Some Final Words on the Power Thread

[Lecic]

Since the devs apparently felt it was fit to close a thread to responses before people could properly respond to their final points, I have been forced to make a new thread to drop the responses I spent far too much time on to just throw away.

" Another day, another 5 pages to respond to.

Edit: While I've got your attention, could you explain to me the tactical advantage a ship with reactors on spokes, aka chandelier, would have over a ship with the exact same configuration of systems except with them inside a conventional hull?

Primarily weight would be the reason to not put it under a traditional hull. However, there would also be plenty of hull covered chandeliers. It's more of an issue of the systems being incredibly spread out and this system taking the most advantage of systems in a certain volume, making it both extremely powerful and difficult to kill.

Lack of complexity: It seems all of us have their own opinion what "complexity" was about. To us it was more like a lack of depth, especially when you build larger ships. The only system that requires some creative thinking is the power system and that's not the case for every ship. Of course making turrets and some having to work with exotic ship shapes make a build process more complex but overall, it was too easy to get something work well without having to think about it a lot.

Building larger ships is very complex, actually.

-Armor layering, spaced armor, bulkheads and other internal armor schemes, sponge armor, composite layers of different armor tiers designed to mitigate penetration, and projected rayshields/spectra make armor designs have a lot of depth in how you can go about making them.4

-System layering, which you describe in a later post as "a lack of depth" for some bizarre reason, despite it being an interesting mechanic that also has a lot of depth and requires thought from the player on which systems are more important to them.

-Weapon design is a careful balance between penetration, damage per shot, projectile count, and power usage, and physical shape to reduce chance of splitting outputs under fire. There's a huge variety in weapon choices and viable ones at that. The main problem here is that some are too powerful and others are too weak.

-Power systems continue to be complex even on larger ships, as you must protect auxiliaries both externally, via placement within the ship and armor casings, and internally, with armor rods or sheets reducing the amount of damage an aux will take after it has a meltdown.

-Thrust, shields, and passives are filler, yes, but they still play an important role in system layering.

I could provide some examples of large ships, which have the deep building depth I've described, if you'd like.

To me both examples show a lack of depth. I'm sure you can give more reasons why it was put down in a certain way but a good pvp ship uses shields as filler and buffer when sustaining block damage. And protects its power and thrusters by putting it behind thick armor or in unlikely to hit places.

So let me get this straight- First, you're going to describe how the systems in both (especially the medium) are laid out in a complex manner that reduces loss of essential systems and increases overall durability, and then you're going to claim that this shows a lack of depth? And how does the proposed system even fix this, exactly? "

 

[Shaker]

Why does the proposed power have to be a replacement of the current? Couldnt we have both?

Current xyz power is good for single body ships where the proposed is good for fragmented/staged ships

 

[Lancake]

System layering is indeed an interesting concept, but I have my doubts that there are multiple different ways of doing it that are all equally viable. That's to me a lack of depth. I don't believe there's a reason why you would use thrusters as a buffer, and put shields in the most protected parts of your ships.
Your choice in what system to put if you want the ship to perform well.

I could provide some examples of large ships, which have the deep building depth I've described, if you'd like.

Yep that would be great, preferable ships that deviate from what I described (shield cap as first buffer, recharge as second, the rest is placed behind strong armor and/or in unlikely to hit positions).

Armor layering is something else though, and putting armor between systems isn't "System layering" to me. It's just creating additional protection on your ships on different levels. Which is more complicated of course than it sounds.

Agreed on the weapon layering.

As for the power aux, yes they were added to allow more complexity on larger ships (while also replacing docked reactors) where their placement and protection is crucial. I don't deny that and I'm happy that you think the same way, I was under the impression Power Aux wasn't liked at all because most didn't believe it added complexity.

So let me get this straight- First, you're going to describe how the systems in both (especially the medium) are laid out in a complex manner that reduces loss of essential systems and increases overall durability, and then you're going to claim that this shows a lack of depth? And how does the proposed system even fix this, exactly?

I was referring to the lack of choice in this matter, see the first paragraph of my post. To me only particular system layer is viable, and anything else decreases performance. I can be wrong of course and I hope your examples will show that

As for what the new system would change:
It would offer more ways for us to add different block types related to power, and how they would affect each other if all of that was put inside a small package -> A reactor that takes little space, but represents a large area on your ship.
As our proposal was very vague on that, it's for now really just a promise that we're able to add more depth/choice on larger ships since you only need to adjust a small amount of blocks to change behavior.
That probably doesn't explain it well but it's 2:30 AM here and I want to get some sleep. I'll come back to it later but felt like leaving this post to not keep you hanging for 12+ hours

 

[Lecic]

System layering is indeed an interesting concept, but I have my doubts that there are multiple different ways of doing it that are all equally viable. That's to me a lack of depth. I don't believe there's a reason why you would use thrusters as a buffer, and put shields in the most protected parts of your ships.
Your choice in what system to put if you want the ship to perform well.

Well, shield caps are obviously the only good choice to start with for system layering, but that's an inherent problem with how shields work, and nothing will change that. Beyond that, there are plenty of valid choices of layer, though. Ion passive, power capacity, and shield regen are the most obvious choices of "least terrible to lose," followed by things like armor passives (probably not working that well anyway if they shots are making it through armor and multiple layers of systems) and thrust.

I was under the impression Power Aux wasn't liked at all because most didn't believe it added complexity.

From what I saw, the complains about lack of complexity in auxes mostly came from people who were fans of docked reactors, which were also complex, and had not yet realized the possibilities for complexity in auxes, or from people who mostly build small ships and don't know about the intricacies of auxes.

 

[Ithirahad]

-System layering, which you describe in a later post as "a lack of depth" for some bizarre reason, despite it being an interesting mechanic that also has a lot of depth and requires thought from the player on which systems are more important to them.

For me, this is 'depth' (actually not depth so much as a minmaxing technique) in the wrong direction. This is just prioritizing what systems are safer to kill than other systems, which has no real effect on their functionality when they aren't busy being ripped to shreds. (If it does it's 99% of the time because your systems are built wrong and are working suboptimally, not because you made a conscious choice to go for a different layout for some other advantage) There are no meaningful tradeoffs here, just a rough optimal order of systems that will preserve the important stuff for longer.

-Power systems continue to be complex even on larger ships, as you must protect auxiliaries both externally, via placement within the ship and armor casings, and internally, with armor rods or sheets reducing the amount of damage an aux will take after it has a meltdown.

This is good, yes. But then, what's the point when your aux will still all disappear/become useless once it's shot unless you use a certain (fairly straightforward) exploit that has no real depth to it at all? Besides, there's not much choice in how you deal with aux. Either your armor it externally, or you leave it unarmoured like an idiot and watch it rip through your systems; there's no choice in the matter.

 

[Captain_Boroski]

I like the new reactor concept but I strongly disagree replacing power with heat alone. I recognize it as a platform from which to further develope the power and supply requirements of a ship, but right now the concept put forth is just hamfisted.

That's to me a lack of depth. I don't believe there's a reason why you would use thrusters as a buffer, and put shields in the most protected parts of your ships.

That's just lack of imagination.

 

[Jojomo]

-System layering, which you describe in a later post as "a lack of depth" for some bizarre reason, despite it being an interesting mechanic that also has a lot of depth and requires thought from the player on which systems are more important to them.

Probably because it doesn't require very much thought. The answer is almost the same for every ship (depending on size). There are no really difficult decisions, because the decision space is so small.

If you could show two existing ships of similar mass that have fought each other and are reasonably evenly matched, that use significantly different systems layering, I would agree that you're correct. But we all know those two ships don't exist.

-Power systems continue to be complex even on larger ships, as you must protect auxiliaries both externally, via placement within the ship and armor casings, and internally, with armor rods or sheets reducing the amount of damage an aux will take after it has a meltdown.

Yes there are decisions to be made with power systems, but again, they aren't very difficult decisions.
Everyone already knows the "correct" answers to them.
In other words, the current power system is just boring (not as boring as it could be, but still boring).

 

[Captain_Boroski]

Probably because it doesn't require very much thought. The answer is almost the same for every ship (depending on size). There are no really difficult decisions, because the decision space is so small.

Just because you're incapable of finding out different, efficient solutions and methods doesn't mean that's all there is to it.

But we all know those two ships don't exist.

"we all"
You've been here barely for an year, you don't talk on the behalf of anybody. Especially anyone who has done live combat tests and streams that SPECIFICALLY try out forementioned different system layouts.

 

[Lecic]

This is good, yes. But then, what's the point when your aux will still all disappear/become useless once it's shot unless you use a certain (fairly straightforward) exploit that has no real depth to it at all? Besides, there's not much choice in how you deal with aux. Either your armor it externally, or you leave it unarmoured like an idiot and watch it rip through your systems; there's no choice in the matter.

Aux can survive an overload with a sizeable amount of power generation left over when properly armored, and I'm not just talking about with that exploit that really should not be mentioned.

For me, this is 'depth' (actually not depth so much as a minmaxing technique) in the wrong direction. This is just prioritizing what systems are safer to kill than other systems, which has no real effect on their functionality when they aren't busy being ripped to shreds. (If it does it's 99% of the time because your systems are built wrong and are working suboptimally, not because you made a conscious choice to go for a different layout for some other advantage) There are no meaningful tradeoffs here, just a rough optimal order of systems that will preserve the important stuff for longer.

"Advanced damage mitigation techniques aren't REALLY depth"

Depth does not only apply to when the ship is in perfect health. Yes, it is "mixmaxing" in the same way that building any system properly is "mixmaxing."

Probably because it doesn't require very much thought. The answer is almost the same for every ship (depending on size). There are no really difficult decisions, because the decision space is so small.

Are you serious? Sure, every average brawler will have the same general system layout, but other ship kinds could certainly use alternative layering methods. For example, a long range shield tank with a large jumpdrive for tactical jumps would not want to put their shield rechargers or capacitors as the outer layer, as they will regularly have a chance to recharge shields, and would not want to lose those capabilities.

Yes there are decisions to be made with power systems, but again, they aren't very difficult decisions.
Everyone already knows the "correct" answers to them.

No, the choices between aux armoring schemes are an important balance between mass, volume, and effectiveness. A fast ship needs to use a light weight method, and small ship needs to use a compact method, a large ship could choose between two smaller reactors or one well protected reactor with better use after taking damage, etc. There is no one "correct answer;" it varies by ship and scheme.

 

[Tunk]

Honestly I am just looking forward to this heat box/heat reactor system being ram roaded through just for entertainment value now.

I don't know who's idea it was internally, but honestly I look forward to the amount of abuse and exploits I plan on publicly releasing as a result of heat boxes alone and embarrassing them with

 

[Jojomo]

Just because you're incapable of finding out different, efficient solutions and methods doesn't mean that's all there is to it.

"we all"
You've been here barely for an year, you don't talk on the behalf of anybody. Especially anyone who has done live combat tests and streams that SPECIFICALLY try out forementioned different system layouts.

As in, "no-one knows different".

Feel free to post an example that proves me wrong....should be simple, right?
[doublepost=1487312906,1487312700][/doublepost]

Are you serious? Sure, every average brawler will have the same general system layout, but other ship kinds could certainly use alternative layering methods. For example, a long range shield tank with a large jumpdrive for tactical jumps would not want to put their shield rechargers or capacitors as the outer layer, as they will regularly have a chance to recharge shields, and would not want to lose those capabilities.

No, the choices between aux armoring schemes are an important balance between mass, volume, and effectiveness. A fast ship needs to use a light weight method, and small ship needs to use a compact method, a large ship could choose between two smaller reactors or one well protected reactor with better use after taking damage, etc. There is no one "correct answer;" it varies by ship and scheme.

Sounds good in theory, but show it to be the case in practice.

 

[Lecic]

Sounds good in theory, but show it to be the case in practice.

Yeah, let me take hours and hours building a proof of concept ship because you can't comprehend the concept of it working, and then I'll share some private blueprints of ships with different kinds of aux armoring schemes.

 

[Lancake]

As the amount of ships I've looked at was low (about 6 ships), could anyone share other PvP orientated ships that are successful in what they do? I'm not playing on a PvP orientated server or faction so I won't know much about it till I see it. If you know of some players that have these ships but are not willing to share it (as to be expected for something competitive), could you list those names too so I can give them a poke?

 

[Crashmaster]

If there is even an argument over whether the current build's systems meta has satisfying depth or not, what is the greater depth about the new idea's fitting of significantly smaller sized systems just as long as they are not in a box?

 

[Calhoun]

As the amount of ships I've looked at was low (about 6 ships), could anyone share other PvP orientated ships that are successful in what they do? I'm not playing on a PvP orientated server or faction so I won't know much about it till I see it. If you know of some players that have these ships but are not willing to share it (as to be expected for something competitive), could you list those names too so I can give them a poke?

I suggest contacting kulbolen, who has/has made some quality PvP ships.

 

[Panpiper]

Regen vs Capacity: This is something most agree on but not for the reason said in our proposal. This relation between having power to fire and needing to regenerate while it's on cooldown is indeed wrong.
For example 2 important things that were pointed out:

1. For every slow firing weapon, you need the same amount of power used by a fast firing weapon in a given amount of time (cooldown of the slowest weapon). As the DPS is equal for both weapons and the block destruction favors the fast firing weapon It makes the slow firing weapon a bad choice, especially when you need to place down more capacity blocks in order to use it.
2. Instead of consuming the power needed when fired, it should consume power over time during its cooldown.

I STRONGLY disagree that this is wrong.

A couple of years back, there was an imbalance in the game. It was possible to build a missile armed ship that could alpha strike with an attack sufficiently strong, that no equally sized ship could stand up to it. No amount of shields could tank the damage of that single strike! One shot, one kill.

This was clearly a problem. Victory in battle cannot be allowed to go to whomever simply fires first. I do not recall specifically what it was that redressed this imbalance, but I seem to recall shields doubling in their effectiveness.

The fact that missiles require power capacitors to store up for their alpha strikes is an extremely important balance feature. If that was 'not' present, it would very likely have to be invented precisely to avoid the potential power of high alpha strike designs. If Schine is going to change power to eliminate the need for capacitors, frankly they are going to need to simultaneously implement a massive nerf to missiles, or any other weapon that stores up it's damage to release it in a large alpha burst.

 

[Lord Daro]

As in, "no-one knows different".

Feel free to post an example that proves me wrong....should be simple, right?

Yeah, let me take hours and hours building a proof of concept ship because you can't comprehend the concept of it working, and then I'll share some private blueprints of ships with different kinds of aux armoring schemes.

Just because you're incapable of finding out different, efficient solutions and methods doesn't mean that's all there is to it.

It's understandable, that people don't realy wan't to present their efficent designs to the entire world for the taking. Others however, aren't necessarily willing to just take people's word for it. Maybe someone knows of a stream/video where designs have been tested or maybe actual battle footage with apparently very different concepts shown?

 

[Raisinbat]

New As the amount of ships I've looked at was low (about 6 ships), could anyone share other PvP orientated ships that are successful in what they do? I'm not playing on a PvP orientated server or faction so I won't know much about it till I see it. If you know of some players that have these ships but are not willing to share it (as to be expected for something competitive), could you list those names too so I can give them a poke?

If you're not familiar with modular ships please look at

RAI Arbalest
Chronos FTL 180K
or
LRSF-1 Orion

This leads to much stronger ships but it can be a bit of a nightmare building them since they're multiple ships woven together; plus once they disconnect they tend to lag a lot. Part of the reason (But not THE reason) these ships are better is that the power system has so much bonus for small ships, a feature that's still in the new system.

Resources from HerrColonel is really good at small combat ships, although most of them should be on the dock.

I STRONGLY disagree that this is wrong.

A couple of years back, there was an imbalance in the game. It was possible to build a missile armed ship that could alpha strike with an attack sufficiently strong, that no equally sized ship could stand up to it. No amount of shields could tank the damage of that single strike! One shot, one kill.

This was clearly a problem. Victory in battle cannot be allowed to go to whomever simply fires first. I do not recall specifically what it was that redressed this imbalance, but I seem to recall shields doubling in their effectiveness.

The fact that missiles require power capacitors to store up for their alpha strikes is an extremely important balance feature. If that was 'not' present, it would very likely have to be invented precisely to avoid the potential power of high alpha strike designs. If Schine is going to change power to eliminate the need for capacitors, frankly they are going to need to simultaneously implement a massive nerf to missiles, or any other weapon that stores up it's damage to release it in a large alpha burst.

This has to be avoided, but the problem is that capacity transfers to systems instantaneously; this should not be the case. If weapons required a continous e/sec feed to charge AND lost charge when they weren't getting it, you can't exploit massive capacity ships for instakilling anymore, because that design has to charge in combat and can't be left charged anymore. That's one of the changes that would allow ships running of capacity rather than generation that would help the power system allow more diverse combat doctrines, and provide an element of timing to combat.

As for the power aux, yes they were added to allow more complexity on larger ships (while also replacing docked reactors) where their placement and protection is crucial. I don't deny that and I'm happy that you think the same way, I was under the impression Power Aux wasn't liked at all because most didn't believe it added complexity.

It doesn't add any different ship doctrines; there's no difference between aux and simply raising the base generation per reactor

From what I saw, the complains about lack of complexity in auxes mostly came from people who were fans of docked reactors, which were also complex, and had not yet realized the possibilities for complexity in auxes, or from people who mostly build small ships and don't know about the intricacies of auxes.

Im not a fan of docked reactors, i don't like aux because its pointless complexity; the only choice it has is where to put it, and that's already a concern for regular reactor blocks.

I kind of disagree that internal armoring and layering matters... I think there are plenty of weapon systems able to go through that with ease, but i've never finished any larger ships, they keep getting rekt by ballance updates before i finish, so i just make small ships armed with weapons for beating them...

Maybe i'm missing something but i just don't see how a ship caked in armor and thus much slower and less mass efficient is able to handle a faster ship with more guns and shielding?

It would offer more ways for us to add different block types related to power, and how they would affect each other if all of that was put inside a small package -> A reactor that takes little space, but represents a large area on your ship.

The thing is giving us a pattern we have to follow isn't fun, at least not in any creative sense. You should be focused on having as many viable outcomes that we're able to create using the power system instead of adding hoops to jump through for the same outcome no matter what we do.

I'm also terrified that there still isn't a kill-it-with-fire attitude to the heat boundaries. Empty space is an important resource limiting what you can do with turrets and carriers; handing it out for free eliminates a massive design consideration.

This is being pushed by replica design that wants to make star trek/wars replicas, and since those ships have tiny tiny turrets all over the place, thats how they build turrets, but those are too small to be viable anti-fighter turrets in starmade, and good thing too, because nothing prevents us from caking our ships in thousands of little turrets.

I'm not a great shipbuilder, but i consider myself good at weapons, and i know this miniaturization is going to eliminate a lot of downsides to very powerful weapon designs that are currently limited by how much space they take up, such as gatling guns and internally fitted missile turrets. This space introduces weaknesses in a ship's layout since it requires fairly large openings that cannot be armored and limits your ability to fit systems in the socket space. And this is done for what reason? I hope we've pointed it out allready; interior and good looks aren't impossible with pvp ships.

I don't know who's idea it was internally, but honestly I look forward to the amount of abuse and exploits I plan on publicly releasing as a result of heat boxes alone and embarrassing them with

Not looking forward to it but right behind you...

 

[Jojomo]

Yeah, let me take hours and hours building a proof of concept ship because you can't comprehend the concept of it working, and then I'll share some private blueprints of ships with different kinds of aux armoring schemes.

I specifically asked for something pre-existing, not made for the purpose. And no need for them to be yours, or private.

Show that in practice, significantly different system layering is used, and is competitive against each other at similar mass.
Show that the decision space for the current power system is significant large to not be labelled boring.

Or don't. I won't mind, I think I'll enjoy the new system.

 

[Lancake]

Perhaps we're all stuck to a specific way of thinking (all includes me of course!)

I usually don't mention my way of thinking since I do try to put myself in other situations, helps me understand where people are getting at...but here it is:
I'm not someone who PvP's or plays survival. I just don't have the time to actively play on a server like that, but I still build ships with that in mind:
- Thick armor to protect vital systems
- Shields are just an additional buffer and are the last thing I do
- Thrusters are mostly just there to be "enough", partly because they scale in such a shitty way I stop caring about it too much
- I looove turrets, especially making strong ones that look good and fit my ship's function.
I usually end up putting down large groups in an area where I think they should be for larger ships, and with turrets you just don't have that "luxury".

As for my build process...
I build a ship's shell, I armor it up while doing so, I fill it with a random block to see how much it can fit, then I do some basic match to figure out what I want and I just do that. I've done this so many times now and it quickly became a bore after 3 or 4 times. System placement matters, but not as much as I want it to be. I have yet to deviate from the "put power/thrusters/weapons in a safe place, put shields as buffer when the shield eventually fails" design principle, and I don't see a reason why I should change it.

I always end up doing the same thing. The few times I experiment with other build styles, it's either too tedious to apply on a 400 meter long ship, or it just doesn't work as well as what I already do. Each system block I put down feels worthless because relative to my entire ship...it simply is.

Since I mainly make oversized ships, that is what I end up doing. I make smaller ships from time to time but I use that to get some more inspiration for my other larger ships.

Whether our original proposal would improve on that or not, is hard to say right now since it's too vague to begin with and people fill in the gaps with their own ideas. It does have some serious flaws that people pointed out.


For small ships it's different though, but why should small ships be more challenging/fun to build than larger ones?