Devblog 2017 - 09 - 21

[LoSboccacc]

but why even have conduits if they serve no purpose in game? it's just busywork. can't we just link chambers and reactors from a menu or something like the current block c>v connection system, that works beautifully

 

[Panpiper]

Ninja'd by Lancake.

I think you should let us inherit power from docked ships and turrets. Because you have effecitvly killed multi part "component" ships.

Yes, they did that deliberately. Using docked power systems, and understanding their complexities well enough to actually build using them, was a complicated thing that most beginning players could not fathom, and many non-beginning players did not want to have to fathom. Schine has made the decision to MASSIVELY dumb down the game so that it is now balanced for RP players. Inherited power has been killed deliberately.

The amount of power a ship has is a direct relationship to the size of the ship. This can be exceeded only to a relatively small degree by accepting a lower stabilizer efficiency and deciding to accept the mass penalty so as to squeeze in more power. The only real decisions now are; what size ship is optimum for it's role, whether or not to have a slightly slower ship with weapons for each range category (slower due to the extra mass of the weapons), and what your mass ratios will be between maneuverability and defense. That and how you used your chamber points of course. That's it. Other than that it is differences in pretty.

There may be some actual game left in the game with strategic decisions, but there is little game left in building decisions. Starmade ship building now has little more 'game' depth any more than do games that just have you add a selection of pre-built modules to a selection of hull stats. The decision has been made. Like it or leave it. It's done.

I do not see whats stopping people from making stick like ships of reactors and stabilizers in max box dimension for optimal distance.

We may well see ships with distant tails. Ships that have all their build blocks, the ship proper with weapons, et. al., in one section, and then a tail trailing two kilometers behind of just stabilizers. It will likely suck at turning, but have lots of power. Consider that the new doom cube. It will probably wreak havoc on servers when one part of the ship is in a fight taking damage while the other part is in another sector.

I might be misunderstanding the question, but aren't shields and thrusters somewhat filler blocks right now? Currently, I don't see why a player would choose (for the most part) decorative blocks or air over shields or thrust.

Shields and thrusters use up precious power. There is no way currently to exceed the fixed power relationship of power and ship size, so you cannot indiscriminately use power. Moreover, shields and thrusters have a LOT more mass than do decorative blocks. If you want to make pretty, decorative blocks are the way to go.

 

[Edymnion]

4. I think you should let us inherit power from docked ships and turrets. Because you have effecitvly killed multi part "component" ships. Like the transforming mech fighters! How will stuff like that work now?

And you have also killed "generic turrets" because now we have to make sure our mother structure/ship has to be able to power everything connected to it instead of just serving as a connection point. Lets say I made a huge turret that is self powered and can be used anywhere, I cant use it anywhere anymore unless I slap down enough reactors. Which is unrealistic. The thing is docked to only needs to serve as the pivot point, not the power source.

Well the problem there was server destroying lag caused by people using docked reactors.

They were making the base ship, giving it soft cap to run the thrusters, then docking an internal reactor to it inside the ship, and then docking all of the turrets to that. Which meant if/when that internal docked reactor came loose, horrible things happened to the server as it tried to calculate collisions.

This seems like a good thing to me, but then I generally don't self-power my turrets anyway.

 

[Ithirahad]

Shields and thrusters use up precious power.

Shield capacitors use power?

 

[Panpiper]

Well the problem there was server destroying lag caused by people using docked reactors.

They were making the base ship, giving it soft cap to run the thrusters, then docking an internal reactor to it inside the ship, and then docking all of the turrets to that. Which meant if/when that internal docked reactor came loose, horrible things happened to the server as it tried to calculate collisions.

This seems like a good thing to me, but then I generally don't self-power my turrets anyway.

Of course they could have simply changed the docking system such that if a docked reactor's docking mechanism was destroyed, instead of coming 'loose', floating around and creating lag, it stayed in place and simply went inert. (That idea had been brought up many times in suggestions and other threads.) This is the sort of thing I mean when I use the metaphor, throwing out the baby with the bath water.

 

[Cluwne]

I remember a blog post about the system from some time ago where we were told about the convex hull algorithms.
Do these algorithms make that the shape of the reactor actually matter and determine the maximum efficiency distance?
In other words, would it be possible to make, say, a long thin reactor and have stabilizers relatively close in a ring around it?

Spoiler: Something like this.

As opposed to long narrow ships with reactor and stabilizer blobs on either ends.

Power auxiliary will have no function with the new power system

Ah, that settles it then. Somewhat sad to see it go so soon-ish. Oh well...

Auxiliary did introduce an interesting mechanic where its efficiency also increased its vulnerability, and change the way how you would armor that.

May I suggest something?
Either add a "volatility" parameter to reactors which could make large ones, well, volatile. A game of risk and reward if you will.
Or add a chamber (effect) which would reintroduce this mechanic as some sort of a trade-off, whether for additional chamber capacity or power output. Some sort of an "overdrive chamber" perhaps?
Just a thought.

 

[Edymnion]

Of course they could have simply changed the docking system such that if a docked reactor's docking mechanism was destroyed, instead of coming 'loose', floating around and creating lag, it stayed in place and simply went inert. (That idea had been brought up many times in suggestions and other threads.) This is the sort of thing I mean when I use the metaphor, throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Or in time after some play testing, they may decide to let us use multiple reactors simultaneously and dedicate what they power.

So we could have a warp core for the engines, then weapon batteries, etc.

They're being overly cautious right now, which is good. It is better to go too small to begin with and then ratchet it up in increments than it is to go too big and piss people off with nerfs.

 

[Panpiper]

Shield capacitors use power?

The shield 'system' as a whole does, especially in combat. One cannot simply add to that shield system without regard to the consequences to it's power when push comes to shove.

But you are right, strictly speaking, extra shield blocks alone do not use power.

 

[Ithirahad]

The shield 'system' as a whole does, especially in combat. One cannot simply add to that shield system without regard to the consequences to it's power when push comes to shove.

But you are right, strictly speaking, extra shield blocks alone do not use power.

Uhm, there's not that much to it. Whether you have 300 or 3,000,000 shield capacitor blocks, the load on your reactor remains the same as long as you don't mess with the generators. The only consequence to power from adding shield caps is from the extra thrusters you'd probably end up adding to keep your TWR up. :P

Unless, of course, they add a significant maintenance power cost to shield capacitors, but I don't see any good reason for that. Large shield capacity (as opposed to large shield regen) should be encouraged IMO.

 

[Lancake]

I remember a blog post about the system from some time ago where we were told about the convex hull algorithms.
Do these algorithms make that the shape of the reactor actually matter and determine the maximum efficiency distance?
In other words, would it be possible to make, say, a long thin reactor and have stabilizers relatively close in a ring around it?

The efficiency distance only cares about the reactor size count so far. Your reactor shape already changes the convex hull, and will affect the minimum distance, but making just a box of reactor blocks also makes it extremely vulnerable if it gets hit, as a lot more blocks will be taken out if they're clustered like that.

A long thing reactor would have a thin convex hull too, and while the stabilizers could be relatively close in a ring around it, it heavily depends on the reactor size too.

Spoiler: Convex hull shape

 

[nightrune]

Large shield capacity (as opposed to large shield regen) should be encouraged

The way I see it, Shield capacity versus Regen should be a player choice for any given ship, both should be viable but play very differently.

 

[AlabasterJazz]

I'm wondering if its possible to implement self-repair module to a ship? For instance revamp the Astrotech Computer slightly: Put the ship's blueprint into a Astrotech Computer and the ship will slowly repair damaged and/or missing blocks based on the Astrotech's priority and upgrade tree. Would be nice for on the go repairs. Make it slow so that shipyards and dedicated repair ships aren't useless, but I think it's reasonable that ships should have the ability to slowly repair over time

 

[Cluwne]

The efficiency distance only cares about the reactor size count so far.

I was asking about the overall placement and whether or not a "barbell with reactor parts on either end"-designs would be the only way to go, because it sure as hell looks like it.

 

[Panpiper]

I was asking about the overall placement and whether or not a "barbell with reactor parts on either end"-designs would be the only way to go, because it sure as hell looks like it.

I expect Starmade ships will not look all that barbellish in the end. They will all however be long and thin. Three dimensions no longer count, only one dimension counts. Anything else will be seriously sub optimum. (The exception will be 'really' small ships, which could be any shape.)

 

[Cluwne]

Panpiper
1). Would you cut that shit already? It stopped being entertaining around five posts ago.

2). If the shape of the reactor does matter the ships will look nothing like your "two needles one after another", since that would be woefully inefficient in so many ways.
It all really depends on how much rеtаrd Schine went with this system. Never go full rеtаrd kids.

3). The old system, peculiar as it is, was a convoluted clusterfuck that required lots of effort to optimize this bundle of misery for little gain.
The new one, which I agree is a bit too simple, shifts the complexity form reactor tetris to chambers, their interaction and interaction between ships with varying chamber setups.
Shit's more tactical now, to put it simply.


Also I really appreciate the wordfilter here.
Remember kids, free speech is hate speech.

 

[LoSboccacc]

> Shit's more tactical now, to put it simply.


no, it's just yet another hp pool with degradation. hit location doesn't matter, like, at all. why even build chambers and shit then? just let us build whatever and allocate everything trough build points based on ship size, if you want to go for the placement/components are irrelevant route.

man I really dislike the way this is going, suits me for buying into "too early" access

 

[MaartenAll]

Help! The update is not showing in my launcher!
Someone know how to solve this?

 

[Panpiper]

Help! The update is not showing in my launcher!
Someone know how to solve this?

It's not an update patch, it's a 'progress report' on what they are working on.

 

[MaartenAll]

It's not an update patch, it's a 'progress report' on what they are working on.

Are you kidding me?
I freaking know what you are working on just stop giving me false hope with dev updates just release the power update already. They said 2-3 weeks and that was over 4 weeks ago!

 

[Comradecolonel]

Can't wait till this is out. So tired of hearing speculation on something that in COMPLETELY intangible. No players have access to this build yet we all seem to know how its going to turn out. I think this system has more potential than the old system but good or bad I'm waiting until I can actually play around with this.