Power System Overhaul Proposal

    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Joined
    Oct 3, 2016
    Messages
    28
    Reaction score
    18
    Plus you add in the prospect of having dozens, even hundreds of ship designs broken and useless... the prospect of wasting hours and hours of work in-game to design and build... yeah, people get angry. Good developers should never treat their players or testers like that.
    Good developers improve their games, even if that means at the cost of making some sections of their community angry.

    This effort is a good intention, it doesn't even matter if this is a good or bad proposal. We should focus on the negatives that actually matter, instead of making up excuses such as "but this means I have to rebuild!".

    Developers aren't gods, they don't normally get it right on the first go. Do you know how many times core systems in closed alpha games change? I do, and it's a heck of a lot more than StarMade. Sometimes they implement a system that needs to be replaced. Whether that is or is not the case here is irrelevant, provide better negatives, instead of a weak excuse.
     

    NeonSturm

    StormMaker
    Joined
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages
    5,110
    Reaction score
    617
    • Wired for Logic
    • Thinking Positive
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    If your reactor core is 2x2x2 blocks and your ship is 16x16x16, the heat box could be 8x8x8.
    But if your ship is 16x16x32, the heat box becomes 8x8x16?

    I don't see scaffold-ship-meta here!

    Only that placing 1-2 blocks on the exterior may mess up your reactor/system placement.

    If God made humans, not even the god made us perfect at the first try :p
     

    nightrune

    Wizard/Developer/Project Manager
    Joined
    May 11, 2015
    Messages
    1,324
    Reaction score
    577
    • Schine
    • Top Forum Contributor
    • Thinking Positive
    Only that placing 1-2 blocks on the exterior may mess up your reactor/system placement.
    This is one of the first concerns I've heard that I pretty much agree with. That could really be a problem especially if shields were to go that route as well.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: NeonSturm

    Endal

    Ex Torpedo Researcher
    Joined
    Dec 3, 2013
    Messages
    103
    Reaction score
    61
    • Legacy Citizen
    If your reactor core is 2x2x2 blocks and your ship is 16x16x16, the heat box could be 8x8x8.
    But if your ship is 16x16x32, the heat box becomes 8x8x16?

    I don't see scaffold-ship-meta here!

    Only that placing 1-2 blocks on the exterior may mess up your reactor/system placement.​
    It doesn't work that way. Each reactor has it's own heat AOE, as such you can place reactors on pylons outward of your ship and suddenly you have almost 100% usuable volume in your ship.
    And before you think permeating heat through blocks is the solution, consider Pickup Rails.
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Apr 8, 2014
    Messages
    535
    Reaction score
    277
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Legacy Citizen 2
    I didn't read all ten pages yet as it's about 4am atm. Will trawl through later when I get a chance. x)

    I love the heat concept but.... a few things...

    • You have only partially addressed any of the initial issues which were....Forced design choice, Regen Focus, Lack of complexity, and Too many blocks. You actually forced a brand new design scheme, one which will optimally be determined with time. You are still focused on production, simply renaming it to cooldown isn't much of a change without some new sort of object to focus on. You effectively traded one for the other without doing much to change the mentality behind either.
    • You are now Extremely complex, which is not a very new player friendly way of doing things. As a game with a one time purchase and the obvious need to feed the belly of the beast, lets face it programmers need to eat too! You're not doing yourselves any favors with the new folks. Word of mouth is powerful advertising and keeping things simple is not a bad thing.
    • Of course it is Starmade so we are bound to use tons of blocks. That is totally forgiven and I'm not even sure why it was an issue? I mean crafting 10,000 blocks should be easier but that's a whole other story in itself.

    Also I still don't get why we've abandoned the Tyranny of the Rocket. Allow me to explain, in real life physics a ship is limited to what is referred to as delta-V. Delta-V is roughly the amount of fuel you carry to go from A to B then back to A. In Starmade regardless of most mechanics presented thus far we all sort of ignore the concept of fuel entirely. :love:

    In this context fuel could be replaced with the word coolant, where one has to find x consumable in order to keep their ship cooled off during combat. Changing reactors to the heat system numerically but keeping the current block types could be quite effective.

    This is a moderately simple solution for a problem I feel a lot of people have been over thinking for a very long time. It actually addresses much of the initial problems listed;

    Forced design choice -
    It takes away any forced design choice at all and opens up the ship entirely to be whatever the player wants. No more fancy Topsy-turvy 2 mil reactor cores, just plop down as many reactors as you think you'll need and forget about em.

    Lack of complexity & Too many Blocks - As for block types it keeps a simple number of basic blocks, you will need a reactor and for a tiny ship that's all. However to add complexity it adds optional design choices like radiators for extra passive heat loss or stellar gas chutes to passively create coolant while moving.

    Regen Focus - Focus gets shifted from production of power to maintenance of a precious resource. If a player is unable to maintain their ships coolant they will have consequences down the road that far outstretch simply "running out of gas".

    For Example:

    Weapon A creates 10 units of heat per block. The Reactor uses coolant to reduce that heat beyond a small base factor (say .5 per second), bigger reactor, more coolant used, faster the ship cools down. Storage blocks provide a means for coolant to be stored so that a ship has some means of carrying this coolant around. How do we measure too much heat? When your reactor hits a certain number per block it overloads and creates any of the aforementioned side effects in the OP.

    In the scenario given any small ships can rely on the base cooling factor of their reactors, perhaps even adding a few radiators to supplement it passively. While medium to large ships will require an actual logistics network to supply them with fresh fuel. Unless they want to dedicate the ample space needed to cool off their own supplies.

    In this manner we could then work towards Gas giants providing renewable coolant, or planets themselves having some sort of farm-able crop to provide coolant once refined.

    Coolant could also be passively harvested using special blocks to add that "complexity" you crave, or it could be actively harvested and transported using a complex logistics network. Or we could add cooling blocks (radiators) to increase the base cooling factor by a small amount.

    Those are my thoughts on the matter, sorry if the Wall'o'text made some eyes bleed. 8)

    PS: Extra thoughts: So long as coolant is a resource that is readily renewable this could be easily adjusted via a number of variables going forward.
    Such as;
    • Passive Heat loss
    • Gains from radiators
    • Gains from chutes
    • Amount of stored coolant per block
    • Potency of coolant per reactor
    • Farm-able coolant gains
    • Harvested coolant gains
    With so many adjustable variables a balance could undoubtedly be achieved at some point that would suit almost any meta.
     
    Joined
    Oct 3, 2016
    Messages
    28
    Reaction score
    18
    You are now Extremely complex, which is not a very new player friendly way of doing things.
    The goal should be, small scale systems = easy to do, this is what a beginner will be making. They're not going the be making a massive, or even medium sized ship when learning. Finally, large scale systems = complicated. A new player shouldn't be able to master the art of creating large ships, hell, they shouldn't be able to master the art of creating small ships. All they need to do, is understand how to design small scale to actually play the game. Mastering late game complexion is actually a gameplay element.

    What people fail to understand, is that you need to make the start game simple enough for a beginner to walk right in and learn. Make the late game complex enough that it takes time to learn, and takes much longer to master.

    I do like the creative use of colours in your post and the attempt to address issues you see with the idea! Unfortunately I couldn't comment on how good it is :)
     
    Joined
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages
    95
    Reaction score
    3
    This system sounds even more complicated than the current one. Big ships still will generate more power. How does making the limits and way to do it make anything different? Are we just making changes now to make changes? Can we fix some of the critical issues that have been plaguing the game? Nobody plays a game for complexity. Especially complexity that is tedious and boring. You get to a point where it feels like you are still at work. Can we do more on blowing things up and ship fighting, and less on mining for hours and trying to make it difficult for someone to get any type of ship up and running?
     

    Endal

    Ex Torpedo Researcher
    Joined
    Dec 3, 2013
    Messages
    103
    Reaction score
    61
    • Legacy Citizen
    I am the most indecisive person on earth aren't I? Well, here's something for consider,

    Say every block had a heat conduction value, and the heat AOE would distribute like missile damage with conduction as the inverse of armour, and if the heat AOE isn't distributed fully the reactor would seize to work. Say non-collision have 0 conduction, filler blocks and armour have some conduction, while flimsy radiators have considerable amounts of conduction. that would fix chandeliers by making spike reactors extremely large or extremely fragile.
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Aug 1, 2013
    Messages
    302
    Reaction score
    46
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    I over all like the idea of this overhaul although I would love to see some more detailed specifics and graphics.

    I would also like heat shields that you can use to either block or reduce the size of the heated area. Imagine someone has a very packed ship to where they have reactors coated in heat shields to stop the heat area. They also have systems coating the outside of the heat shield to maximize space utilization. It's a very risky design choices because a well placed shot could breach the heat shield and release all thay heat into your systems. Effectively screwing you.

    Tl;DR I like it.
     
    Joined
    Jan 19, 2015
    Messages
    364
    Reaction score
    87
    Thank you for the chance to discuss an update before it was to come out, please remember when it comes to forums those that are happy with something tend to not bother with saying it, mostly those that arent happy jump on here. sadly we havent got many defenders of idea here as they get bombarded by "white knight fanboys" who take over any topic you bring up.

    some questions,

    Before this new power system comes out, have you considered what it will do for the "capital ships" (not to be confused with the current big ship) when that stage of development comes out?

    are you aiming to please the RP builders? PvP builders? PvE builders?

    before making everyone have to add interiors, what is happening with NPC crews?

    Can this update, if it comes out be done in 1 big hit with a bunch of other rebalances to cut down on the amount of refitting the playerbase has to do, yes we are play testing, but its bloody annoying

    how many more rebalances will be done before we enter beta phase?

    when is beta phase, rough ETA?

    where is this on Bench's "starmade active development timeline"?
     
    Last edited:

    AtraUnam

    Maiden of crashes
    Joined
    Oct 15, 2013
    Messages
    1,120
    Reaction score
    866
    • Railman Gold
    • Competition Winner - Small Fleets
    • Wired for Logic Gold
    Initial thoughts:
    1. This sounds completely awesome overall but the balancing would be very fine to make sure there are no unintended consiquences, especially with the weapon changes.
    2. Speaking of weapons I love the consolodation of regen and power as it removes one of the biggest disadvantages of using alpha-weapons, the space taken up my capacity blocks.
    3. If I overload my reactor enough... Atra want big boom.
     

    MeRobo

    Scrub
    Joined
    Apr 1, 2015
    Messages
    419
    Reaction score
    649
    • Purchased!
    • Competition Winner - Small Fleets
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    Okay, this may have been mentioned befor, I'm not sure because I didn't read everything, especially some of the longer posts.

    A problem source I see is the interaction of heat between different entities
    • If heat between different entities doesn't interact, a possible exploit I could see is having your thrust on a docked entity, your other systems on the main ship, then place the systems on your ship inside the heat box of the thrust entity reactor and the thrusters in the heat box of the main ship reactor.
    • If heat of different entities interacts, there would be the option of shooting reactor sticks (with pickup rails to extend the box dimenions) at your enemy to add heat to their ships. This could be a realtively low effort way of disabling an enemy ship and I'm not sure whether this would be a good thing to have. This could be avoided by only having the heat boxes of entities docked to the same entity and said entity interacting, but that leads to a third problem I see with this solution:
    • With said solutions, carriers would probably suck. Why? Because a hangar is basically a large empty space, so were do you want to put said space? Right, inside the heat box, because you don't want to put systems there. Problem is, you don't want to put one (in the case of a little shuttlebay) or multiple (in case of an actual carrier) heat boxes inside your heat boxes because that would result in heat generation penalties (asuming overlapping heat boxes would have the effect of systems being inside heat boxes, if that's not the case, I could see other problems/undesirable things arising (reactors being placed just outside the edges of each others heat boxes)). So how to avoid the carrier producing massive ammounts of heat while the entities are docked? Place the hangar outside the heat box. Problem is, placing a large empty space outside the place supposed to be used for empty spaces takes away a recognisable ammount of space from systems
    This is something that needs to be thought of as are many other things about this proposal. Not only needs this proposal a lot of thinking befor implementation, but also intensive testing (I know that was stated befor, but I think the testing part is really important).

    Another thing somebody else stated already (iirc it was NuclearFun ) which could need being adressed again is that player fleets would need refitting. Criss and Saber stated on stream that they don't want players to refit their fleets, which is understandable, don't get me wrong, but I think at that point it should be considered to not include the fleets from the competition at all because I think we can't expect Schine to refit about 70 player fleets, they would have to refit the NPC faction fleets already.
     

    DukeofRealms

    Count Duku
    Joined
    Sep 4, 2013
    Messages
    1,476
    Reaction score
    1,616
    • Schine
    Another thing somebody else stated already (iirc it was NuclearFun ) which could need being adressed again is that player fleets would need refitting. Criss and Saber stated on stream that they don't want players to refit their fleets, which is understandable, don't get me wrong, but I think at that point it should be considered to not include the fleets from the competition at all because I think we can't expect Schine to refit about 70 player fleets, they would have to refit the NPC faction fleets already.
    Random idea that I haven't put a lot of thought into, a refit competition :P Those who are great at aesthetics, can create "pretty" ships, those who are great at adapting them for PVP get a chance to put their mark in the game.

    It's midnight, could be an ok idea or not a good one at all. Throwing it out there.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: JinM

    madman Captain

    Self-appointet Overlord of the Scaffold
    Joined
    Jan 11, 2015
    Messages
    263
    Reaction score
    491
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    Thats sound so awesome! My luck is that my ships mostly only shells so refitting is not a problem:).
    I hope this will finally kill this "flying maschine gun ship" meta and make other weapons more interesting.
     
    Joined
    Nov 9, 2015
    Messages
    3
    Reaction score
    2
    I've just read the entire thread up to the point of my (tentative) reply.

    I'm hesitant to add any input to the conversation, as in the past I've offered both a perceived problem that could significantly impact both enjoyment and immersion as well as a possible solution that would not break the game if it were implemented directly to an audience including members of the Schine team - at which point the response was dismissive, mocking, and generally has acted as a bar against my offering any further opinions or suggestions. This paragraph is an attempt at promoting understanding of the importance I'm placing on a reply. And also an understanding of why no avatar, low post count, etc, etc.

    I see four primary "main problems" which are identified, and which this philosophical basic game design change is meant to address. Also, you outline three steps to design. I'm going to start my comment with the steps in design.

    1 - Identify the problems: What is the methodology to identify the problem? Are you identifying symptoms, or are you drilling down to the lowest level root cause of the issue? Is changing the power system the actual root of all the problems you listed? The power system currently is on paper very simple, but like Othello (the game), in practice very complex. Others have made that point better than I could attempt to as they understand the complexity better. The power system's knock on effects to other aspects of the game are also highly complex and at times emergent.
    2. Find out what causes the problems: Again, what was the methodology? Was the focus on identification through design and perception of the design, or on hard numbers? (To quote Heinlein: "And to how many decimal places?")
    3. Try to eliminate those causes with new mechanics: Okay, but are NEW mechanics the only way to address the problem? What about removing mechanics? Or changing mechanics in a way currently outside the box? (Rather than changing power generation entirely, what about changing the enforced volumetric math for optimal shapes? How about using radius of spherical continuous blocks of power reactors? What about changing it so that, instead of XYZ axis dimensions, number of power blocks directly touching each other with required path to power capacitor blocks? Or just requiring that power systems be physically connected through circuit blocks to power capacitor tanks? Tweaking balance may be a pain though; there are possibly changes that could be made that would not radically and completely change the entire underlying design philosophy in a way that, I think, this change may lead to in the long run.

    Where are the other steps of "lean six sigma" or similar problem addressing flows? After 3, there should be at least two more - 4. Re-evaluate the problem: Is it still there? Why? Maybe that indicates the root cause was not properly identified. Then 5. Revise: Use data gathered to revise understanding of the problem and how it's addressed. After that, go right back to 1 - perpetual circle of development.

    This thread is a good idea and I think most of 4/5 is something already understood (I mean you're already doing iterative development) but you're proposing that you're already up to step 3 and are seeking comments on proposed new mechanics. I think realistically we're still somewhere around 1.5 - there is some room for identifying the problems and investigating what causes them.

    Moving on, though... Forced Design Choices aren't really a problem so much as a symptom of any system anyone is going to make. There will always be an optimal way of doing things, or a very few. There will always be a forced design choice at the very start - do you make a ship that is highly functional, or highly aesthetic? (In my case, ship shapes I prefer cannot be highly aesthetic without being large primarily because of voxel based building. Curves are never smooth enough unless there's a lot of volume to shape them. Also heptas. So. Many. Heptas.) The basic system underling all of StarMade strongly biases towards rectangular polygons unless you want to be very creative and deal with some angles that will never quite look like what you've got in mind.
    Lack of complexity - on paper, it does seem that way; in practice, though, I would argue that there is a lot more complexity than most people will look for in building ships. Some additional complexity would be a good thing (heat shielding against suns that will destroy you, or at least some subsystem that will tell you "In 20 meters, your ship will start to explode because of heat from a sun that isn't affecting those asteroids 100 meters closer" as an example); making physical circuit board connections do something; systems being affected by those blocks around them/physically touching them would be a way of adding design complexity to ships without rewriting StarMade from the bottom up. In general, though, I don't find lack of complexity to be a problem - and this change to me reduces complexity in ship design by simplifying the problem considerably. I place a radiator here. Or here and here. And my ship will have to be shaped like this to avoid the heat issue. Maybe you could clarify or offer further insight to how that heat system would work regarding penalties... the explanation makes it clear there is some kind of penalty but I don't know exactly what that penalty will do or how it will effect things beyond "don't put systems in heat boxes" - a forced design choice in building a ship.
    Too many blocks? Not a problem. For every reduction in number of blocks needed for power, more blocks will be added to do something else. People that build big ships will continue to build big ships. There may be interior. Or maybe now the ship has great cargo capacity. As far as crafting of blocks and resources... I don't see a problem, outside of hot asteroids sometimes being inside the "death zone" around a star. Gathering enough materials to make literally millions of power blocks has never taken longer than an hour or two. Many times, far less than that.
    Focus on regen - starting players and even myself focus on this a bit, but really as someone else mentioned - it depends. Sometimes regen is better. Sometimes capacity is better. Sometimes, I don't know that I need 14 million e/s but I'm going to build it because I have empty space in this station and I like to run 50k factory enhancers on automated logic triggers.

    This thread was going to get some negative replies. It's always going to happen. I understand that some replies will be personally offensive and or upsetting to developers and team members. However, when making a change that will, in time, have further effects that have the potential to change at its core the very design philosophy underlying practically every mechanic in the base game (how volume or block numbers affect efficiency and potency of a given mechanical system (the basic maths under the game) and seeking feedback, a lot of the discourse will not be productive. The emotional response from some players is in itself a valuable metric of impact of the proposed change. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater because said baby was bathing in the normal toxic froth of internet hyperbole.

    As others - is there even a soft, cast in slightly warm gelatin, timeline for proposed design phase to test phase of the change? (As in, hopefully you don't already have coding taking place while the design is still so much in debate.) If you were to tell us "this will be in probably about 3 months" it would significantly lessen the drive for me to continue designing ships or stations until more information is available. Since that's most of what I do (on a multiplayer server), it may impact my actual play time.

    -----
    TL;dr version of wall of text above: I like that you are pursuing radical, outside of the box thinking in attempting to address perceived problems. I'm not entirely sure this is the problem to be addressing. Some of the problem likely comes not from mechanics, but from player style differences. What about radically changing constraints on block placement to support reactor style ships, without entirely scrapping the current block as a simpler, less fundamentally game altering way of addressing the issue? **This change suggests that the entire mechanic underlying block placement philosophy will change. First for power; then the same or a similar change will have to be applied to weapons/systems - because they all have the same problems in practice.**

    ---
    I could be wrong. In fact, I expect many people to reply and tell me point blank, in no uncertain and possibly highly uncivil terms, that I am wrong. But this is just my reading of the past 11 pages or so.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Lecic and Loadout
    Joined
    Jul 10, 2013
    Messages
    626
    Reaction score
    486
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 7
    Plop !

    Me again.

    I don't think adding new blocks will solve any "problems".

    Using the existing blocks in a new way could be better.

    As i said before in this thread and somewhere else on the forums to change the power system we could simply use the weapon system.

    I mean use a computer and link to power blocks.

    Then link each combo (power computer+power blocks) to a system that needs power to fonction. Like weapons, shields, thrusters...

    You could keep the Heat factor to add some roleplay and also keep the need for coolant.

    But using the existing power blocks in the way i just described is a better way of addressing the "problem".

    I don' see in what way the current system is forcing any ship design by the way. i don't build my ships forcibly in long wedges shapes. I use all manner of shapes and small or big it works.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Sachys
    Joined
    Jul 5, 2015
    Messages
    252
    Reaction score
    51
    The main disappointing point of this new proposal for me is that the ships we have built before will become broken if the system is implemented, and depending on design some ships may not be that easy to refit. For an example, decentralized power generation (waffling and weaving power reactors and caps in between other systems to make a ship as compact as possible, without leaving empty space) will make a ship hard to refit without pulling out ALL the systems and rethinking the whole design.

    When I built my last miner, I used the gaps within salvage array waffles for power reactors, power caps and other systems, this made the miner very compact and easy to skin with armor, but it also means that the power systems of the miner are tedious to just pull out and refit, being decentralized among the other important systems. Some might say "Just use the remove tool for that, and It'll be a five second job, you lazy spacer!", but the point is that I didn't futureproof the ship because I didn't know the dev's vere pondering on rebuilding the power system, and it will become an useless paperweight if and when the proposed changes take place. That's what disappoints me, to know that the time and effort I put into a ship would just be wasted, and would probably have been better spent doing other things. I'm not saying I won't be refitting that ship, but I just feel a bit disappointed that the dev's feel like our time and effort spent playing the game is in vain, due to any future changes making what we do unusable and broken.

    But yeah, to end this post on a positive note, I think the system as proposed would be a nice addition, and make the building of a ship interesting and exiting, instead of just cramming a hull with systems and feeling a sense of accomplishment. I do builds that are not that large and require a bit more finesse to get things to fit properly, rather than just spamming big chunks of systems inside a shell, but even I can see this new system has it's merits. I like to take the middle path when it comes to shipbuilding, I like a good interior and exterior as much as much as good systems, because it all contributes to what makes a great ship. If this system can do what it is supposed to do (fix power systems bloat in order to make our ships that much more interesting to build), I'm looking forward to what I can do with it once I've had the time to learn how it works for my builds.
     
    Joined
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages
    511
    Reaction score
    57
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    While admitting that I haven't read through all the replies in this thread I can only say I very much like this proposed concept.

    The thought of centralizing the power supply, or supplies, in a certain area of choice making room for interiors and other systems sounds like a very good idea. Also heat generation as a delimiting factor is an interesting thought, that also opens the door to other gameplay mechanics as SchnellBier mentioned as example in an earlier reply.

    At the moment it's of course all quite abstract in my mind and I would love to see some mock-ups of how this system would look in reality, that is in the game of course. Also in build mode there should be a way to see the heat signature while building since the heat area itself would be quite invisible in normal view.

    All in all, the idea not having to weave power lines through a ship to the rim, hampering placement of all kind of non system features sounds very, very promising indeed. Of course I've already seen replies complaining about the complexity of this proposed system, as could be expected, but I can only say, a little complexity is good for the brain. You have my vote, go for it. ;)

    Greets,

    Jan
     

    NeonSturm

    StormMaker
    Joined
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages
    5,110
    Reaction score
    617
    • Wired for Logic
    • Thinking Positive
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    If your reactor core is 2x2x2 blocks and your ship is 16x16x16, the heat box could be 8x8x8.
    But if your ship is 16x16x32, the heat box becomes 8x8x16?

    I don't see scaffold-ship-meta here!

    Only that placing 1-2 blocks on the exterior may mess up your reactor/system placement.

    If God made humans, not even the god made us perfect at the first try :p
    It doesn't work that way. Each reactor has it's own heat AOE, as such you can place reactors on pylons outward of your ship and suddenly you have almost 100% usuable volume in your ship.
    And before you think permeating heat through blocks is the solution, consider Pickup Rails.
    If reactor size scales with ship size it does … but if you keep your reactor just as small as before it does not? That would be nice.​

    However, I still have a question: The OP mentioned that multiple reactors decrease efficiency. Also if they are outside each others heat box?
    Does this not lead to a new era of docked reactor spam, not for more efficiency but redundancy?

    I am not jet sure how heat boxes interact with docked entities or if they themselves are on a docked entity how they react with the parent entity. If there is a difference when I dock a ship with onboard reactor.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.