Power suggstion 2.0 does it hit the goals?

[Drakkart]

Ok so there will be a lot of discussion going on in other threads and i rather not want to distract from them for they are necessary and they should be read and discussed.
The thing i would like to do in this thread is gather your opinions on the proposal actually hitting the goals set.
I will deliver an example of where the system missed instead for this represents my opinion better.

So please no discussion about the system itself, rather the discussion if, in your point of view, the proposal would actually succeed on the requested points.
---

1. Predictability: Placing a block leads to predictable outcomes
   
2. Simplicity: The game should only describe the rules to the player, not telling the player exactly what to do
   
3. Make every block matter without losing its importance with different ship sizes
   
4. Depth: The system needs to have equally viable choices within each possible situation, creating additional gameplay possibilities where possible, keeping complexity unchanged.
   
5. Performance: Game limits must not be avoidable, using the least amount of these limits is better to minimize any potential exploits
   
6. Performant: Must perform well from a game engine perspective
   
7. Creativity: Allow as much creativity as possible
   
8. Logical: Needs to make sense to the player
   
9. Solution focused: Must solve any current game issues with that particular system

These were the goals set.

- predictability: We would have to learn the system! From my point of view in the actual state of the proposal is everything BUT INTUITIVE. Who did not understand the currecnt power system, will also fail exploiting this new system, with it's added complexity layers of abstract techpoint currencies which are percentage based? and some weirdo distance rules and strange limitations with no relation to real world or tech or sci-fi.
Noone could explain to me yet why systems can not just be powered by power and why we could not have multiple redundant reactors working at the same time.
And for the distance between reactors and the other blocks - what was their purpose again? anyway there is alredy a distance based thing in starmade that annoys the hell out of me because of a lacking indicator, sun damage... you have proofen to ignore this issue for over a year now keeping sun deals damage as a default setting for new worlds but not adding a indicator that tells us when we might get too close just makes me vomit thinking about another arbitrary distance thing that should become integral part of ship building in the future.
Actually imho you would be even further away from this goal with the new system than the current one...

- Simplicity: *climbing back into my chair because i was just ROFL* nope!
Let me tell you something about what makes games fun.
Games should be easy to play hard to master. Easy to play strongly relies on using our already established patterns to make us relate to a given mechanic. which is why minecraft has this huge appeal for you use commonly known stuff in that game. wood planks sticks stone ... to build also known stuff people can relate to torches, ladders ... so giving people stuff they can understand easily is essential in getting people into playing your game. Now what makes the game fun is the game concept, basically a compressed and really importantly a written down version of the vision for your game you want to mention some features you want to take the vision of the gameplay and put that into written form this is your game concept. the game concept also hold the "hard to master" part at least noting how the simple access to the game can still provide a challenge in minmaxing to a proffessor degree level. this will keep the nerds excited about your game the tinkerers also know as the vocal minority for there are just few putting that much dedication into a single game and this is the crowd you definitly want onboard for these people make your game and mouth to mouth promotion work. In an ideal case a child should be able to play your game before it understands how to start the program and a science professor should still be captivated by the games depths.
I am sorry to tell you, your proposal moved the game further into the "only nerds will ever put any interest in it" corner. Sadly the concept does not only provide big hurdles to get into the game it also - well maybe i just don't see it yet so correct me when i am wrong - does not deliver on the high tinkerers heaven end. it is imho a pretty dull suggestion containing ots of arbitrary constraints without providing any fun resulting from them.

- Make every block matter -
hmm from my point of view neither new nor old would provide this... The real question is why is this point on the list? Why would it be a bad thing just haveing lots of stuff for the sake of "because we can" - that actually sounds like fun if you ask me... i'd suggest you put in more "senseless blocks".

- Depths - equally viable choices... sounds great. Looking at some current systems yes this would be cool... and i also see why and how the current system fails every here and there in that regard. I agree that would be great to have i suggest you really consider redoing all of starmades ship building systems to achieve this.
What i do not see is how the new system would provide better than the old one.

- Performance - i was thinking about why not just build the most stable and open game that would allow for ships of any size and then hand a limiter to the admins of the servers which have to run the game... - at least better than having to deal with softcaps and the like...
Well the new system at least scales linear with reactor size... you know you could also just remove the softcap on the old system and it would have the same effect kinda... not really adding anything in principle from my point of view.

- Performant: "Must perform well from a game engine perspective"
must it? idk isn't it normally that game engines are build to support the game concept and not the other way around? personally i understand where you are coming from but this additional limitation should not be put in place if you seriously want to change the course of where the game is heading for good.
The game concept is the heart of the game it's vision. the engine just turns it into reality so who has to come first egg or chicken? i'd say free yourself for once and make a great game aka a solid game concept and then adapt the engine where necessary.
Now personally i think all this chambers stuff just puts additional strain on the engine... i ofc do not know so i'll leave the judgement of this to some devs into the starmade code.

- Creativity - Allow as much creativity as possible
right- and you spark our creativity by putting restrictions on us like distance between blocks and chambers and additinal tp points and ...
Ok hold on a second let's take the distance thing. You are aware that your new proposal favors ships which exceed one axis. like being long tallor wide and make ballish ships not being favored? on a ship that is long you could put reactors on one end and the other blocks on the other tada maximum distance. on a ball esspecially if oyu had the idea of putting the reactor in the center for maximum protection the distance to the hull is the same on every angle and the same might be too low... i do not think at all that your new system is any more inspiring than the old one was.

- Logical - i'll skip on this one refering to my walls of text regarding points 1 and 2...
let me quickly think which of both systems is more logical... i'd pick the actual one but probably just because i know it better already. I see no gain in this regard in the newly proposed system at all.

- Solution focused - Awww guys... i am reading loads of posts and still i can not find the explanations for why this new system fixes any issues or how. maybe we should list/define the "to solve" issues first.
Now as this was supposed to be a power system proposal let me think of how this new system could fix power related issues. - sorry why again is it supposed to be better agian? can't find it sorry

---Summary
My intend was by no means to demotivate the schine team. Your task is hard and i feel it is not getting easier sitting right in front of the thing. i think most of schine is suffering badly from tunnel vision ecause you again came up with something even more complex,artificial, difficult to explain...
Albert einstein once said "you did not understand something untill you can put it into a few simple sentences" at least something like that. Personally i think, you should pack up for a week visit disneyland or smth then return and brainstorm what would make a cool space sim construction game and start over from there.
also maybe get a bit inspiration from other games around- i know robin is not to fond of this idea he wants to keep his vision pure from external influences... Noble but you know what, i am sorry to say it but it really seems, a bit inspiration could at least not do worse for this last proposal is the most nerdy and artificially made complex game suggestion i can imagine. keep stuff simple or you fail to make it great.
I am sorry for this hard judgment but it seems like you guys keep running into dead ends.

I mean what is wrong with reactors scale in size or amount of reactors and systems require power and there are tons of systems doing different stuff and we make it all sci-fiish and awesome. We want trade we want quests we want pew pew and ressources and crafting and elite 2.0 kinda just as multiplayer and with more factions and as sandbox construction game that rewards people for doing calculations but simple stuff every kid should be able to do...
Please really get out have some fun and then return to the basic concepts and stop limiting yourself by "what you already have" you probably did this for far too long.

I am kinda sorry for the harsh result on one hand, but i really hope you guys take it as a wake up call a dear and pressing wake up call, for the next few weeks will determine, if this project will continue or die out.

Kind Regards to everyone reading this, i know it has been a long one.

 

[Ithirahad]

1. Predictability: Placing a block leads to predictable outcomes
   
   If conduits damaged in combat would be changed to break links, then the new system basically fulfills this. Even if not, most things work in a more easily understandable (and less abstract) manner. No problem here.
   
   
2. Simplicity: The game should only describe the rules to the player, not telling the player exactly what to do
   
   With no more softcaps, and no strange dimension spaghetti patterns required for power, this condition is fulfilled completely.
   
   
3. Make every block matter without losing its importance with different ship sizes
   
   'Every block' evidently does not matter with conduits, if breaking a connection doesn't actually break the connection and all that happens is that RHP is deducted. Otherwise, this's fine. On StarMade's scale, I consider this goal secondary anyway.
   
   
4. Depth: The system needs to have equally viable choices within each possible situation, creating additional gameplay possibilities where possible, keeping complexity unchanged.
   
   Debatable and somewhat subjective. I wouldn't be the one to discuss this one at length, but it seems like this system opens up at least as many, if not more, engineering choices as the old one did.
   
   
5. Performance: Game limits must not be avoidable, using the least amount of these limits is better to minimize any potential exploits.
   
   With the docked mechanics removed (yay!) this one's covered 100%.
   
   
6. Performant: Must perform well from a game engine perspective
   
   The calculations required for this system to work are no more strenuous than the old one, it seems. This one's covered.
   
   
7. Creativity: Allow as much creativity as possible
   
   As there is no heat mechanic and chambers and other things have no set shape, this's mostly fine. I'm a little worried about the stabilizer mechanic, but it might be fine as well.
   
   
8. Logical: Needs to make sense to the player
   
   This design is better than the original, regarding that point. Perhaps not perfect, but... yeah, immensely better than the original.
   
   
9. Solution focused: Must solve any current game issues with that particular system
   
   Reducing docked exploits? Check, mostly.
   
   Addressing percieved and real scaling issues with smaller ships? Well, we'll have to playtest this to see for sure, but it looks like it will help alleviate the issue.
   
   Reducing unintuitiveness and making systems building more understandable? Check, mostly.
   
   Addressing the lack of incentive for specialization? Check!
   
   Dealing with systems design being a massive pain in the ass sometimes? Check!
   
   Dealing with how cloaking and jamming both suck mechanically? Check!
   
   Providing better ways to balance systems? Check!
   
   Creating more variation and opportunities to extend specialization in ships? Check!
   
   The new system even creates more reasonable nodes for NPCs to work at and enhance than we would've had with the old system, and I can even see more multiple player crew opportunities now, once chairs become a thing, because having a player managing systems and power can actually be a useful asset.

 

[KiloZulu]

Predictability: I've already voiced concerns about having an optimal distance determined by the reactor size. Ensuring that this distance is made readily available to players while building will help, but I still think it could make it harder to plan out a ship beforehand.
Simplicity: I thought that the concepts were simple enough. Reactor + stabilizer(s) + chamber(s).
Make every block matter: How they matter may be subjective, but I suppose they all matter in some regard.
Depth: I'm comfortable with the level of depth they're adding. I worry that the system will be more restrictive due to some of it, though...
Performance: I have no way of measuring the impact on game performance, but trust that Schine knows what does.
Performant: As with "performance."
Creativity: On the whole, I think the new plan integrates a lot of systems and is quite creative.
Logical: I found the description to make a lot of sense, apart from the notion that only one reactor can be operational. They might consider allowing players to arrange conduits and logic so that multiple reactors could be used and directed based on their configuration. A second reactor could either be set up as an emergency generator, or it could work in parity with the first reactor depending on how things are connected.
Solution Focused: On the whole, I believe that the current power system doesn't make sense, and I think their proposed system moves us closer to something that does. I wouldn't mind a few tweaks, but I'm on board otherwise.

 

[jayman38]

Simplicity:
I do not think the chamber/stabilizer requirements are intuitive. However, that could be fixed with pop-up notifications in build-mode.
Examples:
"You need (12) stabilizer blocks at a distance of at least 20 blocks away from the nearest reactor. There are currently (2) invalid stabilizers (too close), and (4) valid stabilizer blocks. (8) more stabilizer blocks are needed at least 20 blocks away from the nearest reactor."
"This chamber requires (8) chamber blocks of type (x). There are currently (3) valid chamber blocks. (5) more chamber blocks are needed in this group."
"This chamber is disconnected. Please connect it to any desired reactors with conduit blocks."

Which brings me to conduit blocks. According to the proposal video, conduit blocks are implemented in order to disable quick swap-outs. However, conduits limit internal layout creativity, and lead to "oops" moments when in mid-battle, a damaged reactor goes offline, the backup goes online, and the player realizes "crap, I forgot to connect my (insert critical chamber) to the backup. I'm dead because I forgot to place 5 blocks in build mode. No fun." There should not be conduit blocks. Instead, make chambers "decay" over time in build mode to guard against quick-swaps, and place them anywhere desired, with no need for conduits. All chambers are available to all reactors, and each has their own internal TP/power storage.

Which brings me to TP distribution. What? Why? Just use energy like everything else. If chambers have their own "capacity", and a spot on the power distribution priority list, they simply charge up like any other system. They should use power like anything else. Am I missing something critical regarding TP? Are the devs worried that chambers and systems should not share a common energy pool? If so, that's where builder creativity and per-chamber capacitor banks via the C-V connection method can be introduced. Or maybe it's a mid-combat problem. It just seems like unfun complexity for the sake of complexity, where more-fun types of complexity can be introduced elsewhere. (Remember: power is a critical core functionality of all ships. Therefore, I think it is one core system that should not be complex.)

Anyway, soft-caps should be significantly higher by two orders of magnitude, with reactor size becoming the new power limiter.

Which brings me to multiple reactors. Did I misunderstand how the system would force a ship to only use one reactor at a time? And what defines "which reactor now?" Current power generation potential? Another priority list? This could become a problem when multiple reactors are fairly close together and in danger of being destroyed by missile strikes. Simplicity: Larger single reactors provide better per-block efficiency, but multiple smaller reactors provide better combat resiliency. All reactors should be online from the start. This is reasonably intuitive.

All reactors should be logic-activatable, so you can turn one off if you want to. For now, maybe there is nothing to take advantage with offline reactors, but future changes, such as stealth and jamming and scanner changes could take advantage of how many reactor blocks a ship currently has active. (E.g. Maybe it takes more stealth blocks to hide a ship with more active blocks, instead of overall block count or mass.) Maybe bringing reactors offline or online works on a time-frame, so that if you want to uncloak and have enough power to operate weapons, it takes a few seconds.... (As in Star Trek, or any other SciFi where the hero needs to have some sort of chance to counter against cloaking devices.) Maybe your chambers can charge more efficiently with less active reactors. (Counter-intuitive, I know, but would keep "civilian" ships working well, outside of combat.)

 

[Top 4ce]

"you did not understand something untill you can put it into a few simple sentences"

Reactors provide power to the ship. The bigger the reactor more power it provides, this growth is linear.

Reactors can become more efficient with stabilizers, which need to be build a certain distance away from the reactor. Stabilizers are optional.

Reactors provide an additional resource currently called Tech Points (which is not a good name imo). Only the main reactor produces Tech Points and it is currently the same production rate for any size reactor.

These Tech Points can be spent on chambers that are connected to the main reactor by conduits. Chambers are used to provide bonuses and specialization to the ship. Chambers are optional.

It seems easy enough to put into simple sentences. I think this new proposal hits all the targets it was set to hit. It needs polish and some balancing, and there's still discussions on the finer details (like turrets) but overall it's a good system.

 

[KiloZulu]

From my reading of the plan, I understood that stabilizers were required, not optional. They determine how efficient your reactor is, or how much power you get from it. Anything less than an equal number of stabilizer blocks to those of the reactor will result in less power output. Did I misunderstand that?

Yeah, they definitely need a different name than "tech points." I can see the conversation now.

"Captain, we're out of TP."
"I think there's some more under the sink, or maybe in the utility closet..."

 

[Olxinos]

Imho:

1. Predictability: Placing a block leads to predictable outcomes
   Fine for me (for me, it means that you could do a quick mental calculation before placing a block to know how it'll alter the stats, which indeed seems to be the case).
   
2. Simplicity: The game should only describe the rules to the player, not telling the player exactly what to do
   I don't like this definition. Well, if I use this definition, yup that's fine. Thing is, if I use this definition, I haven't seen a game design/proposal/whatver which wasn't "simple".
   I'd rather say that complexity is a measure of the number of rules and how long they are (I could say "hard to understand" but it's more subjective), then define simplicity as the opposite of complexity. With that definition, I think the proposal is more complex than what we currently have (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, see point 4).
   
3. Make every block matter without losing its importance with different ship sizes
   I guess you meant "each non-vanity block on the ship must have an impact on its efficiency, be it a small one or a big one". That's nearly always true (depending on when you start saying the impact is so small it might as well have none). My personal complaint though, is that every block might matter, but their placement doesn't (I mean, you can still shuffle most blocks around without any noticeable/predictable effect on performance).
   
4. Depth: The system needs to have equally viable choices within each possible situation, creating additional gameplay possibilities where possible, keeping complexity unchanged.
   Assuming there would be interesting chamber effects, this would certainly be deeper... but also more complex. Imo, the depth/complexity ratio would be about the same.
   
5. Performance: Game limits must not be avoidable, using the least amount of these limits is better to minimize any potential exploits
   I found this a bit confusing, not to mention it's followed by "performant", to be honest I'm not sure why they didn't merge the two of those.
   
6. Performant: Must perform well from a game engine perspective
   Fine so far.
   
7. Creativity: Allow as much creativity as possible
   Mmh. Nothing really changed here imo.
   
8. Logical: Needs to make sense to the player
   That's where I'm saying that the reactor<->stabilizer interaction doesn't make the least bit of sense for me.
   
9. Solution focused: Must solve any current game issues with that particular system
   Which ones? In any case, this certainly won't be the panacea.

 

[Asvarduil]

I see things a bit differently than Olxinos. That being said, they make some strong points in their assessment.

1. Predictability: Placing a block leads to predictable outcomes
   To be honest, this doesn't do as good of a job of this objective as Schine thinks it does. Yes, the reactor chamber system is intuitive. What's not intuitive is the weapon system as it is. What I think would be superior are reactor chambers that improve weapon power, while adding more barrels adds less randomization to the trajectory of the weapon output (for projectile weapons; the Damage Pulse generator could have its dimensions altered by block size, but DP is a weird weapon anyhow.) This is analogous to how FPSes work; short barrel weapons have good 'hip-fire', while long-barreled weapons are better when aimed, because the bullet will be a lot less prone to go somewhere you don't want it to.
   
   
2. Simplicity: The game should only describe the rules to the player, not telling the player exactly what to do
   While I can easily say 'See my response to Goal #1', I do think having performance scale off power - some would call it Star Trek technology, or 'Tim Taylor Technology' - is more intuitive than needing to consider the mathematical pasta we have to now. So, I'll tentatively say this goal is well-met; it would be even more well met if the weapon system is refined as noted in #1.
   
   
3. Make every block matter without losing its importance with different ship sizes
   I think this goal is met by the new system, as presumably power systems will take fewer blocks to achieve, more effective systems will take fewer blocks to achieve, the shipbuilding mechanic won't require filling out every single niche of a ship with crap. Definitely this goal seems to be met by the new setup. Also, I like the idea of having conduits to channel power around, it's certainly better than sticking reactors everywhere on a ship. The only suggestion I'd like to make is having the various circuits (e.g. Crystal Circuits and specific crystal Circuits, e.g. Parseen Circuits) be able to channel power from reactors as well. Maybe if a circuit has power going through it, it gains some minor light emission? That'd be awesome, but it's not necessary.
   
   
4. Depth: The system needs to have equally viable choices within each possible situation, creating additional gameplay possibilities where possible, keeping complexity unchanged.
   I think this objective is largely met as well, provided that secondary effects are made into chambers. I think that moving performance stuff away from weapons computers up to a certain point is the way to go to make building stuff simultaneously more interesting and less painful (after all, the main mechanic of this game is to build ships.)
   
   
5. Performance: Game limits must not be avoidable, using the least amount of these limits is better to minimize any potential exploits.
   I'm reading this as, 'How will this system interact with other systems', which is addressed by all previous questions, as well as the subject of exploits, trolling, and cheating. Unfortunately, as we have no implementation of this system, and no way of playing around with it, there's no way to say what a creative player could do. The answer to this is a big unknown that has more to do with the next question than the preceeding ones.
   
   
6. Performant: Must perform well from a game engine perspective
   We don't have a build, we can't say whether this will or will not be performant in-engine. Also, we're gamers, and not the developers; it's really, really not a good idea to assume we know how well this will work, without knowing the code and what changes are involved. I say this due to my background as a programmer.
   
   
7. Creativity: Allow as much creativity as possible
   I think this will enhance the amount of creativity, both in terms of the 'Depth' question above, but also having more room for ornamentation on ships. Goal might well be met.
   
   
8. Logical: Needs to make sense to the player
   I think this system is more logical than what we have, a definite win. That said, I agree that the Stabilizer thing isn't necessarily logical either; I'd prefer something more like the Big Reactors mod in MineCraft where we craft something that goes into the multi-block structure itself to help stabilize it and prevent a reactor breach.
   
   
9. Solution focused: Must solve any current game issues with that particular system
   I think this system drastically enhances StarMade, first. It makes the shipbuilding much less painful, much quicker to do, cost 'less' in some ways, while adding depth and allowing more interesting builds at all levels of play. Unfortunately, this does not solve any of StarMade's actual game design/player activity loop problems. We're still stuck mining for progression, and buildling ships to explore and fight in a universe that lacks anything to explore, and is still disproportionately risky to fight in. No reactor/power/customization system can fix those issues, as they exist at a higher level and will require other changes. I call this point a failure.