Stabilizers as a passive?

[Crashmaster]

Stabilizer computer and stabilizer modules, mass-based percentages using the old system.

-no distance dependence
-no need for ugly, unreasonable dido-beams because separation is not encouraged
-same penalty system as current for <100% stabilization
-keeps stabilizers as a part of reactor HP
-ties power gen loosely to ship size as measured by mass

-it's just one mass-based system to keep balanced as building, surely that's not too hard
-a stabilizer computer would make a weak point in power gen, but we've protected computers before and it might not even use a computer (could be a future crew-interaction point for the reactor?)
-doesn't help ships with a lot of non-contributing blocks (probably best handled by balancing decorative block mass)
-loss of hull and system blocks in battle would decrease the mass stabilization percent is based off possibly negating the effects of some damage to the stabilizers allowing ships to fight longer (good/bad?)


Piggy-back idea;

With the penalties of insufficient stabilization as bad as they are, if the stabilizers on my ship are damaged I want the option to throttle my reactor's output to a lower level so that my remaining stabilizers are sufficient or at least offer a safer level of stabilization, Could be done to stages like; 75% - 50% - 25% and would require a reboot to reset to 100%. While switching reactors is a thing this is to buy a bit more time out of the reactor that has the chambers you need on it.

 

[Cluwne]

mass-based

into_the_trash_it_goes.jpg
Sure, I never liked defensive effects using the same system but it actually made sense balance-wise at the time.
Unless they're tied to reactor's mass, which is already the case in a way, it's doesn't make any sense at all. They stabilize the reactor, not the whole damn ship.
And why the hell do we need computers? Stabilizers already work well enough by themselves.
Not to mention that stabilizers aren't needed at all and should be removed altogether/replaced by a sensible limiting/encouraging mechanic.

Now, throttling down already takes place in form of lowered power output. The thing is, you don't lose stability in a safe way — you lose it suddenly and abruptly, which, naturally, should destabilize the reactor.
Besides, if you start losing stabilizers you are already fucked six ways from sunday and throttling down the reactor will hardly make a difference.

 

[Lecic]

I don't understand why everyone keeps trying to make all these work arounds to the objectively bad system that is stabilizers. They're just inert blocks that the game requires for no reason.

Here's a game design tip- if a mechanic can be removed from your game and it only gives you positives, it should be removed. We don't need block bloat.

Either remove stabilizers, or make them an actually interesting system with something like heat. Stabilizers as "lol you need X of this inert block or your reactor doesn't work!" is a shitty system.

-keeps stabilizers as a part of reactor HP

Oh, also, reactor HP is a shitty system too and is core-sniping 2.0. SHP is better in every way and should not be removed.

 

[virtue1987]

Schine implemented way to many mechanics just to combat the negative side effects of the new power system, while it would be jsut easyer to remove the minumum distance requierment for the stabilizers.
I still do not understand how the new system will be any better than the old one,.

 

[LoSboccacc]

> remove the minumum distance requierment for the stabilizers.

if shine also removed the size requirement from chambers and made it so undersized chambers were less efficient, we'd be back to the previous version and everyone would be so much happier XD