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.
Yeah my stabilizers broke too, even ona tiny ship. Relogging helped.Damm
Last version broken ? 0.200.156
No access to reactor/chamber menu.
Left side menu now half-sized (?)
Stabilizers not colored anymore.
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)This new system incredibly limits my choices, and will most likely lead to many ships that function and behave the same.
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.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.
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.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?
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).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.
Sorry, I mistyped that, I mean 4 stabiliser groups. It's the top image in this post.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.
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.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.
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.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 ?
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.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.
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.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)
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.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.
Easy, its a long box.So just curious. How nightmarish would you Power Update experts say an update refit of this unfinished, kilometer long Titan will be?
Applause. Perfect summary of Schine's utter failure to date. I hear Darth Vader in my mind, quoting "Now [your] failure is complete!"... Building is exactly as tedious as it was before. I'm still cramming my ships full of blocks in order to get better performance. ...
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?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.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.
Any sort of refit would take ages imo. That's what you get for building big ships :PSo just curious. How nightmarish would you Power Update experts say an update refit of this unfinished, kilometer long Titan will be?
Do you prefer simple or complicated? I can't tell.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.
One possible simple way of thinking about power system depth:Instead depth has been taken out of the system.
I just don't wanna build those damn docked reactors (like in turrets or as base for several turrets) and power grid mazes again. ^^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 don't see anything inherently wrong with self powered turrets.I just don't wanna build those damn docked reactors (like in turrets