Dimensional Power Gen: The Bane of Starmade Ship Design

[GDPR 302420]

dimensional rules XYZ, logarithmic bonus, diminishing return mechanics, etc are what keep people coming back to the game.

Citation needed

 

[GnomeKing]

(? citation ? )

"..a ship twice the length of another, built with half as many blocks/resources, can produce more power"
this makes no sense as any amount of hull/systems may or may not also be present; unless you mean specifically 'reactor blocks', in which case 'twice as many reactor blocks' could be placed badly equally also, in old and new ....

 

[The_Owl]

dimensional rules XYZ, logarithmic bonus, diminishing return mechanics, etc are what keep people coming back to the game.

i think actual content would make people come back to the game, not just random rules and bonuses.

 

[Dire Venom]

Some great disscusion here.
I can see that it is a somewhat complex problem without an apparent or obvious solution (or none of the solutions have been developed enough to be viable).

Back to the point, I feel that power capacity is an important part of balancing power generation. This whole recharge mechanic feels undeveloped and rushed, and does not make a whole lot of sense to me. If weapon blocks can store power, surely other blocks can too .....

Adding back power capacity into the current system would allow players to create ships with smaller reactors and extra capacity to supliment, or instead increase their ships size to allow fitting of a larger reactor and stabilizors.
Thus to increase your ships power, you can either make the ship bigger, or add in tempoary power capacity. Both have various benifits and drawbacks, and are a lot more enjoyable to work with rather than just linerly scaling reactors and ship size.

 

[Magrim]

(? citation ? )

"..a ship twice the length of another, built with half as many blocks/resources, can produce more power"
this makes no sense as any amount of hull/systems may or may not also be present; unless you mean specifically 'reactor blocks', in which case 'twice as many reactor blocks' could be placed badly equally also, in old and new ....

I can not fathom how you don't understand that statement. Can a 100m long ship be built using 50k blocks? Yes. Can a 200m long ship be built using 25k blocks? Yes. Who cares what hull/system blocks are used, It doesn't matter. The fact that the longer but cheaper ship produces more power is unbalanced

I feel that power capacity is an important part of balancing power generation.

It would bring back more variety to building power systems, somthing I'm for, but not necessarily balance the energy output disparity I metion above your quote. Though I'm not really sure why they took it out in the first place. Perhaps when weapons are overhauled it will be more clear.

 

[Jojomo]

I can not fathom how you don't understand that statement. Can a 100m long ship be built using 50k blocks? Yes. Can a 200m long ship be built using 25k blocks? Yes. Who cares what hull/system blocks are used, It doesn't matter. The fact that the longer but cheaper ship produces more power is unbalanced

The more expensive reactor/stabiliser combo produces more power.
Whether you then build a cheap or expensive ship around it is irrelevant.

 

[Magrim]

The more expensive reactor/stabiliser combo produces more power.
Whether you then build a cheap or expensive ship around it is irrelevant.

This is the problem I'm attempting to illustrate. There is no correlation between reactor size/output and ship size. This goes against the fact that the devs have indicated they want output limited relative to ship size. This is a good thing imo, but to be clear, I don't want it hard capped either. So what metric do they use to determine size? The obvious answer seems to be dimensions.

If that's true, then what balance can be attained in faction wars when a major part of winning will be resource management. If the smaller cheaper ship can do as good of a job as the larger more expensive ship then the only strategy will be to build spaghetti. This has nothing to do with build techniques, (which should be what determines a more effective ship than another) and everthing to do with exploiting an unbalanced system.

Is it balanced that a larger ship has a lower max potential energy output than a smaller ship, even if both are built with the same level of competency?

Of course it's not, but this is what we are dealing with when output is based on dims. I don't believe this issue can be corrected without changing the dimensional part of the equation. Alleviated, yeah but not fixed entirely. At least not without heavy restrictions on creativity.

 

[Jojomo]

Is it balanced that a larger ship has a lower max potential energy output than a smaller ship, even if both are built with the same level of competency?

Hmm, could you provide examples? For example an empty hull, and also a scaled up version of it the same hull, where the max possible power for the small hull is higher than for the large hull?

 

[AtraUnam]

Hmm, could you provide examples? For example an empty hull, and also a scaled up version of it the same hull, where the max possible power for the small hull is higher than for the large hull?

But thats not what he said, his point is that a 5k mass 200m long ship could have a higher power maximum than a 10k mass 150m long ship.

 

[Jojomo]

But thats not what he said, his point is that a 5k mass 200m long ship could have a higher power maximum than a 10k mass 150m long ship.

Ok, I misunderstood if that's the case.
As long as the 5k ship is devoting more mass to reactors/stabilisers than the 10k ship I don't see a problem.

 

[Magrim]

Ok, I misunderstood if that's the case.
As long as the 5k ship is devoting more mass to reactors/stabilisers than the 10k ship I don't see a problem.

The 5k mass ship's length is what gives it the ability to devote more mass to the reactor/stabilizer. The 10k mass ship can not devote any more because it's hamstrung by it's length.

 

[GnomeKing]

"The fact that the longer but cheaper ship produces more power is unbalanced" -Nope, it isn't.

The 'cheaper/more-powerful ship' must have been built using a design that better uses the inherent rules of the construction materials
The 'expensive/less powerful ship' could also have been built in that manner, but clearly hasn't...

Possibly we could think of certain automobiles for real world examples - the 'most expensive' car is not the most powerful/fastest.




should we just have block count or cbill value for balance? this is a game about building after all ...

 

[Jojomo]

The 5k mass ship's length is what gives it the ability to devote more mass to the reactor/stabilizer. The 10k mass ship can not devote any more because it's hamstrung by it's length.

So the ship mass is irrelevant here. Nothing else in the equation has any relationship with the ship masses.
What you're actually saying is that you don't like that the short ship can't potentially produce as much power as the long ship.

The fact that the short ship also happens to be heavier in your example is entirely arbitrary.
I don't see what you call a problem as a problem at all.

I design (ocean) ships for a living, and the maximum possible power you could theoretically put in a ship doesn't depend on the ship mass, it depends on the hull dimensions : the more space you have the bigger the engine you can fit.

 

[apelsinsaft]

So far there isn't a single suggestion that isn't riddled with issues. Any single solution that anybody has put forwards has always had something that makes it require "something else" to work fully. Different methods of implementing stabilizers or dimensional scaling seem to always need to turn to system blobbification or conduits, to prevent spaghetti builds and such. But that carries it's own issues, like forcing ships to be very chunky or in the case of conduits, requiring a ship to be an "unbroken" build.

What if we mixed up different suggestions? Take a little bit of stabilizers, take a little bit of block count, take a little bit of mass, take a little bit of silhouette, and make an average score out of that. Could some of the normal problems (spaghetti ships, dumbbell ships, borg cubes) be averted by mixing up the rules into one big compromise?

the devs have indicated they want output limited relative to ship size. This is a good thing imo, but to be clear, I don't want it hard capped either

What about something that gives freedom behind the rules, like not actually limiting the power output of the reactor once you're past the "reasonable" limit, but rather penalizing other systems of the builder's choice?

 

[Zoolimar]

What if we mixed up different suggestions? Take a little bit of stabilizers, take a little bit of block count, take a little bit of mass, take a little bit of silhouette, and make an average score out of that. Could some of the normal problems (spaghetti ships, dumbbell ships, borg cubes) be averted by mixing up the rules into one big compromise?

One big compromise always becomes one big mess. It will look bad from all sides, including probably programming part with multiple conditions interweaving to determine the effectiveness of the system. Though that is not the biggest problem. The main problem would be planning your ship beyond "build a shell and fill it with something". Who beyond devoted PVP players and those people who just like to build systems would be willing to sit over a monster of Excel table pre-calculating their ships to ensure that everything that they planned will work?

Such "compromise" will make any planning of ship systems tedious and too unintuitive for many players.

Where possible rules governing the system should be streamlined, standardised and clear. There could be complex caveats and special cases but then they preferably should not be directly leaning on things related to other systems. Old power generation is actually not a bad example of such a system where rules concerning dimensions of reactors care only about reactors themselves and not, say about the form of thrusters or the number of shield blocks.

 

[Nickizzy]

If you base it on volume:mass people will make sponge shields. If it’s on mass to volume people will make armor bricks with weapons attached, and balancing thruster power vs effect and mass vs power would be impossible.

 

[Jojomo]

The 5k mass ship's length is what gives it the ability to devote more mass to the reactor/stabilizer. The 10k mass ship can not devote any more because it's hamstrung by it's length.

Another way to think about this is:
the 200m ship, relative to the 150m ship, has both a higher potential power output, and a higher potential mass.

So both ships have a range of possible power outputs, and a range of possible masses, and the top end of both is larger for the 200m ship.
The point in the ranges that each ship will sit at is determined by the designer, and if you pick some points that you feel make the ships look "wrong" compared to each other that's entirely the fault of the designer, not the system.

The system matches the highest possible power with the highest possible mass: in the longest ship.
And that's the way it should be from my point of view.

 

[Magrim]

"The fact that the longer but cheaper ship produces more power is unbalanced" -Nope, it isn't.

The 'cheaper/more-powerful ship' must have been built using a design that better uses the inherent rules of the construction materials
The 'expensive/less powerful ship' could also have been built in that manner, but clearly hasn't...

Possibly we could think of certain automobiles for real world examples - the 'most expensive' car is not the most powerful/fastest.




should we just have block count or cbill value for balance? this is a game about building after all ...

Try not to focus too much on the qualifiers I used. Cheap or expensive is largely irrelevant. I used them, poorly I suppose, to make a point. It comes down to the fact that no matter how well built the larger ship is compared to the smaller ship, it will never make the same kind of power.

So the ship mass is irrelevant here. Nothing else in the equation has any relationship with the ship masses.
What you're actually saying is that you don't like that the short ship can't potentially produce as much power as the long ship.

The fact that the short ship also happens to be heavier in your example is entirely arbitrary.
I don't see what you call a problem as a problem at all.

I design (ocean) ships for a living, and the maximum possible power you could theoretically put in a ship doesn't depend on the ship mass, it depends on the hull dimensions : the more space you have the bigger the engine you can fit.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, would it not be more accurate to state that the volume of those vessels determines the size of the engine they can carry? Surely you wouldn't design a 1m x 1m x 300m long ocean craft then expect to fit a cruise liner engine on board.

If my assumption is correct, then volume would also work in starmade. Though, determining the volume of a ship would be made easier through calculating BC.

So far there isn't a single suggestion that isn't riddled with issues. Any single solution that anybody has put forwards has always had something that makes it require "something else" to work fully. Different methods of implementing stabilizers or dimensional scaling seem to always need to turn to system blobbification or conduits, to prevent spaghetti builds and such. But that carries it's own issues, like forcing ships to be very chunky or in the case of conduits, requiring a ship to be an "unbroken" build.

What if we mixed up different suggestions? Take a little bit of stabilizers, take a little bit of block count, take a little bit of mass, take a little bit of silhouette, and make an average score out of that. Could some of the normal problems (spaghetti ships, dumbbell ships, borg cubes) be averted by mixing up the rules into one big compromise?

What about something that gives freedom behind the rules, like not actually limiting the power output of the reactor once you're past the "reasonable" limit, but rather penalizing other systems of the builder's choice?

The biggest problem I see with mass for power is that it could be exploited by using heavier blocks to gain an advantage. Although this just might balance itself out enough to not be a problem. A reduced efficiency curve could combat ultra massive ships but idk.

The biggest problem I see with BC for power is not knowing how many blocks your ship will have before it's finished, which is also present in the mass for power model. I will admit that it could be a major problem for some, even a deal breaker for others, but for the life of me I can't see any exploits in this system.

If you base it on volume:mass people will make sponge shields. If it’s on mass to volume people will make armor bricks with weapons attached, and balancing thruster power vs effect and mass vs power would be impossible.

I think those exploits are a direct result of mass being part of the equation. Which is a shame because mass is a good indicator of resource cost.

Can you think of an exploit in a purely block count system? If non physical/indestructible blocks were excluded in the calculation?

Another way to think about this is:
the 200m ship, relative to the 150m ship, has both a higher potential power output, and a higher potential mass.

So both ships have a range of possible power outputs, and a range of possible masses, and the top end of both is larger for the 200m ship.
The point in the ranges that each ship will sit at is determined by the designer, and if you pick some points that you feel make the ships look "wrong" compared to each other that's entirely the fault of the designer, not the system.

The system matches the highest possible power with the highest possible mass: in the longest ship.
And that's the way it should be from my point of view.

You are using length to compare the two ships in your example, which you have every right to do, but I would have to disagree that it's an accurate metric. If you believe it is, then everything is fine and spaghetti ships are the epitome of efficiency because they have a higher possible mass than a shorter ship.

I know that's not really the case with you because I've seen previous posts of yours that seem to state otherwise, so I'm a bit confused why you disagree with me on this.

 

[Jojomo]

Correct me if I'm wrong but, would it not be more accurate to state that the volume of those vessels determines the size of the engine they can carry? Surely you wouldn't design a 1m x 1m x 300m long ocean craft then expect to fit a cruise liner engine on board.

If my assumption is correct, then volume would also work in starmade. Though, determining the volume of a ship would be made easier through calculating BC.

Yes, volume of course - but maximum volume is just a function of dimensions, so when I say (or see) "length" in this thread ("Dimensional...") I'm just thinking of it as a contraction of/substitute for size/volume.

You are using length to compare the two ships in your example, which you have every right to do, but I would have to disagree that it's an accurate metric. If you believe it is, then everything is fine and spaghetti ships are the epitome of efficiency because they have a higher possible mass than a shorter ship.

I know that's not really the case with you because I've seen previous posts of yours that seem to state otherwise, so I'm a bit confused why you disagree with me on this.

No, I definitely agree spaghetti is a problem that needs a solution.
As far as anyone seems to know spaghetti is the epitome of design performance, but that isn't fine, and it isn't (directly) because they have a higher possible mass than a shorter ship - a spaghetti ship could be either longer or shorter than a non-spaghetti ship.

I just don't think a ship should have more power than another just because it's heavier. It should have more power because it's been given a bigger/better reactor/stabiliser pair.

 

[Magrim]

Yes, volume of course - but maximum volume is just a function of dimensions, so when I say (or see) "length" in this thread ("Dimensional...") I'm just thinking of it as a contraction of/substitute for size/volume.


No, I definitely agree spaghetti is a problem that needs a solution.
As far as anyone seems to know spaghetti is the epitome of design performance, but that isn't fine, and it isn't (directly) because they have a higher possible mass than a shorter ship - a spaghetti ship could be either longer or shorter than a non-spaghetti ship.

I just don't think a ship should have more power than another just because it's heavier. It should have more power because it's been given a bigger/better reactor/stabiliser pair.

Oh, I see. How would you limit reactor output relative to ship size then without using ship size to calculate it?