I'm Sorry Guys - Reviving My Additive Stabilizer Distance Thread

[petlahk]

Okay. Okay. Okay. I'm sorry I'm doing this after I've given so many people grief over beating the dead horse over the reactors over the past couple days.

But Schine, what gives?

Valiant and I made several posts related to additive distance for the stabilizers in December and January. And while I do still totally appreciate you guys for at least *half* implementing it into the game with the whole faces thing, I've finally gotten around to truly crunching the numbers on your system and... What gives guys?

Forgetting the fact that my post didn't have any of this face restriction stuff at all because you could place the stabilizer groups wherever and the game would calculate the diagonal distance. And also forgetting the fact that there were a few problems in it related to stabilizer stacking. Which could have been solved with the automatic grouping you guys settled on, or with exclusion bubbles.

Forgetting those things. Devs, why the heck is your Stabilization % Per Stabilizer Block still independent from distance? And why do the axis all have to be approximately equidistant? And why do I suffer if my target distance is 36.4 meters, but I have two groups at 14 meters each, and one group at 9 meters then I can't use the 17-blocks that would be all that would be required if I just stuck the whole thing at 37 meters out on one axis?
Why do I have to have 4 groups of 4 at a distance of 14 away from the reactor on each of four separate faces in order to get 100% stabilization? Why can't I have just the minor amount of flexibility to have 2 equi-distant groups at 14 each, and one at 9?

Seriously devs. I love you, but you guys made this system a lot more complicated by not doing the simplest thing of:

If: Total Additive Distance = Distance Required
Then: Stabilization Efficiency Per Stabilizer Block = 100%

I don't care about the sides, even though I'm still slightly frustrated. Just fix this simple calculation please. I think you'd make a lot of people ever so slightly happier.

Thank you.

 

[GnomeKing]

hmm- sounds like a lot of useful tinkering you have done there -

i am also still interested in making power generation a central design feature, ideally with a great deal of potential complexity and variance at the upper end - ideally Interesting Geometry Algorithms (and ideally Euclidean-esque forms and ratios) should IMO be the meat of high-end reactor design...

Anyhoo - could you explain a little more please? - maybe a simple image? - i am not sure I quite understand the specific points you make...

 

[petlahk]

hmm- sounds like a lot of useful tinkering you have done there -

i am also still interested in making power generation a central design feature, ideally with a great deal of potential complexity and variance at the upper end - ideally Interesting Geometry Algorithms (and ideally Euclidean-esque forms and ratios) should IMO be the meat of high-end reactor design...

Anyhoo - could you explain a little more please? - maybe a simple image? - i am not sure I quite understand the specific points you make...

I think maybe the best way I can explain the current reactor design thing is with the advanced stabilizer placement section here:
Reactors - StarMade Wiki

I find it restrictive that you have to build that way when I think that players should be able to build lopsided ships with the reactor to one side, or T-shaped ones with stabilizers to two opposite sides and one in front, without having to worry about using all these extra stabilizer blocks.