Prerelease v0.200.250

[kulbolen]

OMFG... dude...

You are so completely full of it you can't even keep your lies straight...

I'm not even the same person you were responding to...

At least figure out who and what you're responding to before you try to bullshit your way out of being called out for straw-manning someone with a completely fake position when you can't respond coherently to what they actually say. Edymnion referred very clearly to systematic abuse and exploitation during alpha testing and you accused him of blaming people for just playing the game.

my my, it appears youre right!

...i musta got confused, you sound exactly the same.

 

[Valiant70]

Do you want everyone to be flying ships that look like Star Destroyers that got too close to a blackhole?

This... this made me laugh. And it's right on the money.

 

[NTIMESc]

You are required to have empty space because the ships cannot handle powering that many systems. Do you not see the problem here?

I don't understand the empty space complaint. I'm not arguing for the current stabilizer mechanic, but being able to power everything that could possibly fit in a given hull with a 100% efficient and 100% stabilized reactor doesn't seem like a logical conclusion. Should it not matter what you're filling the hull with? Currently there are only high-consumption systems. If I plugged toasters into every outlet in my house, I wouldn't be surprised that the breaker tripped. Am I missing something?

 

[Valiant70]

Another thing to remember is that achieving more than 20% stabilization will still grant you more power at the expense of a more fragile reactor. Is that in any way an acceptable trade off for less stabilization?

I didn't read this right earlier. That sounds... about right.

• Wider stabilizers = tougher reactor, but more vulnerable stabilizer pipes.
• Narrower stabilizers = shorter stabilizer pipes, but you're more liable to explode if you get lanced through the reactor.

Kind of a tradeoff between local vulnerability and spread-out vulnerability. If so, this might work out all right, but it's hard to say for sure. This goes a long way toward making different shapes and styles of ships more viable.

HOWEVER, these statements ride on the assumption that Schema will implement something like additive stabilizer distance to allow for expanding the ship in more than one direction. Without that, we'll all be flying giant space pencils of varying length and thickness, and stabilizers will still suck.

 

[Lecic]

I don't understand the empty space complaint. I'm not arguing for the current stabilizer mechanic, but being able to power everything that could possibly fit in a given hull with a 100% efficient and 100% stabilized reactor doesn't seem like a logical conclusion. Should it not matter what you're filling the hull with? Currently there are only high-consumption systems. If I plugged toasters into every outlet in my house, I wouldn't be surprised that the breaker tripped. Am I missing something?

The complaint comes from, if I build a ship with X size reactor, it MUST be Y length long, but the reactor can only support Z systems. Thus, if the specific ship you want to design has a bigger internal volume than the amount of systems you could make in a column from X to Y, you are forced to have a bunch of empty space, while the player who builds a needle ship doesn't have to.

To match your house analogy, in the old power system, if you wanted to plug a toaster into every outlet, you could upgrade your wiring to support the huge number of amps all those toasters would draw (make your reactors big enough to support a whole hull's worth of systems). In the new power system, you're not allowed to fit your house with the proper wiring to meet your wants, because your Home Owner's Association says you're not allowed to because your house isn't tall enough (the limit on reactor size to ship size in a single dimension). This doesn't make much sense, does it? But that's what we're getting.

 

[Kelpaz]

Since Lancake is head of testing and balancing you and others that are confused about stabilizer complaints take a look at this.

Here are three identical ships, they are considered to be fighters. This is what they look like with stabilizers, imagine making a hull just to contain those.

Here we have the same three "fighters" again now with a custom config that eliminates stabilizers.

Now I'll ask again, is it Necessary to have stabilizers, they've been the bane of reasonable design since day one.

I said it before and I'll mention it gladly again, Islands are the product of your own design hell I even made one just to try it out, and now we have these stabilizer stream thingies as a band aid to solve it and no mention of them being useful to the benefit of the ship.

Speak to the community before you take the next step, even if you meet resistance it's important to speak to us, tell us your intentions.
I am a patient player, I'll await your responses.

 

[Valiant70]

Since Lancake is head of testing and balancing you and others that are confused about stabilizer complaints take a look at this.

Here are three identical ships, they are considered to be fighters. This is what they look like with stabilizers, imagine making a hull just to contain those.

Here we have the same three "fighters" again now with a custom config that eliminates stabilizers.

Now I'll ask again, is it Necessary to have stabilizers, they've been the bane of reasonable design since day one.

I said it before and I'll mention it gladly again, Islands are the product of your own design hell I even made one just to try it out, and now we have these stabilizer stream thingies as a band aid to solve it and no mention of them being useful to the benefit of the ship.

Speak to the community before you take the next step, even if you meet resistance it's important to speak to us, tell us your intentions.
I am a patient player, I'll await your responses.

If these were viable before, they need to be made viable now. The upcoming tweaks to stabilization percentage *might* be enough: You only need 20% stabilization to get 100% power, but the reactor is more vulnerable. Can you get those to 20% in the latest dev build without the external stuff?

 

[Criss]

will players have to build out in just one dimension for more power or has that been changed?

Currently that aspect of the system is the same as I understand it.

Do you not see the problem here?

I don't. I am talking to our lead tester who has been refitting our ships with full interiors with the new system and not once has he come to us telling us how it's impossible.

That's why this is unbelievable to me. That being said, I will ask them why these specific concerns are being brought up while we are not running into the same problems.

 

[Valiant70]

Currently that aspect of the system is the same as I understand it.

R.I.P.

 

[Dire Venom]

R.I.P.

R.I.P

 

[Kelpaz]

If these were viable before, they need to be made viable now. The upcoming tweaks to stabilization percentage *might* be enough: You only need 20% stabilization to get 100% power, but the reactor is more vulnerable. Can you get those to 20% in the latest dev build without the external stuff?

Sadly no, the stabilizers in the image where put in the 50% zone, the ships are simply too short and the mech is too square.
If I downsized the ships systems their weapons would barely hurt a ship of the same size, a nerf to small ships I say.

I don't. I am talking to our lead tester who has been refitting our ships with full interiors with the new system and not once has he come to us telling us how it's impossible.

That's why this is unbelievable to me. That being said, I will ask them why these specific concerns are being brought up while we are not running into the same problems.

Criss Please take a moment to read my post here: Prerelease v0.200.250
Look at the images and see for yourself with my examples, the reason stabilizers work for the NPC faction ships is because most of them have either small systems or very long dimensions.

Just because it works for one style of ships doesn't mean it will work for everyone.

 

[Valiant70]

Sadly no, the stabilizers in the image where put in the 50% zone, the ships are simply too short and the mech is too square.
If I downsized the ships systems their weapons would barely hurt a ship of the same size, a nerf to small ships I say.

No, not the distance penalty percentage. I'm talking about the stabilization value on the reactor itself.
[doublepost=1513744133,1513743430][/doublepost]

Look at the images and see for yourself with my examples, the reason stabilizers work for the NPC faction ships is because most of them have either small systems or very long dimensions.

Just because it works for one style of ships doesn't mean it will work for everyone.

That is indeed a sound analysis. If we all build ships that look like yours, they will work okay. If we do certain other things, our ships will be rather low on power for their mass, and/or very vulnerable.

Take for example, my old Skyborn class. I've been wanting to revive this ship for a while now, but if I attempt to do so in the new power system, I'll be essentially forced to place my reactor as far back in the hull as possible (best of five bad alternatives: center, fore, aft, port, starboard). Even if I can get enough power, it would make the ship vulnerable from behind. Maybe I could compensate with some heavy armor plates back there but... eeeeeeuuuuugh. If I had a way to place the reactor in the center and divide the stabilization distance among four quadrants of the ship, then I could do it just fine.

Also, take for example a tri-hull shape with three hulls of similar length. Can you make that perform as well as a single, long hull? You certainly can't get the same power for mass without a brittle reactor.

These are serious problems with creative design. Creativity isn't about taking one long hull and putting a few decorative pieces on it. Only conventional ship hull shapes can get a good level of power-per-mass. If you reduce the stabilizer distance enough that this is not the case, then you might as well not have stabilizers. It would be better to listen to the community and do away with the one-dimensionality of the stabilizer mechanic.
[doublepost=1513744915][/doublepost]Whoops! I actually shouldn't use that ship as an example, as it would be a prime candidate for the latest exploity meta I found. Meet the flying saucer reactor:



No beam? Not quite! The stabilizer's center of mass is in the middle of the reactor! There's a beam in there somewhere, but it's pretty short, and not exposed to enemy fire until the reactor is getting eviscerated. This is kind of awesome, but it should still probably be changed. LOL

EDIT: Well, you could still make the argument that the ring is vulnerable enough as it is... Still sort of balanced in a way, maybe.

 

[Ithirahad]

I don't. I am talking to our lead tester who has been refitting our ships with full interiors with the new system and not once has he come to us telling us how it's impossible.

That's why this is unbelievable to me. That being said, I will ask them why these specific concerns are being brought up while we are not running into the same problems.

Yeah, that'd be the problem. "Your" ships. They're... rather atypical, honestly. Small systems compartments, often long and thin configurations with larger parts at the front and/or back, lots of very thin or low-volume features in general. Personally, I generally could barely reach that low interior-to-total-volume ratio if I tried, and it isn't just because of my build style. I've tried building more 'traditional' ship configurations and they still generally end up with more internal volume than yours seem to for the dimensions, and above a certain size it's hard for me to find reasonable interior to put in all that space. You could argue that that's because I'm "used to the old system's way of doing things" or something but ultimately this new system shouldn't be putting any further restrictions on our 'way of doing things' to be effective than there already were.

...You know, come to think of it, there's a bit of a precedent among the Schine ships of being thickish in the back and sometimes front and having a thinner (and often mostly occupied by some interior corridor) middle 'stem', which... just so happens to fit the new system perfectly.

 

[Zarth]

YOU ALL REALIZE THAT YOUR STABILIZERS DON'T ALL NEED TO BE AT 100% EFFICIENCY FOR THE REACTOR TO BE 100% STABLE.

 

[Valiant70]

YOU ALL REALIZE THAT YOUR STABILIZERS DON'T ALL NEED TO BE AT 100% EFFICIENCY FOR THE REACTOR TO BE 100% STABLE.

YOU REALIZE THAT IT TAKES SEVERAL TIMES MORE STABILIZERS FOR 100% STABILITY IF YOU PUT THEM TOO CLOSE

 

[Kelpaz]

YOU ALL REALIZE THAT YOUR STABILIZERS DON'T ALL NEED TO BE AT 100% EFFICIENCY FOR THE REACTOR TO BE 100% STABLE.

I THINK YOU LEFT THE CAPS LOCK ON.

 

[Zarth]

YOU REALIZE THAT IT TAKES SEVERAL TIMES MORE STABILIZERS FOR 100% STABILITY IF YOU PUT THEM TOO CLOSE

I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT BY DOING SO, IT ELIMINATES THE SUPER GODLY SHIPS WITH IMPENETRABLE SHIELDS, AND PLANET KILLING WEAPONS, THEREBY MAKING THEM SOMEWHAT REALISTIC.
[doublepost=1513747700,1513747626][/doublepost]

I THINK YOU LEFT THE CAPS LOCK ON.

NO NO, THIS IS JUST HOW I NORMALLY TALK.

HOW ARE YOU?

 

[Valiant70]

I THINK YOU LEFT THE CAPS LOCK ON.

I THINK IT FIXED IT. IS THIS BETTER?

I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT BY DOING SO, IT ELIMINATES THE SUPER GODLY SHIPS WITH IMPENETRABLE SHIELDS, AND PLANET KILLING WEAPONS, THEREBY MAKING THEM SOMEWHAT REALISTIC.

But then I can't defeat the godly ships with impenetrable shields in PVP. To beat them, I have to join them.

 

[Zarth]

I THINK IT FIXED IT. IS THIS BETTER?


But then I can't defeat the godly ships with impenetrable shields in PVP. To beat them, I have to join them.

DAT POWER CREEP TO GODLY SHIPS PVP HOOWEEEE BETTER KNOCK THEM DOWN A NOTCH WITH SOME STABILIZERS.

 

[Valiant70]

DAT POWER CREEP TO GODLY SHIPS PVP HOOWEEEE BETTER KNOCK THEM DOWN A NOTCH WITH SOME STABILIZERS.

I have no idea what you're saying and you sound like a lunatic.