New Power DEV Thread

[jstenholt]

This thread is making my brain itch. I can't wait for this to hit live so I can test it in a state more fitting my laziness.

 

[kikaha]

Damm
Last version broken ? 0.200.156
No access to reactor/chamber menu.
Left side menu now half-sized (?)
Stabilizers not colored anymore.

 

[brucethemoose]

Damm
Last version broken ? 0.200.156
No access to reactor/chamber menu.
Left side menu now half-sized (?)
Stabilizers not colored anymore.

Yeah my stabilizers broke too, even ona tiny ship. Relogging helped.



Also, I gotta say, the scalability of this new power system is... Interesting. Building titans is kinda hard, but if you don't care about looks, death cubes scale better than ever... And I'm not sure that's such a great thing.

 

[Jojomo]

This new system incredibly limits my choices, and will most likely lead to many ships that function and behave the same.

Your choices are literally infinite. Power 2.0 isn't making any difference to the similarities in ship function and behaviour (not decreasing it anyway)

I have state AGAIN and AGAIN that when I build the reactor like a TWIZZLER, HOT DOG, LONG STICK, I can make my ship do whatever I want. If I don't do that then I'm left with not enough power.

Except that I've demonstrated to you, in this very thread, that you can have enough power without your ship being a stick. To say that you need to build a stick to have enough power is utterly untrue.

Here's another, now that you've said your ship is square:

Same power, 31x31 dimensions, 104 stabilisers (lighter than the design with the central reactor and two stabiliser groups)


Or another that's lighter again, but doesn't have a reactor as a single point of failure. Still the same power, and 31x31:

I want it to function as an interceptor. If you can build a spy ship why can't I build something to stop it? I don't see how wanting a ship to fill a role is unreasonable. In the old system my ship had plenty of weaknesses, considering a lot of the system blocks were thrusters. It had blinding speed and enough firepower to kill whatever might try to run away. It did exactly what you would expect an interceptor to do. How is wanting something similar unreasonable?

No-one said it was. I'll repeat what I said: wanting to make a ship with the identical mass, identical size, identical power, identical abilities, as something designed for a different set of rules, is unreasonable.
Making something similar seems pretty reasonable to me, and is absolutely possible.

If it isn't a stick it will categorically be inferior. I don't think a performance oriented player would intentionally make his hull a shape that will give him less power output and more weight.The game still lets you build whatever you want but when everyone is kicking your ass with ships that all have the same general shape it'll definitely take the wind out of your sails.

This sounds a bit overly dramatic. There's no reason at all to think that will occur any more than it did for power 1.0. Power 1.0 had an "optimal" hull shape too (as far as the power system was concerned).

The first example is the same thing that I did but side to side instead of front to back. The second has 4x the amount of stabilizers on it. I don't see how either of those support an efficient well protected design. Four reactors wouldn't work because you can only have one reactor at a time.

Sorry, I mistyped that, I mean 4 stabiliser groups. It's the top image in this post.
The second design you're referring to (previous post) could be made to have the same speed and abilities as the first, so don't follow why you can't see that as efficient enough or well protected enough...?

I define best as most power for least amount of blocks/weight. If there were other criteria I would expand it but there isn't. If I sacrifice protection in layout I'm left with ship that can barely power itself to move.

As I've now shown with three separate power designs, that's just false. You can have a central reactor, or pair of redundant reactors, and still have the same level of power in your ship.

As for "best" you could have made a "square" ship "better" by making it a cube in power 1.0, but you didn't....I don't think your "best" is always the absolute goal.

 

[GnomeKing]

to quote Jojomo "but in almost all cases the stabilisers shouldn't be placed where they have 100% effect (i.e. fully green), somewhere closer will almost always be better (increased stabiliser mass will be offset by reduced ship mass that results from a shorter ship). "

The example you gave earlier (moving reactors to middle) resulted in c.9% ship-mass increase and c.10%+ increase in thruster modules. This is not an insignificant amount - At very small mass/size these numbers are easy to deal with. But as size and mass increase such numbers become much much harder to keep up with. Not only does surface area and hull-mass increase exponentially (requiring more thrust potential for whole ship), but effectiveness/power-useage of each thruster module is exponentially reduced (more power is required per unit of thrust).

Very soon 'c.10% extra mass/thrusters' becomes becomes deal breaker for a 'better' vs a 'worse' ship.

Therefore nobody is going to build stabalisers that are not 100% efficient, unless there is some extraneous factor forcing them too (eg they just like that particular hull/shell). Nor should they, as the difference in extra stabalisers+their mass & the extra thrusters + their mass becomes significant very quickly as total-ship mass increases, eg above 5k.

Of course thrust may also change :/- and with everything in potential flux it is becoming very hard to make meaningful considerations of the system as a whole. I can only theorize on principles - and so far i am far from convinced about the basic principle of power 2.0. Nobody interested in efficient thrust-mass ratio would take a c.10% mass and thruster hit, except perhaps for 'small' ships where thrust modules operate at super-high efficiency- and in 'very big' ships where extra stabaliser vs extra hull-skin mass becomes potential very significant factor (for 'titans' the issue is probably moot anyway)

I have always tended to fit hull-skins to systems, rather than pack systems into a hull - good building in Starmade needs this balance (it is not just about block decoration after all), and lots of players build this way. We also do 're-fit' hulls but i think most fleets prized war ships are built around a basically systems first approach, rather than stuffing a pretty hull. The most fun and useful combat ships might be in 5-15k total-mass ranges. At these sizes the curves for power and thrust are just about near sweet spots, and the ships can be highly maneuverable and significantly powerful (if built with care of course). The kinds of thrust/mass penalties given in the previous example would just not be acceptable in such a build. Period.

Although players might build stabalisers with less-than 100% efficiency, why would anybody, especially when starting a new build ?

 

[Jojomo]

to quote Jojomo "but in almost all cases the stabilisers shouldn't be placed where they have 100% effect (i.e. fully green), somewhere closer will almost always be better (increased stabiliser mass will be offset by reduced ship mass that results from a shorter ship). "

The example you gave earlier (moving reactors to middle) resulted in c.9% ship-mass increase and c.10%+ increase in thruster modules. This is not an insignificant amount - At very small mass/size these numbers are easy to deal with.

---snip---

Although players might build stabalisers with less-than 100% efficiency, why would anybody, especially when starting a new build ?

None of the designs I gave earlier were examples of what you're talking about. They were specifically for Comradecolonel's design, showing that he could achieve enough power without being a stick.

On to your topic:
If you build a reactor, and stabilisers at 100% effect distance, and then fully cover the lot with the minimum number of hull blocks required to make a single space hollow shell around them, we have what I'll call "Ship A"

If I then take a reactor the same size, but place my stabilisers at 95% (for example) effect distance, I will have to add a few extra stabiliser blocks to ensure I have full stabilisation, but after I've covered mine with hull, my ship will be lighter and shorter than ship A, with the same power output.
I.e. a "better" ship.
The extra stabiliser mass I added is more than reversed by the hull mass I saved.

That is the effect I'm talking about, and that's why it will usually be a bad idea to put stabilisers at 100% effect distance.
(It is absolutely possible to contrive a counter-example, but in the vast majority of designs, 100% effect distance won't be best)

 

[GnomeKing]

I see your point Jojomo - and that could be a matter of where the cut-off is set in configs for the sweet-spot where extra hull-skin is worse choice than more sub-100% stabalisers. (that is assuming a full skin...)

Since it is unclear how thrusters and mass ratio will / wont change this issue is very hard to consider. However my gut feeling is that the kinds of tweaking to adjust a larger stabliser group to below 100% (for sake of hull saving) will be pretty minimal and will still see 90%+ efficiency in any build concerned with systems, thrust, and power.

I cant even seriously attempt to see how that might work out on a whole new build, because we don't know how thrust (and/or other system block numbers) might change (less modules ? > therefor more powerful > therefore even more quest for 100% stabliser groups at expense of 'building 'Dumb-bell ships' :/ )

...or perhaps power, thrust etc generation will just be a minimal and trivial concern ? ...simplifying building to the lowest common denominator...


[maybe i do it like this: ]

armored reactor +systems pod ..(some distance) ....turret racks and core...(some distance) ...armored stablisers+systems pod

 

[Jojomo]

I see your point Jojomo - and that could be a matter of where the cut-off is set in configs for the sweet-spot where extra hull-skin is worse choice than more sub-100% stabalisers. (that is assuming a full skin...)

Since it is unclear how thrusters and mass ratio will / wont change this issue is very hard to consider. However my gut feeling is that the kinds of tweaking to adjust a larger stabliser group to below 100% (for sake of hull saving) will be pretty minimal and will still see 90%+ efficiency in any build concerned with systems, thrust, and power.

For most ships I doubt it. Because of the recent stabiliser separation distance increase, you can save a lot of hull by reducing stabiliser efficiency.

Obviously it depends on the geometry of each individual ship, and how heavily armoured it is, and what the final configs are, but I would expect typical stabiliser efficiency in most designs to be a lot lower than 90%, even in PvP tournament ships, and most definitely in other ships.

 

[Gandrac]

hat is the effect I'm talking about, and that's why it will usually be a bad idea to put stabilisers at 100% effect distance.
(It is absolutely possible to contrive a counter-example, but in the vast majority of designs, 100% effect distance won't be best)

Maybe the Effectiveness Indicators are sending the wrong message. Maybe the should be designed as neutral as possible. For example not using percentages or the red to green color indication. Otherwise especially new Players might draw the wrong conclusions.

 

[Ithirahad]

Maybe the Effectiveness Indicators are sending the wrong message. Maybe the should be designed as neutral as possible. For example not using percentages or the red to green color indication. Otherwise especially new Players might draw the wrong conclusions.

Yeah, I was thinking that only stabilizers at 0.0% effectiveness should be red. The shading for functional stabilizers should range from yellow to green.

 

[jstenholt]

So just curious. How nightmarish would you Power Update experts say an update refit of this unfinished, kilometer long Titan will be?

 

[kikaha]

So just curious. How nightmarish would you Power Update experts say an update refit of this unfinished, kilometer long Titan will be?

Easy, its a long box.

 

[Ghent96]

New power system is a laughable and total failure.

... Building is exactly as tedious as it was before. I'm still cramming my ships full of blocks in order to get better performance. ...

Applause. Perfect summary of Schine's utter failure to date. I hear Darth Vader in my mind, quoting "Now [your] failure is complete!"

They just keep making everything more difficult for us, and +90% of players have left as a result.

 

[Ithirahad]

They just keep making everything more difficult for us, and +90% of players have left as a result.

Do you really think that, and not the lack of content and abundance of generally more enjoyable games, is why 90% of the playerbase left?

New system or old system, what's going to bring in and keep players is two things.

1. A living universe, and things to do out in the world with all those fancy ships you build.
2. A decent combat objective system with material-generation rewards, to make PvP viable. The current system of only needing a homebase to operate is naturally going to lead to a dead game on the PvP side.

 

[Comradecolonel]

Applause. Perfect summary of Schine's utter failure to date. I hear Darth Vader in my mind, quoting "Now [your] failure is complete!"

They just keep making everything more difficult for us, and +90% of players have left as a result.

This is my point. Why ruin all the ships I've built so far for a new system that adds IMO nothing to the game. This power system is just simpilfied and more directly addresses what power 1.0 tried to address. In the end though it all feels very the same.

I always felt that the old system had room to improve. Not just power but all the modules like scanners, jump drives, etc. I always felt there was sooooo much more depth that could be added without making things complicated. Instead depth has been taken out of the system. It seems the amount of decisions you have to make is confused with how easy the systems are to understand. I would give an example but that would be moot at this point.

I guess I should take a hint and give up for now. It's clear that many of the people left playing the game will take whatever they can get.

 

[Dire Venom]

So just curious. How nightmarish would you Power Update experts say an update refit of this unfinished, kilometer long Titan will be?

Any sort of refit would take ages imo. That's what you get for building big ships :P

 

[Jojomo]

This power system is just simpilfied and more directly addresses what power 1.0 tried to address.
...
I always felt there was sooooo much more depth that could be added without making things complicated.

Do you prefer simple or complicated? I can't tell.

Instead depth has been taken out of the system.

One possible simple way of thinking about power system depth:

In power 1.0, excluding designs that had multiple reactors (which FTR I loved and would like to still have), you had a very, very good chance of being able to guess pretty much exactly what a ship's power system looked like just by viewing the hull. Even odd shaped hulls like spheres or saddles or composite shapes.

In power 2.0, even for the simplest possible hull shapes (say a cylinder for example) you'd pretty much never have a better than 50% chance of guessing what the power system looks like. Even the simplest one dimensional stick hull will, just for starters, be making the choice between a lighter power system with the reactor/stabilisers at opposite ends, or a reactor somewhere in the middle for more durability but heavier stabilisers. For a complex shape like a sphere or worse it would be extremely difficult to guess what the power system looked like, the possibilities are so numerous.
(For example in this thread I've posted 4 different valid and reasonable layouts that could be used for a "2D" square hull, and plenty more would be possible)

I think that's a good change, and one that indicates increased depth.

 

[JinM]

Do you prefer simple or complicated? I can't tell.


One possible simple way of thinking about power system depth:

In power 1.0, excluding designs that had multiple reactors (which FTR I loved and would like to still have), you had a very, very good chance of being able to guess pretty much exactly what a ship's power system looked like just by viewing the hull. Even odd shaped hulls like spheres or saddles or composite shapes.

In power 2.0, even for the simplest possible hull shapes (say a cylinder for example) you'd pretty much never have a better than 50% chance of guessing what the power system looks like. Even the simplest one dimensional stick hull will, just for starters, be making the choice between a lighter power system with the reactor/stabilisers at opposite ends, or a reactor somewhere in the middle for more durability but heavier stabilisers. For a complex shape like a sphere or worse it would be extremely difficult to guess what the power system looked like, the possibilities are so numerous.
(For example in this thread I've posted 4 different valid and reasonable layouts that could be used for a "2D" square hull, and plenty more would be possible)

I think that's a good change, and one that indicates increased depth.

I just don't wanna build those damn docked reactors (like in turrets or as base for several turrets) and power grid mazes again. ^^

 

[MeRobo]

I just don't wanna build those damn docked reactors (like in turrets

I don't see anything inherently wrong with self powered turrets.
I see a problem with the docked reactors which basically got replaced with Aux, but those are no longer a thing.

 

[Ghent96]

Jojomo *facepalm* ....you DONT get it... This is not the "depth" we need or want.

Ithirad has a valid & plausible point to add to mine - THIS (systems design, power, etc) is NOT the "depth" that we need in this game. It serves no purpose, lends no good gameplay at this time ( or ever). Where's the AI overhaul? The faction overhaul? The crew overhaul? The trading overhaul?... Etc etc the various other BIG core elements of gameplay in a space flight aim that we've been asking for the past 3-4 years.

Players can and have succesfully made a lot of block content for this game. We can tweak our own stats, thank you very much, if Schine would actually just finish coding abilities and properties for us to select from, coding the AI, factions, etc, and then let players script... This is a waste of time & slap in the face to players.

In the past, many servers had a pretty good economy & faction trade going. Some used credits, others made up their own custom block-based currency (grills on MF). Schine broke such systems again & again, broke ships again & again... Eventually players just get tired of losing everything & rebuilding everything & leave. There's no AI functions ...still... So when there's no players, there's no "game", no trade, no economy, no context. Then even more players get bored & leave.