Discussion - Removing, Improving, or Finding Alternatives to Stabilizers

[petlahk]

Preface

Over the course of the last several days a few suggestions have cropped up surrounding stabilizers. These suggestions range from scrapping them outright, to trying to find ways to improving them, to thoughts about just completely replacing them.

Each camp has their fair share of points. To begin, I would first like to mention a few of the reasons that the stabilizer mechanic was invented and implemented to begin with. These come partly straight from Schema, can be partially inferred, and come partly from players:

1. To discourage system cramming and to provide an additional mechanic to work in conjunction with the reactors.
   
   
2. To tie reactor size to ship size.
   
   
3. To permit, or even encourage empty space with the intention to place PVP and aesthetics focused ships on a more even playing field.

My intention, and hope, for this thread is that the community can come up with a mechanic that works with the reactor system that:

• A) gives stabilizers more of a purpose than simply encouraging empty space,
• B) works in conjunction with reactors to create a more interesting reactor system while still achieving the goals of points 1 and/or 2 above,
  
• C) Addresses points 1 and/or 2 above without stabilizers through the use of some other system,
  
  OR
  
  
• D) Provides a temporary system to address points 1 and/or 2 above until the developers some other mechanic is introduced that better provides for all three. (Oxygen, Food, NPCs, ect...)

To those people commenting on this thread I want to make it abundantly clear that it may be the case that the consensus reached is in favor of removing stabilizers and offering no replacement. I understand that point as well.

To the developers. I hope I speak properly for the community when I say that you need to implement something better than the current stabilizer system and pay attention to what is going to be in the game in the future. I think Adaxia put it best in Lecic's "Remove Stabilizers" suggestion thread.

To build on this a little more, something I've noticed over the years is that balancing passes for features only ever consider what's already in the game, and not what will be.

Think of the big picture, every system planned for the game, and balance everything together. Otherwise the same systems are going to be reworked over and over and over as new features are added, as we have seen time and time again so far.

(Full comment on page 2.)

This is a problem that you, the developers, have slipped into time and time again, regardless of whatever horrible (or good) ideas the community has come up with. In addition, listen to the community.

Discussion and Suggestions so Far

Remove Stabilizers

The Stabilizer Fix

Additive Stabilizer Distance - The Simple Solution

Original Discussions:

• Original developer plans surrounding reactors overheating systems. Would have encouraged/permitted empty space and also would have made more sense for what a reactor is.
  
  
• Ideas surrounding reactors being power grids or more like real-world nuclear or (albiet experimental) fusion reactors. Admittedly would have to be made to be fun in game.

Quotes from various discussions that might be particularly useful:

• Just as an added thought, it might be good if the protruding structures offered a slight advantage over lack of them. This would encourage more interesting shapes rather than big blocks.

  (Full comment on Page 1 of Lecic's "remove stabilizers post". Comment is in response to Criss.)

• Various complaints about how empty space shouldn't be forced. (Mostly, though not exclusively, from Lecic.)
  
  
• And, finally, this post that Criss posted to Lecic's thread "Remove Stabilizers" (page 1) in response to Lecic:
  
  

  I can't bring that sentence to Schema and expect things to change. I need specifics. I want the same things you guys want. Freedom to choose a design that isn't outmatched by a single-meta-approach to building.

Ending Notes Before Discussion

I would like to encourage everyone here to consider what has already been proposed by various members of the community before you comment. I would ask everyone to consider the various perspectives and what might work and what might not work before comment.

Above that, I would like to ask that everyone pay close attention to what I have quoted directly from Criss. If you want the developers and Schema to listen and implement any of your ideas you need specifics. You need hard examples for what is currently wrong in the game, and why your suggestions might solve it. To repeat what Criss said, "Freedom to choose a design that isn't outmatched by a single-meta-approach to building". That is what the stabilizer system was intended, and has (probably) failed to do in its current state. However, saying that, again, try to focus on concrete and visible failings rather than theoretical ones.

And, above everything else, keep in mind that discussion should be civil and constructive. Other people, especially the developers, will not be willing to listen to your input if it is rude or just rehashes the same stuff. Ideas should, ideally, have solid reasons behind them and offer constructive feedback to shortcomings of other people's ideas. Do not be rude.

 

[Valiant70]

Some ideas to help reduce penalties to interiors and to prevent players from treating systems like expanding foam:
Block Mass Changes (helps with system stuffing)
The Merits of Small, Cuboid Exclusion zones around systems

 

[Zoolimar]

1. To discourage system cramming and to provide an additional mechanic to work in conjunction with the reactors
   
   
2. To tie reactor size to ship size.
   
   
3. To permit, or even encourage empty space with the intention to place PVP and aesthetics focused ships on a more even playing field.

1. Wasn't the problem before not the ships stuffed with systems, but the ships that were mostly empty space? Because it was hard to damage systems made in such a way.

2. The ship size should not be tied to reactor in the first place, but to the purpose of the ship. Cargo hauler even with a small reactor always will be much larger than a fighter with comparable reactor. Because it doesn't need to power weapons and needs a lot of space to store cargo. (Or at least should in theory).

3. PVP ships already had a lot of empty space on them. Even ignoring spaghetti they have around 20 meters of space between outer shell and the core to prevent missiles from immediately murdering systems. It's enough space to build 3 full interiors not one.

______________________

That's why stabilisers fail at what they are supposed to achieve - it was the wrong target in the first place.
_______________________

1. They already have a mechanic that in theory should provide incentives to not cram systems on top of each other - integrity. They just need to config it in such a way that systems would dance a little over zero most of the time and as such gleefully blow up if it drops due to damage. Here is a good incentive to not place all the systems in one blob.

Thing is integrity is a fully negative mechanic. It only penalizes you. I would propose for it to also provide bonus to the effectiveness of the system - the bigger the integrity, the bigger the bonus (up to a certain limit, like say +100%). To make systems look better and to be able to max integrity on a system of any shape allow hull and decor blocks to partially count for the purpose of it making it possible to build limited protrusions or connections without tanking the integrity. So a reactor encased in a decorative shell will be actually more effective than a naked reactor.

This way you also will have enough empty space for interiors or to put some non-critical systems between others.

Players could make pretty casings for the systems and be rewarded for it or they could as easily just use grey cube cases with the same effectiveness.

Small ships get a bonus from free integrity, as such blow up less easily and can consider not putting any space between systems to lower their size.

P.S. Combat ships will always try to maximise their effectiveness (defensive and attack power and balance between them) and unless there will be a benefit in putting actual interiors they won't have them beyond some rudimentary things dependant only on how much the player in question wants. This way they at least could add to the power of the ship. Also "stuffed" ships in most cases look mush better than sparse and empty.

2. I don't see a reason to make ships be "this tall". Their intended purpose, armament, offensive and defensive systems, and so on should decide how large they are and what shape they take. Cargo hauler, fighter and stealth scout may all have same size of reactor but will look completely different and drastically differ in size.

3. Ships (at least big enough ships, if your ship had trouble fitting an interior it was probably too big for it) already had more than enough space for interiors and I feel like the changes to integrity described in the first part already cover it.
____________________

There is not much that could be done to make reactors interesting, because there is nothing to work with. They have only regen and blow up chances. So that's more or less the only things that could be used and Integrity will already take care of both.

 

[NeonSturm]

Rename stabilizers to heat sinks

Require 1 heat sink per reactor block.

What counts is the distance between heat-sink group to heat-sink group.
One heat-sink group may only contribute to X, Y or Z distance and it is additive (see below for details).

These heat-sinks could also be required for thruster blocks or other system blocks - dunno it's just a thought.

Finally, those heat-sinks need to be connected via conduits and be placed far enough away from the system they cool.
The xyz delta defines whether they belong to x, y or z, whatever the longest. EDIT: and + or - xyz

Optionally: Require x hull/armour blocks per system block.

 

[Valiant70]

Rename stabilizers to heat sinks

Require 1 heat sink per reactor block.

What counts is the distance between heat-sink group to heat-sink group.
One heat-sink group may only contribute to X, Y or Z distance and it is additive (see below for details).

These heat-sinks could also be required for thruster blocks or other system blocks - dunno it's just a thought.

Finally, those heat-sinks need to be connected via conduits and be placed far enough away from the system they cool.
The xyz delta defines whether they belong to x, y or z, whatever the longest.

Optionally: Require x hull/armour blocks per system block.

So performance spreads them out, and defense keeps them close. That could work.
[doublepost=1513192520,1513190713][/doublepost]

So performance spreads them out, and defense keeps them close. That could work.

I'm working on a suggestion for a whole new heat / ship health system based on this. Give me a few minutes and I'll post a link.
[doublepost=1513193026][/doublepost]Heat/Cooling as an Alternative to Stabilizers and Reactor HP

 

[petlahk]

Heat/Cooling as an Alternative to Stabilizers and Reactor HP

Hrm. I know Zoolimar is opposed to it. But now that I actually understand what he means in his comment above I see no reason why your suggestion and his suggestion for scaling integrity couldn't work in conjunction. Your heat mechanic could provide integrity bonuses to being built right, while his integrity scale takes care of the whole "encouraging/allowing empty space" thing.

I do however disagree with Zoolimar over this:

Ships (at least big enough ships, if your ship had trouble fitting an interior it was probably too big for it) already had more than enough space for interiors and I feel like the changes to integrity described in the first part already cover it.

Ships didn't actually have much space for interiors before. As has been brought up by people several times, min-maxing under the other system really left no space for interiors because of how weight works.

I do have other problems with the whole "lets use integrity alone" argument though. Those problems relate to what I think has always been a problem in Starmade. Obtuseness. Integrity is somewhat obtuse and hard to understand to new players. And, as will always be my stance, the game needs to be accessible to new players while still being fun for old and new players alike.

Apart from that though, I see your points. And I don't think it's necessary to rehash the fact that you disagree with me over whether or not Valinat's heat-sinks and your use of integrity can co-exist. But, if you wanna put your thoughts in here that is your prerogative.

 

[Zoolimar]

Ships didn't actually have much space for interiors before. As has been brought up by people several times, min-maxing under the other system really left no space for interiors because of how weight works.

Space and weight are really different things. The biggest mass sink on a ship is not interiors but hull. Though the bigger the ship the less a concern it is due to square-cube law.

Your heat mechanic could provide integrity bonuses to being built right, while his integrity scale takes care of the whole "encouraging/allowing empty space" thing.

It's not my integrity. It's a mechanic in a pre-release build to stop spaghettification. It punishes building in 1x1 thick strands (though due to current settings 2x2 thick lines are okay). You build them in strands and if hit they'll blow up really hard. Shields also blow up when hit even if they are still shielded and the shot didn't even penetrate the shields. Don't build shields in thin lines.

As you can see - you can't allow for heatsinks to add to integrity, for it will break the intended purpose of mechanic to stop systems from being built in thin lines. And for new players building systems in blobs normally more intuitive than spreading them around.

All of my suggestions in previous post could be reduced to TL:DR: Add bonus to system group power from its integrity, remove stabilisers.

The mechanic itself is already in the game. Its application just needs to be a little broader.

 

[petlahk]

It's not my integrity.

Ahem. Re-read it. I was referring to Valiant in the first half and *his* heat mechanic idea. Not the integrity mechanic.

As you can see - you can't allow for heatsinks to add to integrity, for it will break the intended purpose of mechanic to stop systems from being built in thin lines. And for new players building systems in blobs normally more intuitive than spreading them around.

Secondly, that makes sense.

Thirdly, The spaghettification issue as I've always read it was related to ships themselves getting stretched, not the systems.

Fourthly, while the square-cube law does apply, it never really worked out well for the small and medium ships.

Finally. Calm down, just a tad.

 

[Zoolimar]

Thirdly, The spaghettification issue as I've always read it was related to ships themselves getting stretched, not the systems.

Ships getting stretched is a different issue.

This is the old issue that integrity made by devs is supposed to beat:

This is the new issue that is the result of stabiliser mechanic:

Finally. Calm down, just a tad.

Erm, I'm calm. Maybe it is some kind of miscommunication due to the fact that English is not my first language.

 

[petlahk]

Erm, I'm calm. Maybe it is some kind of miscommunication due to the fact that English is not my first language.

It was the use of italics and bold. Sometimes that sort of stuff makes me stress out and think that people are upset. Your English is fine. Sorry.

 

[Valiant70]

English is not my first language.

Well, that's impressive. Your English is better than a lot of Americans.

 

[NeonSturm]

Crew might be the solution if we had to place "pathable-blocks" in a 2x2 grid mostly.

 

[Qweesdy]

1. To discourage system cramming and to provide an additional mechanic to work in conjunction with the reactors.
   
   
2. To tie reactor size to ship size.
   
   
3. To permit, or even encourage empty space with the intention to place PVP and aesthetics focused ships on a more even playing field.

You don 't want to encourage "literally empty" space because that's exactly what you'll get - PVP ships with 2 disconnected blobs separated by literally empty space. This is what the current system encourages and this is the problem with the current system.

The only way to encourage players to build ships with "RP features" (things like medical rooms, crew quarters, recreational areas, engineering labs, etc) is to provide a game mechanic that ties bonuses to things like medical rooms, crew quarters, recreational areas, engineering labs, etc. Everything else will be seen by PVP players as a pain in the neck to work around, will not result in "RP features" on ships, and will not place PVP and aesthetics focused ships on a more even playing field.

One game mechanic that ties bonuses to things like medical rooms, crew quarters, recreational areas, engineering labs, etc; would be "NPC crew members". Essentially; allow the player to highlight an area and set it to a room type and give each NPC crew members a role; and then give bonuses based on the rooms types, the NPC roles and how content/happy the NPC crew member is.

For example (instead of having "defence chamber/s" that provides bonuses for shields) you could have a "shield maintainer room" and an NPC set to "engineer"to get bonuses for shields. To increase the NPC's happiness and increase the shield bonuses; you could also provide more rooms - give the NPC a bedroom, provide a staff lounge, build a cafeteria, etc. Some of the room types would have additional NPC crew members that increase the happiness of crew members more (e.g. "doctor" for a hospital/medical room, "cook" for a cafeteria, etc). The bonuses could also be effected by room contents and room size - a large bedroom with a large bed and a large TV would make an NPC crew member a lot more happy than a tiny bedroom with a tiny bed and nothing else.

If this was done; a PVP player designing a large ship would include lots of large rooms to get all the bonuses. Actual NPC crew walking around (between bedrooms, work stations, etc) would also make ships and stations a lot more interesting to look at (much better than "lifeless tin can").

To tie reactor size to ship size, just have "larger reactors need more reactor engineering stations (and more crew members, and therefore more bedrooms, and..)".

Note that system cramming is necessary for frame rates (to avoid rendering millions of "could've been trivially avoided" block faces). Excluding rooms and passages; system cramming needs to be encouraged as much as possible. There should also be a special filler block ("styrofoam") for this reason (especially for the current power system, where there's no way to fill ugly gaps between systems, rooms and hull without increasing mass, and where I expect that the new PVP meta will be "kill the enemy's frame rate").

 

[Crashmaster]

System cramming is pretty important for turrets IMO.

 

[Valiant70]

System cramming is pretty important for turrets IMO.

Turrets have a variety of issues. A lot of people feel that they require too many blocks altogether. That's something that needs to be looked at in the weapon update, ideally.

 

[Scypio]

Turrets have a variety of issues. A lot of people feel that they require too many blocks altogether. That's something that needs to be looked at in the weapon update, ideally.

Schine already buffed by a lot the weapons blocks. What do you want more ?

 

[Valiant70]

Schine already buffed by a lot the weapons blocks.

They did?

 

[Zoolimar]

They did?

Around double the power per block, depending on the weapon.
_____________________

Things about reactors:

As Non pointed out in the other thread having a single reactor and relying on its RHP for ship survivability is not very good due to the fact that taking out that single critical point will immediately kill the ship. Bad luck or a little skill on the enemy part could make fights short and frustrating with almost no chances to retreat.

Even if RHP was removed single reactor still means that ship could lose all of its energy generation in a single hit. It won't matter if it is overheated or not, because the ship will be as good as dead with no way to power any systems. It may be more or less acceptable for fighter sized craft but for larger ships inability to put down redundancies is incredibly painful. And no, second inactive reactor is not a proper redundancy, it's more like a spare tire which you need to have time to change. During fight. The fact that most of the time you can't use it until the first reactor and a good part of your ship already evaporated and you probably have no chance of bringing your shields back up doesn't help matters.

Ideally ships should want to have as big a reactor as they can have to have maximum energy regeneration. And at the same time they should want to split it in as many parts as possible, to make themselves less prone to critical failures in energy generation on a first penetrating hit from the opponent. And the splitting should shear off some percentage off energy generation.

The simplest solution is to penalise the energy generation by the number of reactor groups.

For example of a penalty formula ( N^2 -1 )/ 1000 (Where N is the number of reactor groups). 10 reactors will get a penalty of 0.099 or ~10%

 

[Valiant70]

Ideally ships should want to have as big a reactor as they can have to have maximum energy regeneration. And at the same time they should want to split it in as many parts as possible, to make themselves less prone to critical failures in energy generation on a first penetrating hit from the opponent. And the splitting should shear off some percentage off energy generation.

The simplest solution is to penalise the energy generation by the number of reactor groups.

For example of a penalty formula ( N^2 -1 )/ 1000 (Where N is the number of reactor groups). 10 reactors will get a penalty of 0.099 or ~10%

The main reason for allowing only one reactor is the chamber system. Therein might lie the answer as well - having multiple reactors uses some of your chamber capacity, say 5-10% for each additional reactor.

To make the chambers work, there would need to be a way to group reactors together to use the same chamber capacity pool. And chamber connections... well, you could either require the reactors to be linked all together by conduits, or you disable the chambers connected to a specific reactor when it gets damaged enough.

 

[Zoolimar]

To make the chambers work, there would need to be a way to group reactors together to use the same chamber capacity pool. And chamber connections... well, you could either require the reactors to be linked all together by conduits, or you disable the chambers connected to a specific reactor when it gets damaged enough.

Or you could just decouple chambers from reactors. And make them based off the systems that they modify.