech just to circumvent the penalties, I doubt something that has been implemented recently would be recalled any time soon.

 

[Raisinbat]

It's not a matter of stupidity, it's the matter of whether the game has elements that can entice players enough to look past the penalties, exceptions and complexities of its combat system.

Depth is enticing

 

[Criss]

Lancake knows more about these systems, and went into in-depth discussions when power auxiliary was introduced. I will say this. Let's say this is exactly what StarMade needed. We would need to put everything on hold and focus on a system we just worked on. That might be necessary. but I think the first option should always be to improve the system that's already there. We really cannot afford to do this with every system in the game and I know you've recently brought up issues beyond power systems.

For the sake of not having to break everyone's ships, I urge you to consider this.

I would also like to point out, that to a new player, the learning curve is pretty substantial. If you want to fly a decent 200m long vessel that you've built, that takes a while to learn. We've tried to keep that curve from getting steep too early. That's why power cap and auxiliary are features you don't really need to worry about till you've made it onto larger ships. I feel like this would negatively impact that goal. Perhaps you're balancing it to avoid that here, but looking at your inventory or a factory and seeing three batteries, power generators, and having to know how to avoid heat as a new player is pretty overwhelming if you ask me.

 

[Lukwan]

(That too many big ideers for one thread. )

Ships should have different power profiles; some ships focussing on maximum generation to maintain steady performance, while others have peak performance windows with greater power generation in quick bursts

Well actually...that is kinda how it works right now. You have accurately described the difference between reactor-power and power-capacity. Don't get hung up on the name, capacitors are a lot like batteries. they have a similar function but batteries might be said to provide long-term, ('slow') power storage while capacitors are usually used for short term and quick discharge (and many esoteric filters & frequency-traps). The reactor/capacitor dynamic works perfectly for the kind of 'steady' Vs 'peak' contrast you are talking about. So I would say keep the blocks and have and consider if maybe batteries could bring something different to the mix.

For example, I liked your idea for having a switch for weapon systems where you have something like a distribution panel that lets you have some control over power-priorities. What if a bank of battery blocks could be assigned to a high demand weapon group? Or use a battery bank to provide back-up power earmarked for a chosen system (thrust, shields, jump-drive).

Remove power drain from thrust

The first issue with the powersystem are the demands imposed on it, specifically from thrusters. It's a huge energy drain, and the drain is non-stop.

I would agree only to reducing the power-drain of thrusters when not accelerating or maneuvering. We now have Newtonian physics so why am I paying a power-cost to...drift in space. Here is great opportunity to reward daring pilots who turn off inertial dampening. I say pay power for acceleration, pay for maneuvering, pay for inertial dampening and DRIFT FOR FREE.

Best way might be multiple types of batteries with different capacities and output speeds, with linear output speed but exponential capacity

Different capacity, yes (add more blocks) but as for the rest...(that is not how batteries work)

Batteries should output only when all active systems drain more power than reactors can produce, and recharge in the opposite case.

Yes but to make them realistic and keep their differentiation from capacitors they should drain much more slowly (and therefore last longer) than Caps.

Heat would be a negative buildup on a ship that limits how much power can be generated. Each reactor block generates power AND heat. Ships would have a basic heat capacity like shield or armor HP based on it's mass (and power capacity just opened up a vacancy ) When reaching certain thresholds, the ship gets negative effects.

Heat effect examples:

• 25% Heat capacity -> -10% thrust, +10% shield damage taken
  
• 50% Heat capacity -> -20% thrust, +100% shield damage taken
• 60% Heat capacity -> -30% thrust, +200% shield damage taken, +100% armor damage taken
• 70% Heat capacity -> -40% thrust, +300% shield damage taken, +200% armor damage taken, +100% structure damage taken
• etc
• 100% Heat -> ship explodes with no survivors

I do like the idea of Heat-capacity as factor in combat. (I don't see why thrust should be affected but as you point out: the details are up for discussion) I believe Mechwarrior & Battletech each offered 'overheating' as an alternative to plain old blowin'-stuff-up. This is not just a another form of damage because all damage comes from enemy fire. Heat-effect, however can be generated by your own (poor) ship-design or pushing the limits in combat. 'Redlining' it could become a risk/reward tactic that adds a new element to battles. Also ship-designs could be centered around handling heat or giving heat-grief.

Also, if the auxiliary-power blocks blowing up proves to be too unpopular or unworkable the chain-reaction could be changed to a heat-cascade to nerf the effect a bit.
[doublepost=1477461928,1477460956][/doublepost]

looking at your inventory or a factory and seeing three batteries, power generators, and having to know how to avoid heat as a new player is pretty overwhelming if you ask me.

Heat does not have to be an imminent threat for a new player. The game already has a heat-from-sun mechanic and over heating would not be something smaller ships should need to worry about. It could be very useful as a means to soft-cap gigantism. As such heat penalties will not be an issue for new-player with small ships. Much later they will bump into a heat-warning for some system that is overloaded or under capacity or whatnot but by then they will be a seasoned player and ready to deal with it.

 

[Spoolooni]

Complexity is enticing

Yes and no, complexity isn't something all humans look forward to, it's why interface design has been minimal and sleek in the past few games. If anything, what entices new players is grandeur and unless Starmade is catering to very specific group of players, which I doubt they are, most players come to Starmade the same way players were attracted to space engineers. People love space, it's why all these space games are popping out.

 

[Raisinbat]

Lancake knows more about these systems, and went into in-depth discussions when power auxiliary was introduced. I will say this. Let's say this is exactly what StarMade needed. We would need to put everything on hold and focus on a system we just worked on. That might be necessary. but I think the first option should always be to improve the system that's already there. We really cannot afford to do this with every system in the game and I know you've recently brought up issues beyond power systems.

You've done that three times already and the game is worse of than when you started. Auxilliary is a redundant system, and an inferior one to reactors, it doesn't even have a niche where it's better, it's just flat-out worse. Having auxilliary in the game means docked entities and turrets end up much better than using your main entity for anything other than thrust, what are you going to do about that? If you make auxilliary faster than reactors, noone is going to use reactors anymore and then you're removing a system anyway and "auxilliary" power becomes the norm, how the fuck does that fit together? Alternative is going to be some hamfisted bullshit that will either neuter turrets and docked entities, or fail to solve the problem again.

It sucks having to cut out something you just added, but when it makes the game worse it needs to go. It was poorly thought out way to deal with docked reactors that didn't fix the problem.

For the sake of not having to break everyone's ships, I urge you to consider this.

Auxilliary broke everyone's ships. The power updates broke everyone's ships and the thrust update broke everyone's ships. You can't change any of the shipbuilding systems without breaking everyone's ships, but it must be done. Everyone's ships will break over and over and over again until starmade has release ready core design mechanics. If you focused on FINISHING the power system so that it's ready for release, then we can at least keep a core structure and philosophy to our ships. Changing the auxilliary system will break the ships just as well as implementing a totally new power system (and come on it's not that different.)

I would also like to point out, that to a new player, the learning curve is pretty substantial. If you want to fly a decent 200m long vessel that you've built, that takes a while to learn. We've tried to keep that curve from getting steep too early. That's why power cap and auxiliary are features you don't really need to worry about till you've made it onto larger ships. I feel like this would negatively impact that goal. Perhaps you're balancing it to avoid that here, but looking at your inventory or a factory and seeing three batteries, power generators, and having to know how to avoid heat as a new player is pretty overwhelming if you ask me.

The learning curve is only substantial because the game doesn't teach you anything! Have you ever heard of Kerbal Space Program, Space Engineers or Tekkit - Technic Platform ? THOSE games are hard for new players, but people play them anyway! What about Mobas or dorf fort or simcity? Starmade has NO fucking learning curve compared to any of those games, and no, making a 200m combat ship isn't fucking hard. The only thing you need to know is the reactor boost mechanic, same mechanic as in my system, and weapon slaves, which you need for any combat ship and if it's basic enough they're still optional. Power cap isn't something you need to know about because it's bloody obvious that you're not getting more power anyway, and my suggestion even removes it, so it's LESS complicated!

Heat isn't hard to understand: you have a red bar next to the power bar that goes up when you activate things and when it gets high your ship gets worse. This is no more complicated than insanity in don't starve; a game about putting FOOD in your MOUTH when you're HUNGRY.

Well actually...that is kinda how it works right now. You have accurately described the difference between reactor-power and power-capacity. Don't get hung up on the name, capacitors are a lot like batteries. they have a similar function but batteries might be said to provide long-term, ('slow') power storage while capacitors are usually used for short term and quick discharge (and many esoteric filters & frequency-traps). The reactor/capacitor dynamic works perfectly for the kind of 'steady' Vs 'peak' contrast you are talking about. So I would say keep the blocks and have and consider if maybe batteries could bring something different to the mix.

Okay then. Assume reactors are 100.000 e/sec and capacitors store 5. Oh look! We have capacity and we have generation, such diverse! Except what (((Special Individual))) is going to build a ship around capacity when it won't even last one milisecond of generation for the same block count. I fucking explained this. I built you a wall of text with my word bricks and you walked right past it like a (((silly goose))). Capacitors, in peak power range, can only handle 3-4 seconds of power generation block for block. You can't do anything in 3-4 seconds so the power storage ends up ONLY being for letting your slowest weapons fire. This does 2 things:

• Capacitors handicap slow firing weapons because they're added cost to letting them fire
• Capacitors cannot hold large amounts of power and you can't run ships entirely from batteries. If you could one-hit-kill ships would be everywhere.

So no, they're not the same. And i also asked for capacitors to be removed and let weapons carry their own charge to deal with these two problems.

I would agree only to reducing the power-drain of thrusters when not accelerating or maneuvering. We now have Newtonian physics so why am I paying a power-cost to...drift in space. Here is great opportunity to reward daring pilots who turn off inertial dampening. I say pay power for acceleration, pay for maneuvering, pay for inertial dampening and DRIFT FOR FREE.

Different capacity, yes (add more blocks) but as for the rest...(that is not how batteries work)

Yes but to make them realistic and keep their differentiation from capacitors they should drain much more slowly (and therefore last longer) than Caps.

Why the fuck would you want starmade to be realistic? Go play space engineers or kerbal if you want realism, starmade will never compete with those two.

Yes and no, complexity isn't something all humans look forward to, it's why interface design has been minimal and sleek in the past few games.

Yes it is. All people want complexity in games, they just want different kinds of complexity, and dislike others. If you remove all the complexity people complain about your game will have zero complexity and be totally worthless.
Also complex does not equal complicated. A lot of bad games are complicated without being complex through bad interfaces. Complexity is what adds depth to a game. The power system is the most central piece of every ship in starmade and it NEEDS complexity to permit a variety of tactical designs. The current system only allows ships with fast generation and low capacity to be effective, which is a huge limitation on what designs will see use.

If anything, what entices new players is grandeur and unless Starmade is catering to very specific group of players, which I doubt they are, most players come to Starmade the same way players were attracted to space engineers. People love space, it's why all these space games are popping out.

ENTICES, yes, but it doesn't KEEP THEM. I've shown starmade to a lot of people, its really easy to get them to try the game; you only need to show two ships duking it out and they're like "Whoa you can make ships like this! And fight them!" then they try the game, mine a few blocks, make basic factories aaand they stop playing because the game itself is super fucking boring. You don't need to entice people you need to KEEP THEM.

Grandeur, really? Stardew Valley and Shining Rock Software weren't grandiose and they did pretty damn well for themselves.

 

[nightrune]

This is a lot of ideas with no form. Power is stupid isn't informative. What are you actually trying to solve within starmade?

 

[Raisinbat]

What are you actually trying to solve within starmade?

Here let me get that for you

Splitting ships into multiple entities provides an enormous power bonus

The first issue with the powersystem are the demands imposed on it, specifically from thrusters. It's a huge energy drain, and the drain is non-stop. What's worse, it's not like a ship without thrust is an option; all ships need to move, so all ships need to have high, constant power generation.

The power bonus just offers a massive incentive for moving power systems into turrets, docked entities or multiple smaller ships.

You can't allow high power capacity on ships. This is due to the way weapons draw power; since it's pulled out of capacity in bulk

 

[nightrune]

Here let me get that for you

I read those, but whats the actual end goal. What are you actually trying to accomplish? I can understand splitting them is still an issue but I don't think thrust is an issue, and I don't think more smaller ships is an issue even with turrets. The high power capacity thing is something else I don't think is an issue as well.

So what is your end goal? Why do all of these things? Because its stupid doesn't tell me anything other then you can't or haven't told me yet.

 

[Raisinbat]

I read those, but whats the actual end goal. What are you actually trying to accomplish? I can understand splitting them is still an issue but I don't think thrust is an issue, and I don't think more smaller ships is an issue even with turrets. The high power capacity thing is something else I don't think is an issue as well.

So what is your end goal? Why do all of these things? Because its stupid doesn't tell me anything other then you can't or haven't told me yet.

...aaand again

What should power be in starmade?

This is really up to schine. The game currently doesn't have any real vision for what power's role is supposed to be, except as an arbitrary limiting factor for systems, which currently just means adding in enough e/sec to match system drain.
I would like to see power have a more profound impact on gameplay, following a few basic premisses:

• Power should be limited in availability so ship designs carrying different systems will want to choose between them instead of everything always being active.
• Ships should have different power profiles; some ships focussing on maximum generation to maintain steady performance, while others have peak performance windows with greater power generation in quick bursts
• Power should not be a trivial design concern as it is now

 

[nightrune]

...aaand again

Right, I read through that as well.

I would like to see power have a more profound impact on gameplay.

This might be the only sentence with any value. Is that you just want depth to the power system?

 

[Raisinbat]

Right, I read through that as well.



This might be the only sentence with any value. Is that you just want depth to the power system?

...

...


...

...

...

...

...yes?

 

[nightrune]

...

...


...

...

...

...

...yes?

Lets start with this!

 

[Lukwan]

Auxilliary broke everyone's ships. The power updates broke everyone's ships and the thrust update broke everyone's ships. You can't change any of the shipbuilding systems without breaking everyone's ships, but it must be done. Everyone's ships will break over and over and over again until starmade has release ready core design mechanics.

Congratulations...you finally clued in as to what ALPHA-game means.

Except what mouthbreathing mongoloid is going to build a ship around capacity when it won't even last one milisecond of generation for the same block count. I fucking explained this. I built you a wall of text with my word bricks and you walked right past it like a dirty mexican. Capacitors, in peak power range, can only handle 3-4 seconds of power generation block for block. You can't do anything in 3-4 seconds so the power storage ends up ONLY being for letting your slowest weapons fire.

Hate, ignorance and racism. I better reply before you get censured into oblivion. What you are complaining about is the very useful balance between generation and holding capacity. That is an appropriate balance element...you can't have it both ways...you have to choose what your design is going to excel at. That is not broken, you are just being petulant.

No you did not explain everything! You rambled and ranted and complained like a spoiled child. No you did not build me a wall of text...you did that for your own ego. I read your entire post twice while considering your ideas and quoted you no less than 5 times. How much attention does your Id crave? I responded to the ideas that peaked my interest or that I have input for. It is not my job to validate your existence by responding to every bit of drivel you chose to spew...and by the way, did you notice how I was often agreeing with you and riffing off your suggestions? We are here to improve the game SM not fix your broken logical fallacies.

Why the fuck would you want starmade to be realistic? Go play space engineers or kerbal if you want realism, starmade will never compete with those two.

My comments were meant to show a contrasting opinion about mechanics. I did not state I wanted SM to be realistic, you inferred that. I was trying to spare your ego by not drawing too much attention to your ignorance of electronics, but you are doing a bang-up job hanging a lantern on that.
______________________________

So, much for my attempt at communication. I guess I'll go look for the 'mute' button and be done with it.

 

[Groovrider]

Wow who knew GRHayes had a twin.

 

[Raisinbat]

Lets start with this!

Okay let me try this with the video as a guideline.

Power generation vs power capacity is not an emergent choice in starmade, because generation is much more powerful than storage. You can't boost storage without making one hit kill ships the norm.

Auxilliary should be removed because it's redundant complexity. It does the exact same thing power reactors do, it just replaces them after you hit the cap. They don't allow any new interactions or ship variations. It even adds a second power bar that shouldn't need to be there.

Heat is just a sugestion for how to limit power generation so it doesn't become a blob like shields. Blobs are depthless so boring. Not every part of ship design needs to be complex but power determines so much about how a ship operates, it needs the depth.

Is this any better?