Power System Overhaul Proposal

[Speedsaber]

my main problem with this is the whole heat thing, why not give ships options of removing heat rather than those "heat boxes" where ship systems cant be or the ship wont work. so, say cooling vents?

 

[zircher]

Talking with my friend and we'd love to see cooling systems like radiators since that would be a viable target in combat that would affect the heat management of your ship. Perhaps things like coolant flushes as a crew action for engineers.

 

[Lecic]

your suggesting neutering its bright future ... without even realising how much better the reactor system will be

I don't agree that it will be better. It will be more like minecraft tech mods, sure, but I and many others don't really want that, and we have concerns about the balance and gameplay of it even beyond personal opinions.

 

[Elemorej]

Criss It seems that the community does not want this to be changed in this way. I would say table this for discussion later and to modify it to tailor to what they community wants. I hope you don't take offense to this but I am just representing what the community seems to want for now.

Ehh No I don't agree with you.
Like Jojomo I think you don't spoke for the entire comunity, it's just your opinion.

And for the Shema's proposition, I'm enthusiastic and I wait more precisions.

 

[starhaiden]

Heat and power could be used together, An equation (maybe reciprocal) could be used to make so reactors are the most efficient at one point. Reactors could be given the possibility to be undercharged or overcharged by a certain percentage. With undercharged reactors producing less heat and less power, and overcharged reactors producing more heat and power.
The amount of heat a reactor produces could be reduced by cooling chambers (each block of cooling block could change the C value of the equation).
Reactors could still have a heat influence area but instead of reducing system blocks efficiently, the heat influence area acts as a heat sink.
When the reactor is active it produce heat which spreads out into it's cube of influence, when the amount of heat in that area reaches a sort point it starts to damage blocks in that area starting with system blocks. Heat naturally dissipates from that area at a certain cumber x the volume of the area.

Spaces that have no block in the cube of influence of the reactor could be made to hold twice as much heat as places with blocks and possibly system blocks can be made to not increase heat capacity.

 

[NeoZyc]

I am fairly new to this game, and can vouch for the current learning curve being quite steep.
I like the idea of simplifying, however it would cause a lot of problems with current ships. The only way i see this working is if you create a heatsink-wire block that allows you to channel heat into the interior spaces. This would mean that instead of having to rearrange entire systems around a heat zone, the heat zone becomes the empty areas already available inside the ship. There would still be a more efficient build percentage, but i don't think shape would matter in this method.

Btw, this is my first post on the dock. Greetings to all!

 

[AtraUnam]

If I remember the original post correctly there was a desire to hear community suggestions as to how a new power system could work, now I actually really like the power system as described but I figured it might be a good idea to post my own idea simply because it may help foster creativity.

My personal power idea uses a single block, and is in some respects similiar to the current power syestem.

• Regen = sum of dimensions (like the current system) x (0.1 * the difference between the longest and shortest dimension)
  
• Capacity = (Exposed surface area / multiple of dimensions) + a minor grouping bonus (like current capacity)

The key too this is that not only do regen and capacity have conflicting rulesets but their induvidual rulesets are also internally conflicting. For regen for instance I may choose to try and build a super long reactor with no dimensions in any other axis to capitalise on the difference multiplier, at the cost of losing out on power gained from expanding in the other 2 dimensions.

When going for capacity I may try to save on volume and just lumping in blocks but if I have the free space I can get greater efficiency by using a 3D checkered arangement, OR I could try and come up with some sort of coiled spaghetti shape to maximise surface area while retaining a single group.

Finally since this is all a single block I have to choose between greater power capacity or greater regen, I could try to build a combined reactor with appropriate emphasis on all relevant factors to try and get both regen and capacity; alternatively I could build completely seperate reactors for regen and capacity respectively.

To summarise
While the system I just outlined may not be the greatest I belive it makes a good point, conflicting but equally viable rulesets within a single system can encourage vast creativity of design in many different directions, while still leaving simpler options for players with less experience.

 

[Gmodism]

I have rethought some things here, having only heat is probably not a good idea, but it could be a good idea to ADD heat to the existing systems as ANOTHER limiter.
Making a too big change may actually hurt the game, what needs to be fixed ASAP is the weapon damage in starmade, battles take far to long and needs to be over much faster, maybe damage needs to be increased with a factor of about 10 to 20, explosive radius should also have no limit but only depend on effects and damage.

 

[Goblin]

I ... tryed to read everything, but i head to stop at arround 50%.

To minimice the wall of text, i will refere to the post of Speedybst on Page 33 - Power System Overhaul Proposal.

In most of the points I'm in line with the guy and the other guys he mentioned.
But there is one thing i have to point out:

In most of the concepts i have read, discussing benefits and faults of the core system, the where a lot of pips to connect to systems. This is something i'm perfectly fine with, if it is inside one system (the power core to coolent) but it would have a major impact if you are using it to connect the whole ship - this will again end in a lot of lines just going throught the ship. Some build would even fail with that aproche (think of scattered designs where the ship isn't even connected with all parts, but some are just happen to fly arround). The other half is not to make a system dependent on a connection to the hull (pipes to the hull) even if a not required system ON the hull would be cool (aka Matt_Bradock 's radiator idea - BUT without the heat inlet / pipe stuff for the radiators - if someone needs a reason - they can transport heat via teleporters to the outher hull and the hull elements are just teleporter-receiver which dispence the heat).

So in short words: I am with the change, but we have to have a close eye on how, 'cause otherwise we will fall into the same pit, the new system is trying to close.

BTW: I don't think you will be capable of removing the deathcube, you will just give it a new shape - the deathbanana -for example.

 

[Gasboy]

Criss It seems that the community does not want this to be changed in this way. I would say table this for discussion later and to modify it to tailor to what they community wants. I hope you don't take offense to this but I am just representing what the community seems to want for now.

Uhm, speak for yourself? The community seems to be split into many different lines of thinking.

Power is the most important system in the game. Changes to it will cause everything else to change with it. Schine wants to take StarMade forward, and to do that, power has to change.

The discussion has to happen now, sooner rather than later. Kicking the can down the road will simply cause the same uproar, but at a different time.

Folks have to step away from bickering and concentrate on working together to come up with more, great ideas for Schine to work with.

Now's the time for hashing it all out.

 

[OmegaGame]

I think this is another massive waste of time.. This game became playable 5 years ago and you're still talking about altering power mechanics when there are a million other things that actually matter that could be refined or optimized that doesn't require fundamentally altering the game all over again.
If you want to simplify system placement. You could create a tool in advanced build mode that would allow you to effectively and efficiently place large chunks of power caps and reactors within the hull of the ship using the exterior itself as the bounding box to make it much easier to fill every nook and cranny..
Then you give ships with an interior certain bonus effects like "improved power management" that increases efficiency due to having an NPC at a specific computer. (You do still intend to have actual NPC's right?).. These same "effects" could be applied to many other systems like weapons and shield systems and would put them on level playing field with ships that have no interior and wouldn't require fundamental core aspects of the game to be completely altered ruining half a decade worth of ship builds while also potentially chasing off the last vestiges of original players whom you haven't already chased off from the other half dozen core changes you have made over the years that made some things better while making others worse...

STOP TALKING ABOUT CHANGING EVERYTHING 5 YEARS ON AND FOCUS ON MAKING THE GAME MORE OPTIMIZED WITH FUNCTIONAL PLANETS, DECENT AI AND MISSION SYSTEM TO BREATH TRUE LIFE INTO THE GAME AND LAUNCH IT WITHIN THIS DECADE...

(Edit: All of this pandering to RP players could be alleviated with a simple NPC and computer effect system that grants bonuses to those who would rather have an interior that could give them the same output as a ship with no interior.. The NPC would require a bed room. dining area..etc to fulfill its needs. But would provide a bonus in proportion with the ships size)

 

[Fellow Starmadian]

so let me ask a question. If most of the "PvP" community is against this, for reasons other than it being too complex, maybe there's something wrong with the update? I can't believe there are still people posting that this idea is awesome as is. Someone said that if you don't like the update, then stick to an older version of the game. I could say the same thing however, saying "if you like this proposal, go play on a custom game server for RP."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but these are the improvements that are being proposed:
-less system blocks, re-scaled for comprarable effectiveness
-more complex power system

But can any of you deny that the most effective ship using this system would be a chandelier? With a core in the center and empty space surrounding, with system blocks on the outside of the debuff area. You wanted a more complex building system? this is not your update then. It would actually change the meta to be more stagnant, and reduce the creativity in a large portion of the community.

RP and PvE players would be overjoyed, however. Since they could have an interior in their ships with no negative effects, except to have more mass than a chandelier ship.

So something needs to be said here. RP and PvE players will still play this game in it's current state, I had the displeasure of being matched with RPers in supreme commander 2 frequently. role players in games are an inevitability, especially sandbox voxel games. There should be no reason to pander to them. If this type of update goes through however, this community will lose a large portion of PvP players, that actually have to focus on effectiveness over aesthetics. And as I've said before, it is much easier to have a popular action game, than a popular casual game.

I should also mention that there is a large misconception about interiors I've recently become aware of, thanks to a silent grand master of this game. A ship with an interior has less mass than a ship of the same size, and therefor technically has a disadvantage. But it DOES have the same mass as a slightly smaller ship. As long as your ship is not filled with rooms, it is JUST as effective as a ship of comparable mass. So interiors do NOT make a ship PvP incapable.

 

[Stormraven]

Just chiming in with my 2 cents.

I think this idea sounds interesting, and I'd be more than happy to refit/redesign my current and future ships if y'all decide to go this way. It's not like it's the end of the world. I play for the building aspects anyway, so having more building projects sounds fine to me!

 

[Fellow Starmadian]

I am fairly new to this game, and can vouch for the current learning curve being quite steep.
I like the idea of simplifying, however it would cause a lot of problems with current ships. The only way i see this working is if you create a heatsink-wire block that allows you to channel heat into the interior spaces. This would mean that instead of having to rearrange entire systems around a heat zone, the heat zone becomes the empty areas already available inside the ship. There would still be a more efficient build percentage, but i don't think shape would matter in this method.

Btw, this is my first post on the dock. Greetings to all!

That's a very good suggestion actually! It would still be wierd that you are funneling heat into what is supposed to be a livable area, but It's a step up from an AOE debuff. Honestly this system would work perfectly if you kept power capacity and regeneration, but added heat to weapons. Then you would need heat sinks and cooling systems to prevent weapons from overheating.

You can still make system blocks a smaller percentage of ships without creating a huge dead area, just make some other block less effective and others more. If you change values a bit between a mass-placement type of block like shields with weapons, you can keep comparable damage and shielding but reduce the amount of time it takes to place blocks, since you'd place down more of a single type of block. I'm not saying this is the right solution, but perhaps something like this. Honestly I think adding crews would do the same thing, with buffs to weapons and systems if there is a crew member at the controls.

And let me be the first to welcome you to starmadedock

 

[Neon_42]

I disagree that "forced design choices" are a fundamental problem with the power system. Limitations and constraints are opportunities for creativity and fun through problem solving. And I have a number of fond memories of troubleshooting power systems in StarMade.
I agree that it can take some time, but I disagree that it isn't a deeply creative process. One of my favorite creations is a tiny bomber that was a serious effort to make compact, able to take a few hits, had a primary cannon, and a deadly slow missile, all the while fast enough to dodge enemy fire. Packed to the gills and aesthetically pleasing.
I disagree that favoring one ship shape over another is a problem. Though I do feel that cubes are probably the least interesting "ultimate meta" choice. But again, I say that limitations and constraints are necessary to create creative/fun problem solving and is necessarily going to end up with one or maybe a handful of optimal patterns.
I disagree that this is a problem. Because for war machines, this is true in real life -- just look at tanks or fighter jets or turrets on WWII bombers. Similarly, this will remain true of "the meta" so long as there is no functional reason to need an interior.I disagree very much that "there doesn't have to be any thought about placement and possible consequences" as I very much think about how the power system will fragment as the ship blocks are removed. And I think about redundancy. And how to wedge two or three systems in parallel. Which is all quite interesting, in my opinion, when combined with limited resources and how much time I can dedicate to the game.I disagree that "it's impossible to know where you placed all your blocks down" - because I've developed a system, placing certain blocks near visual features in the ship interior or hull. And simply knowing that I placed the primary shield generators, for instance, 10 blocks in by 200 blocks long in the wings of my ship. I imagine other ship builders have developed similar techniques.People are focused on regen because it is the sole measure of sustainability. Because it is so simple, I'm not sure how anyone could be frustrated by it.
Wouldn't the "meta builders" just make smaller, tighter ships?I would like to point out that this directly violates your premise that you want to avoid forcing design choices.These are awesome goals!

I like it so far...

It sounds to me like you're replacing energy regen with...an invisible energy regen. Except now overdrawing your invisible energy capacity results in your negative energy deficit accumulating as "heat". This sounds the same to me, as focusing on energy regen, but more difficult to understand.Percentages are annoying and only slightly better than useless. Please do not do this. How are we supposed to plan to build ships if we don't have hard numbers?
So you get more and more invisible energy regen with better reactors. But once you exceed it, then you start racking up energy deficit "heat" points. At this point, I don't understand why cooldown would be constant. A capital ship that unloads an alpha strike broadside is going to generate way more "heat" and need to dissipate it all to remain effective, otherwise we are back at the focus on never exceeding your "invisible energy regen" that you wanted to avoid in the first place.Great ideas here.This is a little better than what is above, but not by much. I still need to know what my reactor design can handle and how much my turrets draw so that I can plan my ship build in advance.I do not like this idea that systems make more heat because you put down more reactors. May I suggest an alternative that only your most powerful functioning reactor is used at any given time. I would like to point out that this violates your stated desire to not force design choices.
Also I do not like how complicated this becomes and that it seems very difficult for new players to figure out.
So you place a reactor, that is supposed to provide you heat capacity, but right off the bat it removes heat capacity? I do not understand the sense of this. So attaching chambers adds more invisible energy regen without any sort of indicator to the player. This sounds terrible. Without any planned hard numbers to help the player design their ship. Extreme hate this. I do not understand this. I don't understand this, either. Is there a thruster core and thruster chambers? Further changing the invisible numbers that we have no feedback on. New players are so screwed this way. And advanced builders are going to be constantly guessing. I don't like this at all.

I really hate this. Terrible for new players. But also, during combat, if your tail is blown off, then does the whole boundary shift? If not, can I just create my ship with some blocks sticking out, then blow them off myself to save the boundary space? I honestly don't see the point of forcing this on a player. Why not just expand the boundary box of the ship itself?

This is by far the best post in this thread. Bravo sir. You should make this a separate thread to discuss.

 

[Cablestinks]

I really think this line is important enough to be put in bold text. Since I can't do that, I'm quoting it instead.

As for feedback, I think a major concern will be if older designs can be upgraded to the new system without too much pain/effort. Perhaps an enhancement to the advanced build remove mode that would allow us to delete blocks classified as systems, weapons, foilage, or hull would help as it would allow people to take the systems out of a ship for a refit without damaging the exterior/interiors already in place.

Advanced build already has this, just not as categories, Really people, a refit wont be that terrible, just use advanced to remove old blocks, and have fun using whatever new systems they create. It's not like we have to design a new ship..

 

[Snowtiger256]

Advanced build already has this, just not as categories, Really people, a refit wont be that terrible, just use advanced to remove old blocks, and have fun using whatever new systems they create. It's not like we have to design a new ship..

It is not that simple, even with advanced build mode, redoing my new salvager requires more than just pulling out the old power blocks, because the power system is decentralized between waffled salvage modules, and the ship doesn't have any internal space left. I'd have to partioally rebuild the whole ship to make room for the proposed power systems, because they wouldn't fit in the 50x1x1 spaces between the salvage modules and would incur "heat penalties" due to systems occupying the "heat zones" of the reactors. It would be easier just to build a new ship with room for the new systems, than spend time refitting a ship that wasn't built with the new system in mind.

 

[Matt_Bradock]

Dear Criss and schema !

The easiest way to incentivize building actual interiors is giving them FUNCTION.
So, instead of "I have to leave this space open, might as well turn it into an engineering control room" make them go like "I should leave some space open to build an engineering control room" not because they have to, but because they'll want to.
And yes, that is best achieved by having crew, human or NPC. Especially by REQUIRING crew on a larger ship to function properly. By addig crew stations near the computers, allowing the crew standing on them to control those, by requiring ships over say, 1K mass to be piloted by an NPC in order to function in a fleet, by requiring quarters, recreational areas and maintenance shafts and walkways, for said NPCs to access the systems and take care of their personal needs.
BUT this thread is about power system and its proposed rework, so I'll get to that.

If you want to rework power, do it for more realism, do it for more complexity, but DO NOT DO IT TO TRADE ONE FORCED DESIGN CHOICE FOR ANOTHER. Right now, that is exactly what you proposed.
This is a sandbox game, and if you want to keep it that way, that means everything done ingame depends solely on the players' creativity and priorities. Since there are no 2 same people on this Earth (at least 2 same personalities) there always will be players with different levels of creativity and different priorities. Some will always prefer function over form, some form over function, and some will try to build the best of both worlds. The key to keeping your players is NOT limiting their options to just ONE of the above.

While I do have a respect for roleplayers, hell, I personally love to RP (even played tabletop Dungeons & Dragons, Shadowrun, Battletech and WH40K Dark Heresy) but I don't like how they feel like the game should revolve around their needs. Funny how many roleplayers are on the forums and this very thread, yet the hardcore RP server of Starmade are dying, despite those being the best possible environment for you guys to RP to your hearts' content.

It's time to accept that there will always be players, PvP players mostly, who strive to build the most performance-efficient vessels and give very little thought about having a fancy interior and exterior. Regardless of what updates are implemented, doombricks will exist. They'll just look different. Doombrick, doomspike, doomchandelier, doesn't matter, there WILL be players who min-max, and if that means leaving gaping empty holes in their constructions, they will leave gaping holes in their constructions. Period.
HOWEVER I have played this game for over 4 years now. Hell it's about to hit 5. Through those years I had my fair share of PvP. From NASS to Elwyn Eternity, on Shattered Skies, on LvD, on SystemHack, and you know how many times I actually had to do up against doombricks, since the weapon update?
3 times, total. Every other time the ships I faced had a well thought out, at least decently detailed outer hull, and (at least those I had the chance to examine) a decent interior. Even at full-blown hardcore PvP tournaments like Blood and Steel, doombricks were in minority (and ironically, lost to decent looking, detailed ships) I know for a fact that all the major PvP factions forumside and serverside, absolutely despise doombrick builders. If their leaders could confirm that, please speak up.

So, again, if you intend to change the power system and completely overhaul it, do it for the better mechanics, better realism, more complexity or more creative options, BUT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, NOT TO FORCE PEOPLE TO BUILD THEIR SHIPS ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

Thank you.

 

[Gasboy]

It is not that simple, even with advanced build mode, redoing my new salvager requires more than just pulling out the old power blocks, because the power system is decentralized between waffled salvage modules, and the ship doesn't have any internal space left. I'd have to partioally rebuild the whole ship to make room for the proposed power systems, because they wouldn't fit in the 50x1x1 spaces between the salvage modules and would incur "heat penalties" due to systems occupying the "heat zones" of the reactors. It would be easier just to build a new ship with room for the new systems, than spend time refitting a ship that wasn't built with the new system in mind.

I did make a suggestion for this, that we have tools that allow us to yank out everything of a specific block type. You could choose a block type from the list, it'd give you a "Are you sure?" sort of confirmation box, and you click yes, and bamf, all the power blocks are removed. Another tool I suggested was one that allowed us to see what's inside our ships. So you could zoom out a bit, and see an overlay that showed you hollow spaces, weapon blocks, etc.

It's not perfect, but I think these tools would make it easier.

Yes, it's going to suck refitting all our ships. >.>

 

[Captain Fortius]

Some of you may yet remember me.

Those of you will recall I'm always on the lookout for flaws, and point them out, though a swarm of fools will usually disagree with me.

I log back in now, to say this:

Schema & crew got it right this time. If nothing overly silly is added to the opening idea, this system will be great. And, somewhat unsurprisingly, those aforementioned fools are now at their throats for having a good idea.

Doomcubes will die, along with "soft" doomcubes (ships that have SOME shape but are made of a solid clump of systems with a thin skin).

Interior space will have a purpose.

Big ships won't need logic based docked reactors or the horrible clickfest based "auxillary" reactors.

Needing less system blocks will open up great design options :

ex, in Star Trek every weapon is so small you can't see it on the ships, yet they are strong enough to tear said ships apart. In Warhammer 40K, the turrets are visibly larger, have the same fearsome ship-rending might, but build them in the current Starmade system, and you'll be happy if 7 heavy lance turrets (naval grade beamcannons) can bring down a lone thunderhawk (troop carrier / gunship) in 5 minutes........ Why not the dedicated anti-air turrets you ask? Because they are too small to break a single block.

As long as this lil' project of mine will fly with the new system, I'm happy.

And YOU are upset about having to rebuild something? In the past years (3?), at every major patch, I built and rebuilt more on this vessel alone than most of you ever would on all their ships combined.

Unlike you however, I welcome these changes, because I know they WILL make this ship BETTER.

PS: NagyGeri01 sends his regards. He asked me to write; " I want the new patch today " :D