New Power DEV Thread

[Zekester81]

I think maybe the parameter values in the recent dev build (may not be the case anymore) were a bit extreme, but I think the concept is excellent.
They're created the design triangle I mentioned before, which makes design much more interesting. Choose any two of: powerful. light, small.
I really love that, and IMHO I think the devs deserve kudos for coming up with a viable mechanic to achieve it.

Yeah, that ship is not small, it's not light, and it's not powerful, how can I not power it. It has crap for weapons(exception of one large beam array), I cut half the thrusters out, It has @30-35% open interior. I just want to be able to *reasonably* power a refit ship that is not really good at anything. I have this(apparently completely unreasonable) notion that we shouldn't have to completely scrap all previous designs because of an update. I did some serious redesign to get it working under 200.137-200.137 build to get it going. I understand there will be changes and am willing to work with them, but these are extreme currently. And yeah the 200.153 build doesn't seem to be any better.

Oh, and I know they can be built in multiple dimensions, but we seem to currently have to build to extreme dimensions to get any efficiency.

Let me clarify what I mean. I prefer the dimension limitations under 200.134 or 200.137 builds, I still wasn't getting max efficiency, but it was workable, and not extreme like currently.

 

[Jojomo]

Yeah, that ship is not small, it's not light, and it's not powerful, how can I not power it. It has crap for weapons(exception of one large beam array), I cut half the thrusters out, It has @30-35% open interior. I just want to be able to *reasonably* power a refit ship that is not really good at anything. I have this(apparently completely unreasonable) notion that we shouldn't have to completely scrap all previous designs because of an update. I did some serious redesign to get it working under 200.137-200.137 build to get it going. I understand there will be changes and am willing to work with them, but these are extreme currently. And yeah the 200.153 build doesn't seem to be any better.

Oh, and I know they can be built in multiple dimensions, but we seem to currently have to build to extreme dimensions to get any efficiency.

Why do you persistent with using dev builds? They're coming out at the rate of several per day recently, trying to update existing ships to fit them sounds like a recipe for extreme frustration to me.

 

[Zekester81]

Why do you persistent with using dev builds? They're coming out at the rate of several per day recently, trying to update existing ships to fit them sound like a recipe for extreme frustration to me.

So I know what's going on, and have some voice in what's going on. The more input they get, the better. And so I know previously built ships will function with work put into them.

 

[Jojomo]

So I know what's going on, and have some voice in what's going on. The more input they get, the better. And so I know previously built ships will function with work put into them.

Fair enough, but when they're coming out every few hours they're probably not really being driven by player feedback, and anything you learn is likely to be obsolete soon.

I think hoping old ships will play nicely with the new systems is pretty unlikely, and from my perspective it's not a good way to pass judgement on a new system or build.

 

[Snowtiger256]

Why do you persistent with using dev builds? They're coming out at the rate of several per day recently, trying to update existing ships to fit them sounds like a recipe for extreme frustration to me.

The Reactor/Stabilizer config hasn't changed for the last half-a-dozen builds at least, and most of the builds thereafter seem to have been bugfixes and UI work, so we don't have to change our testing builds for every single update anyway.

 

[Zekester81]

But a person can hope can't they? If not, they might as well purge the community content center completely when they are done. I would hope that they read some of this at least.

 

[Jojomo]

The Reactor/Stabilizer config hasn't changed for the last half-a-dozen builds at least, and most of the builds thereafter seem to have been bugfixes and UI work, so we don't have to change our testing builds for every single update anyway.

That's only a couple of days though, and any new build could change it. Everyone's free to do what they want with dev builds, but I think investing in them at the moment is premature.

 

[Top 4ce]

That's only a couple of days though, and any new build could change it. Everyone's free to do what they want with dev builds, but I think investing in them at the moment is premature.

I see it more as testing.

 

[Snowtiger256]

I think hoping old ships will play nicely with the new systems is pretty unlikely, and from my perspective it's not a good way to pass judgement on a new system or build.

That's only a couple of days though, and any new build could change it. Everyone's free to do what they want with dev builds, but I think investing in them at the moment is premature.

That's the reason I keep my dev build testing stuff as easily modifiable as possible. I haven't even spawned any of my actual "finished and working" builds in, so please don't assume I've done that.

At first, I used an incomplete build of my main miner for testing purposes (a very early-phase, incomplete build with a barely functional power system, and the salvage array from that build), but I already got what I wanted from those tests, and downscaled into a more manageable testing setup.

At the moment, I'm just keeping a cursory eye on what's happening with the dev builds, so I'll know what's going on in that front. This is necessary because there are no official dev blogs being published on the dev builds.

 

[Dire Venom]

As I said. Make reactor and stabilizer connected by conduit (disconnecting will leads to lose stabilizing effect). Add HUGE weight to the stabilizer and reactor blocks (to add some really bad turning abilities if you build loooooooong ship with two really heavy ends), and make stabilizers benefits from 3D shape, preferably made by smaller groups, connected with conduits to be three dimensional object (benefits from maximum X,Y and Z values)... or be DOOMed by deadly needles

Just bear in mind that starmade logic doesn't quite work like that.....(weight distribution doesn't matter in starmade, having a heavy end and a light end has the same effect as the same weight evenly distrubuted) I do agree regarding requiring conduits conections between reactor and stabilizors though.

As far as the dev builds go, I would hope balancing is done with ship builds in mind (etc if we set stabilizor to x distance what will ship designs look like? How effective is the same ship is we do x?) Currently it just seems like random numbers are being inputed XD

 

[Zekester81]

I do agree regarding requiring conduits conections between reactor and stabilizors though.

Me too, and I would suggest to them of trying a build like that with shorter or no distance requirements for the stabilizers as trade off for requiring conduit.

I would go further and suggest that reactor shapes affect total power or recharge rates as well. EG, long reactor produces faster charge, wide/tall reactor more base capacity, but it's just a thought.

 

[kikaha]

mmmmm
Everyone talks about lenght and power efficiency in the same sentence to judge the value of a ship.
I think most of you are seeing this new power the wrong way.

i believe that new power will allow ship of any size to be quite efficient on the contrary; BUT each in its role.
Power is "limited" but not how you use it on the ship. Or the station.

i don't build new shells to test that new power. I empty my already fonctionning ship and refit them. In doing so i find them a rôle in my fleet even more specific than before the new power. And so far i'm getting happier and happier with how it works.

Well except for the high number of blocks i have to use just for power. the reactor power block and the stabilizer should be a lot more efficient, heavy (mass) and costly so as to reduce their number.

 

[Jojomo]

Me too, and I would suggest to them of trying a build like that with shorter or no distance requirements for the stabilizers as trade off for requiring conduit.

Then people would just put them together and not require any conduit!

 

[Capt Black001]

Ive been doing a lot of my research on power verses weapons or support tools lately and Ive came to a conclusion, If you are building a fleet of ships and build a carrier for it. I can see using 5,000,000 power regenerated carriers with hefty weapons.

In the past, I was able to build 9 - 12 ships in a fleet, 50 - 60 m in length,9 x miners had a 9 x 9 solid pattern at 30m each,12 x CC-Fighters had 15 x 30m barrels and my 9 x BC-I (beam, cannon, Ion 50%)had 4 x 25m barrels.

Now, My miners are at 124m long for 22500 regen/sec power required to do the same before. CC - Fighters are now 112m long, once again because of power requirements. I havnt been able to rebuild the BC-I .5 yet due to power requirements now requiring a larger class ship size. ( in the 1000's for sure. Possibly 175m in length.) These are big ships, now requiring bigger carriers. So a 600 - 700m Carrier will be needed to carry these fleets. So a 6M, 7M,or 8M powered ships will be built. I think its time to upgrade my computer, 8G ram will be slow going.

 

[Jojomo]

In the past, I was able to build 9 - 12 ships in a fleet, 50 - 60 m in length,9 x miners had a 9 x 9 solid pattern at 30m each,12 x CC-Fighters had 15 x 30m barrels and my 9 x BC-I (beam, cannon, Ion 50%)had 4 x 25m barrels.

Now, My miners are at 124m long for 22500 regen/sec power required to do the same before.

Here, 22500 e/s in a 60m ship. (The entire ship is in shot, there's nothing hidden off-screen).
Build is 200.153

 

[Capt Black001]

Here, 22500 e/s in a 60m ship. (The entire ship is in shot, there's nothing hidden off-screen).
Build is 200.153

I take it that none of the stabilizers are at 100% effective, they can't be.


View attachment 45934

Here are my findings as of DEV 153

 

[Comradecolonel]

I haven't been testing the builds too much as I have been very busy. It seems now every time I go and check my ship gets weaker and weaker. I've been testing a ship that literally can not even remotely do what it was capable of in previous builds. If there was some complexity to the system I would say that I must be doing something wrong. I don't think that's the case. It seems to me like if you actually put time into systems to squeeze out the potential in systems, you have nothing to do now.

I was at least hoping for an evolution of systems. I was hoping there would be more to build that just plopping down blocks. It seems that instead of making cool, intricate systems we have just more grouping mechanics. Still very disappointed with this. I feel that this system is a big step backwards as far as system design goes. I'll maybe try refitting something else, but I have little hope.

The ship in question that I have been focusing my testing on is a 700 mass interceptor that I love to fly around sort of like a shuttle. With the previous system, it had max overdrive and tons of thrust. I could inhibit, scan, jam and shoot while moving and still have power flowing. Now the thing literally can't move and I've taken out A LOT of thruster blocks. I only get about 2000 power out of it. It's also not shaped like a stick so the stabilization is at 32% per block. Seems ridiculous that I can't put a reactor in the middle of my ship, where it would safe from enemy fire. I'm essentially forced to design my ship in a certain way if I want the same performance. It's really stupid if you ask me.

I also feel like the chamber system was inflated a bit. It seemed like we were going to get some new tweaking abilities for ship stats. The reality is that the way I used to create systems has simply been converted into a tree. It seems no different and now we have these generic looking block instead of modules. We losing decorative ability and raw customization at the same time.

I guess the Schine has finally run out of ideas.

 

[Jojomo]

I take it that none of the stabilizers are at 100% effective, they can't be.

No, of course not. The average stabilisation is around 33%.
The mass increase from this compared to all stabilisers at 100% stabilisation is roughly +175. What percentage of your 60m long ship's total mass is 175 equivalent to?

[doublepost=1509784735,1509783851][/doublepost]

The ship in question that I have been focusing my testing on is a 700 mass interceptor that I love to fly around sort of like a shuttle. With the previous system, it had max overdrive and tons of thrust. I could inhibit, scan, jam and shoot while moving and still have power flowing. Now the thing literally can't move and I've taken out A LOT of thruster blocks. I only get about 2000 power out of it. It's also not shaped like a stick so the stabilization is at 32% per block.

Trouble retrofitting a ship designed for different system mechanics while keeping the exact same abilities really doesn't seem like a strong argument to me.

How long is the longest axis on your interceptor?
2000 e/s can power enough thrusters for almost 1600 thrust (that's a lot better than "literally can't move" on a 700 mass ship).

Seemsridiculous that I can't put a reactor in the middle of my ship, where it would safe from enemy fire. I'm essentially forced to design my ship in a certain way if I want the same performance. It's really stupid if you ask me.

You can put it in the middle, but every decision you make (like putting your reactor in the middle) has both pros and cons associated with it, I.e. it's always a compromise between something you want and something you don't want, which in my personal opinion is excellent, because it makes design truly interesting.

 

[Valck]

I'm essentially forced to design my ship in a certain way if I want the same performance. It's really stupid if you ask me.

Of course you won't get the same performance, as you're designing for a different set of rules. Everybody else however has to design to those same rules, which means you'll get comparable performance relative to other ships.

And because you haven't had the time to test a bit more, which of course is not your fault, I'm now telling you that the different chamber effects have different IDs, and if you select them in build mode, they don't show their icons unless their chamber's function is still unspecified - which leads me to believe they could possibly each have their own texture instead of just a dot painted on, depending on their function. Redecorating on the fly - how cool is that?
Texture work takes time, and good texture work even more so.
Similar things could be said about the chambers themselves, there are still functions added, dropped, or changed, and specific values are changed almost from build to build.

I wouldn't jump to conclusions just yet about Schine's creativity.

Also, don't forget that not having your one ship being able to jump, cloak, mine, shoot, and win the Indy 500 all at the same time is one of the stated goals of these changes.

 

[kupu]

It seems no different and now we have these generic looking block instead of modules. We losing decorative ability and raw customization at the same time.

It is currently a conscious decision not to turn chambers into unique or decorative blocks. In this specific case, the module block will be relatively plain and denote type /activity only - just as the effect modules did. We will continue to try marry interesting visuals and system blocks in the future, but the chamber set specifically may remain utilitarian in nature.

I'd sooner make more deco' blocks when possible to try fill some of the eye candy roles rather than systems having to be used because nothing else exists. I'm now painfully aware how much people decorate with systems as when they change or get removed it's pretty devastating. So if these specific systems are for now really grounded in the mechanics and not so much decorative purpose, i'm ok with that. Especially considering how susceptible to change they are.