The Power Overhaul that won't break your entire game...

[Ghent96]

Many active forum participants have already sounded off on the 40+ pages of the power thread, and one common theme is wanting to keep the current power system with modifications. So... here it is. The power overhaul that is actually good, and will work, and won't break every single ship design you ever made over the past 4 years:

Power reactors: boost regen slightly and lower the soft cap. Keep the x,y,z dimensions.
Power capacitors: boost capacity moderately and provide bonus for contiguous blocks (touching) in 1 group
Power auxiliaries: boost regen and capacity slightly. Keep them volatile, like warheads. Keep the bonus for contiguous blocks in 1 group.

This alone will solve the issues. It will encourage more ships under ~250m and keeps the [silent] majority of players happy. It will keep cloakers happy. It will keep dogfighters happy. It will still allow titans, they will just be more balanced and difficult, which is appropriate of course. This has been tested and proven by custom configs on various servers. If you must have more.... then read below:

Heat: if the devs insist on copying Elite:Dangerous then let them have their heat... primary weapon blocks, shield rechargers, power reactors, thrusters, scanners, jammer, cloaker, jump drives, etc - all these modules generate slight amounts of heat. It fills a heat bar on the UI. Too much overheats the ship temporarily and it shuts down for a cooling timer. I don't personally like this because it means more stress on an already stressed out CPU.

Conduits: keep the current decorative conduit and actually let it do something functional. Conduits will get a stat to dissipate heat faster. More conduits touching = more heat subtracted. Give them the x,y,z dimensional system of power reactors to make sure we have mostly lines of conduit and empower RP builders, rather than large cubes of conduit.

Armor: lower the mass of basic hull so that RP builders can do more pretty internals and not be penalized so much on mass. Ultimately, mass = power regen requirements, due to thrust needs and desire for shields based on size class, and mass enhancer module needs.

In general, leave blocks alone, because you have an active mod'er community making their own custom blocks and solving gameplay content and balance problems on their own. You, devs, make the core foundation solid and give us better tools and UI.

If people want to build pretty RP reactors, then let them. They will always do it no matter what power system is in place, then they will always dream of 'what if it were actually functional' and then some will come whining to the forum. Always. Don't cater the core gameplay to them.

If people want to build a doomcube, let them. They will always do it no matter what power system is in place, then they will eventually get bored, get banned, or grow up and make something prettier later on. Always. Don't cater the core gameplay to them.

There's a solid game, with unique features, unique concepts, good gameplay potential, good strategy trade offs and balance (still a lot more to be done) as long as you (Schine) don't try to make it too complex and ruin it for everyone. Complexity just turns this into a spaceship voxel design studio instead of a "game". We want to fly more and build less. Everyone is too scared to lose their ships because they spent too long building them. Change that. ...but Players came to you because of what they see 'now' and enjoy doing. Don't fundamentally change it all and expect everyone to stick around. They won't.

 

[Wrathserker]

I general i do not disagree it is a solid argumentation concering your suggested alternative but it does have some faults.

don't try to make it too complex and ruin it for everyone

now thats just applying your opinion to everyone, Starmades unique charm is its complexity. and im fairly sure im not the only one who would enjoy more of it although i am not quite sure about the majority. dumb minecraft clones are amass out there so no point to it making another .

complexity is not generally disliked

facts :
factorio early acces incredibly complex compared to other games even starmade yet best seller on steam, orderly but complex.
Kerbal space programm is well know and liked and its complexity is manyfold that of starmade.

I am NOT saying we should copy theese they serve as argument for above statement only.

...but Players came to you because of what they see 'now' and enjoy doing. Don't fundamentally change it all and expect everyone to stick around. They won't.

I will and i think others will too. the orginal power overhaul thread proves that by showing replys that support the change.

Sticking to what u have because thats what ppl made come in is faulty logic.

First off im sure you dont know exactly why ppl came; even a poll is only visited and voted on by a part of the community.
there is even a part that isnt even active on the forum.

so again a statement witout base.

Secondly avoiding change because you're afraid to take big steps because it may turn out worse is plain Immature.
Progression needs mistakes to learn from besides there never can be ANY progression without change , progression IS change.

Being argicultural was a big step back then nobody did before, yet if that step werent taken at all we'd still be nomads and we might even have no modern civilisation at all.

If people want to build pretty RP reactors, then let them. They will always do it no matter what power system is in place, then they will always dream of 'what if it were actually functional' and then some will come whining to the forum. Always. Don't cater the core gameplay to them.

If people want to build a doomcube, let them. They will always do it no matter what power system is in place, then they will eventually get bored, get banned, or grow up and make something prettier later on. Always. Don't cater the core gameplay to them.

How do you know? i think its about pushing the center mass into a intended direction , shine and shema have something in mind for the game they have a plan i trust that plan. I like how they do things and try to cater to the community and shape that center mass accordingly, youre just saying; " ignore them and do what i tell you instead."

 

[Ithirahad]

keeps the [silent] majority of players happy.

If the majority is silent (and may or may not even know that these forums are ever a channel to the devs) then how can you claim their support?

 

[NeonSturm]

If the majority is silent (and may or may not even know that these forums are ever a channel to the devs) then how can you claim their support?

*his logic must be* I can't understand why the majority is not using this forum … thus the forum is used by the majority … thus his argument must be right :p​

 

[Wrathserker]

I can't understand why the majority is not using this forum … thus the forum is used by the majority … thus his argument must be right :p

im not sure if you are serious.
Trying to argument out of ignorance is what religious nutcase often like to do, if you you dont understand it doenst change anything about the facts it is just plain unknown and the unknown cannot be used in argumentation, its liek saying youre a dog because i cant possiblye know you are not. in the internet nobody knows you are a dog should we then just go assume everyone is a dog?

 

[Winterhome]

im not sure if you are serious.
Trying to argument out of ignorance is what religious nutcase often like to do, if you you dont understand it doenst change anything about the facts it is just plain unknown and the unknown cannot be used in argumentation, its liek saying youre a dog because i cant possiblye know you are not. in the internet nobody knows you are a dog should we then just go assume everyone is a dog?

Don't bother trying to understand him. Half of us have him ignored/blocked.

 

[Ghent96]

Quotes have been selected:

...complexity is not generally disliked
...factorio.... Kerbal Space Program...
...Sticking to what u have because thats what ppl made come in is faulty logic...
...you dont know exactly why ppl came; ...
...Secondly avoiding change because you're afraid to take big steps because it may turn out worse is plain Immature. Progression needs mistakes to learn from besides there never can be ANY progression without change , progression IS change...
... shine and shema have something in mind for the game they have a plan...

Neither is complexity generally liked. Too complex is bad, too simple is bad... then again we have games like Frogger and it's many clones. There's no facts in your counter-argument, only different subjectivity. Complexity is good only for those who like it, and thus gravitate towards complex games, simulations, spreadsheet games, factorio, KSP. Simplicity is good for those who like it: Frogger, arcades, runners, FPS, etc. Most people are in the middle of the bell curve, and thus like a moderation between simplicity and complexity. A good game needs to be simple at the start, easy to get into, an easy learning curve that gradually guides you into more complex things. A good game also has unique ways to solve common problems in games - eg - power and reactors feeding energy to the rest of your ship. Right now, Starmade has a unique and simple way of solving power: xyz reactors. As you grow in the game and learn more, you gradually can learn to do more with that system and arrange it to make your use of it more effective, but from the start it makes things easier and more effective and OFFERS you the chance to get deeper into it without forcing you. It doesn't force you to shape your ship a certain way, or to min/max, or leave open rooms. You can start with systems first, power first, or you can build a really pretty shell first and then put systems into it second. Creative Freedom. There. Is. No. Valid. Argument. To. Scrap. Power.

Whereas... A bad game slams you with a huge learning curve from the start, and does non-intuitive things.

Sticking to what works, is actually very good logic. The old, wise phrase, "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" is very applicable. Some will argue power is broken. Some will argue it is fine. Tap it before you sledgehammer it.

Leads to the next point, and yes we do pretty much know why players came to Starmade. Space sim/sci-fi fans were looking for a game where they could build ships and fly them, and Minecraft fans were looking for something in space. Then Yogscast did a story on it :P A huge influx of thousands of players came. There were hundreds online at the same time across dozens of servers. More than 10k players, total. Then big patches kept coming along that fundamentally changed something, broke servers, broke designs, and kept making the game more complex.... players left in droves after each one. Now here we are, today... a dozen or few people are online at any one time, across 5-10 servers. We have a "community" of 55 people that votes for the Council.

Oh it's extremely clear that Schine had something very appealing, that worked, that made a lot of people happy, but they kept ignoring bugs, kept changing things, ignoring bugs, adding more things, breaking more things, and still ignoring old bugs. This leads to the next point:

(and I quoted, but am blatantly ignoring your "change for the sake of change" type argument, which is automatically void)

Yes, Schine clearly has/had a vision, but that might not necessarily be a good vision for the community and the game. At some point they have to wake up, re-assess, and do a reality check on what is actually working by evidence versus what isn't. To blindly follow them is to be a lemming. To criticize them when they clearly need it, is to look at the bigger picture of the game and the community and value those higher than the devs' feelings. They're big boys. They should be able to deal with a few shot-down ideas.

 

[NeonSturm]

The new power system's complexity is not "just complexity" - it is also customizability which is great. And they already announced to make systems easier for small ships.

You could also make 2-3 small reactors instead of one big if you want easier systems (amd have some backup btw).

 

[Wrathserker]

Quotes have been selected:

Neither is complexity generally liked. Too complex is bad, too simple is bad... then again we have games like Frogger and it's many clones. There's no facts in your counter-argument, only different subjectivity. Complexity is good only for those who like it, and thus gravitate towards

thats why i chose eyactly those words, i never made a poinbt complexity would be good, only a point its not generally dislikedi statef this quite clearly clearly that i only mean what i actually say. no in between lines.

You state a theorem wthout any examples/ proof or argumentation u just state a theory and fancy it out.
its merely an opinon you can have that but if u want to convince someone you need arguments.

saying this that is good for who like i and vise versa is merely stating the obvious and not helping at all.
I do not think its possible to fullfill every individuals likes and dislikes (prove me wrong? please?) general democracy is an example for that.
Is it not about making and keeping the general mass of ppl happy?

yet you base your arguments on masse sthat dont vote cannot be confirmed they exist and deliver no proof whatsoever.

Whereas... A bad game slams you with a huge learning curve from the start, and does non-intuitive things.

Sticking to what works, is actually very good logic. The old, wise phrase, "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" is very applicable. Some will argue power is broken. Some will argue it is fine. Tap it before you sledgehammer it.

I do not disagree that a steep learning curve is not very good but again no proof whatsover you just say " the earth is flat" without argument behind it.

A steep learning curve might be frustrating since one has to learn alot at once wich can be quite offputting for some according to my experience and genral belief. However there are still games like dwarfen fortres that have a incredible steep learning curve and are still liked by minoritys so genarally again it your statement is wrong.

another thing: complex doens't have to mean steep learning curve wherd u get all that from? if one would increase the complexity slowly over a long course i do not see a problem there.

Again , ask any starmadian on the forum about 50% will tell you starmade IS broken.

and the sayng is just putting your words in another context my previous argument still holds.

in my opinion it's a cowards way to sustain without growing , sustain will always be outgrown by progress its by definition so, no business or corp can keep themselve in the green forever if they dont progresses, they will be autmatched by those that do.

theres is a nice article about that if you are interested: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-companies-need-to-grow

Evolution is the same those that do not evolve and stay the same will die out.

Leads to the next point, and yes we do pretty much know why players came to Starmade. Space sim/sci-fi fans were looking for a game where they could build ships and fly them, and Minecraft fans were looking for something in space. Then Yogscast did a story on it :P A huge influx of thousands of players came. There were hundreds online at the same time across dozens of servers. More than 10k players, total. Then big patches kept coming along that fundamentally changed something, broke servers, broke designs, and kept making the game more complex.... players left in droves after each one. Now here we are, today... a dozen or few people are online at any one time, across 5-10 servers. We have a "community" of 55 people that votes for the Council.

Finally some source to your arguments you just progressed congratz.
if your source is to be belived then thats fine if you do know what they come for do you still know what they stayed for?

But you still have not proven theese people would have stayed if nothing changed. There have been many games that died due to lack of progress they have been labeld "abandoned" and so the community left too. how can you say explkicity that the change caused that and that the same thing would not have happened if starmade stayed the same? perhaps the initial hype just died off? i cant say for sure can you?

Yet again YOU stayed ? even though its changed. Why?
Are you truly statisfied as teh game is nw? have you really nothing you want to have changed? you do: you said so yourself would only change things that are broken yet you argumented with change is bad generally.

What im trying to say is you tend to speak in absolutes and generalize
Here is your opinion without base, source and proof at first.
like i said to convince you need more than that.

"Change for the sake of change " ,seriously do not engage in discussion if you cannot refrain from twisting and misinterpreting others words when you do not understand them.

Things are not void because you ignore them , its pretty much the definition of ignorance pal.

Yes, Schine clearly has/had a vision, but that might not necessarily be a good vision for the community and the game. At some point they have to wake up, re-assess, and do a reality check on what is actually working by evidence versus what isn't. To blindly follow them is to be a lemming. To criticize them when they clearly need it, is to look at the bigger picture of the game and the community and value those higher than the devs' feelings. They're big boys. They should be able to deal with a few shot-down ideas.

Again you misinterpret what i said , i never said we can't critize i said I THINK we can trust them if trust were blind by definition we would have no need for the wording of blind trust.

You said THEY NEED to wake up? you know them personally and can you fully understand another human being and what they need to to? are you god? i think only gods and fools deal in absolutes unless they are proven facts like saying: "a moth is a Insect", thats a fact it has been defined as such similarly to 1+2=3 it has been defined and proven. Saying: all "chinese eat dogs and cats", is not.

what kind of "big boys " are they? tell me how they are you clearly know them personally quite well as it seems, all of shine so why don't you share your insights with us?

 

[cdl3050]

Let's try to create a power system (or systems) which allows a very simple start, and a slow progression to a more complex state. Let's then allow players who love complexity a chance to make their power system(s) incredibly complex and reward them for their effort.

My favorite thing(s) about starmade is that as I learn it I can do more and more complex things.

For this power update or change, I would want it to allow the old system to persist as an option while creating more options.
Let's add in nuclear fission reactors, nuclear fusion reactors, antimatter-matter reactors. They can even create "heat" instead of "power," like in real life.

Spoiler

Whether or not we require "fuel" isn't really important. Maybe have an optional consumable fuel to increase output?

Let's then add thermopiles and stirling engines to directly convert this heat to power. (similar to the "nuclear batteries" NASA uses on some space probes.)
Let's then add steam generators, steam turbines, electric-power generators, steam and water piping, water pumps, condensers, and heat sinks. The exact nature or shape of these things probably doesn't matter, only that players get the option to design and arrange their chosen system(s) however they want.

The more choices players have the better the game will be.

 

[smo1704]

If I might make an alternate suggestion; instead of modifying the reactor system, just add a heat mechanic on top of the existing system mechanics. Here's what I was thinking:
- For each unit of power consumed a certain amount of heat is generated
- Each ship/turret/space station radiates heat into space, with the amount of heat radiated based on a rough approximation of surface area
- Personally, I would sum the areas of the silhouettes of the object in the xy, xz, and yz planes, rather than trying to compute the actual surface area
- The only new block would be a "radiator" block, which would increase the ship/turret/space station's ability to radiate heat, but only so long as no parts of the ship (including other radiators) obstruct it (no stacking, no hiding them internally).
- If the heat accumulated exceeds a critical threshold the ship/turret/space station shuts down temporarily until the temperature drops below the safe limit.

With such a system in place, the ability of a ship to dissipate heat would increase with the second power of it's linear dimensions, while the number of systems it could hold (and thus the heat created) would increase with the third power.

For instance imagine you have a fighter that is designed such that it has the maximum number of systems it can use simultaneously without overheating, given its shape. Now scale the fighter up by a factor of two. Each of those silhouettes will now be twice as wide and twice as long as before, increasing the heat radiated by a factor of 4. However, the systems inside the craft will be twice as wide, twice as long and twice as tall, increasing the heat generated by a factor of 8. To avoid overheating, the scaled-up ship could either carry 4 times the volume of systems as the smaller ship, despite having 8 times the internal volume, or carry 8 times the systems and use them only half as intensely.

If the aforementioned radiators radiate twice as much heat as bare hull, then the scaled up ship could use 8 times the number of systems as the smaller version, but only if the entire surface of the outer hull were covered in radiators. However, radiators would only forestall the inevitable. As long as they only offer a linear increase in heat radiated versus bare hull, the growing volume of systems would eventually overwhelm them, forcing the designers to either deliberately increase the ship's surface area (increasing the ship's rotational inertia, and making it a bigger target) or omit systems and leave internal space for fighter bays, or crew. As an example, if the scaled-up ship from before were scaled up again, you would once again increase the heat radiated by a factor of 4 (16 times the original) but increase the volume by a factor of 8 (64 times the original). Now even the 2X radiator described above wouldn't be enough to allow this doubly scaled-up ship to function like its smaller counterpart.

This mechanic would mimic a sort of trade-off that organisms make all the time in the real world. For a more in-depth look google the "square-cubed law" or "On being the right size" by J. B. S. Haldane.

 

[Ghent96]

If I might make an alternate suggestion; instead of modifying the reactor system, just add a heat mechanic on top of the existing system mechanics. ...

That was the point in the OP of adding heat functionality to conduits. We save on block ID bloat, we make a deco block functional, we reward RP and aesthetics, and we add more gameplay depth. We also avoid breaking everyone's ships. If enough people seem to like the heat concept, it might be one point of the power overhaul thread worth keeping.

But seriously... Schine played too much Elite:Dangerous recently, and they want to copy the heat system ;P

 

[Ithirahad]

That was the point in the OP of adding heat functionality to conduits. We save on block ID bloat, we make a deco block functional, we reward RP and aesthetics, and we add more gameplay depth. We also avoid breaking everyone's ships. If enough people seem to like the heat concept, it might be one point of the power overhaul thread worth keeping.

But seriously... Schine played too much Elite:Dangerous recently, and they want to copy the heat system ;P

I heard of some ideas being knocked around for a heat system and other power changes a very long time ago. This was not a case of someone installing E:D and going "hey, this is cool" and then immediately suggesting it for addition.