Remove Stabilizers

    Criss

    Social Media Director
    Joined
    Jun 25, 2013
    Messages
    2,187
    Reaction score
    1,772
    • Master Builder Bronze
    • Video Genius
    • Competition Winner - Stations
    flak or proximity missiles in Weapons 3.0
    It's very likely something like this will happen.

    stabilizers try and force you to have empty space in a "traditional" style hull
    Are stabilizer distances so extreme that a ship cannot be condensed into a smaller space? Having personally refit a few of our ship with the new system, I found that I really needed to pack in a lot of systems inside just to get the thing on a comparable level to the original power.

    I don't expect I will be packing larger vessels to the brim with systems. Why is it more advantageous to leave a dumbbell ship exposed when the space in between could be filled with armor or interior stuff that soaks up damage?

    Let's say I refit a B190. Stabilizer in front, reactor in back. Systems and chambers placed in between and around the interior of the vessel. Any remaining space is either empty or spent on hull.

    Why exactly is that a problem. I understand that a player could have an advantage over me by avoiding unnecessary components and building a straight dumbbell ship. Does this system in itself contribute to a problem with something like ship refits. Is it clear that certain ships will clearly gain an advantage due to their shape while others may loose effectiveness? From what I am reading this is the case. I just want to be sure.
     

    FlyingDebris

    Vaygr loves my warhead bat.
    Joined
    Sep 6, 2013
    Messages
    2,458
    Reaction score
    1,312
    • Top Forum Contributor
    • Councillor Gold
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    It's very likely something like this will happen.


    Are stabilizer distances so extreme that a ship cannot be condensed into a smaller space? Having personally refit a few of our ship with the new system, I found that I really needed to pack in a lot of systems inside just to get the thing on a comparable level to the original power.

    I don't expect I will be packing larger vessels to the brim with systems. Why is it more advantageous to leave a dumbbell ship exposed when the space in between could be filled with armor or interior stuff that soaks up damage?

    Let's say I refit a B190. Stabilizer in front, reactor in back. Systems and chambers placed in between and around the interior of the vessel. Any remaining space is either empty or spent on hull.

    Why exactly is that a problem. I understand that a player could have an advantage over me by avoiding unnecessary components and building a straight dumbbell ship. Does this system in itself contribute to a problem with something like ship refits. Is it clear that certain ships will clearly gain an advantage due to their shape while others may loose effectiveness? From what I am reading this is the case. I just want to be sure.
    Why would you put something that soaks up damage when you could put nothing which can't even take damage in the first place?

    To clarify, you have nothing at all to gain by making your ship shorter (read: reasonably long) and everything to lose.
     

    Valiant70

    That crazy cyborg
    Joined
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages
    2,189
    Reaction score
    1,167
    • Thinking Positive
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    It's very likely something like this will happen.


    Are stabilizer distances so extreme that a ship cannot be condensed into a smaller space? Having personally refit a few of our ship with the new system, I found that I really needed to pack in a lot of systems inside just to get the thing on a comparable level to the original power.

    I don't expect I will be packing larger vessels to the brim with systems. Why is it more advantageous to leave a dumbbell ship exposed when the space in between could be filled with armor or interior stuff that soaks up damage?

    Let's say I refit a B190. Stabilizer in front, reactor in back. Systems and chambers placed in between and around the interior of the vessel. Any remaining space is either empty or spent on hull.

    Why exactly is that a problem. I understand that a player could have an advantage over me by avoiding unnecessary components and building a straight dumbbell ship. Does this system in itself contribute to a problem with something like ship refits. Is it clear that certain ships will clearly gain an advantage due to their shape while others may loose effectiveness? From what I am reading this is the case. I just want to be sure.
    Even if you take into account that the extra bulk soaks up damage, there are a lot of really neat shapes that remain at a disadvantage. This could be solved by modifying stabilizer mechanics into something less... one-dimensional. The one-dimensional is the greatest among several problems with stabilizers.

    The second-worst problem is the tendency to promote islands, which is aided by the new shield system, not nerfed as it was intended. The extra power from islanding a ship more than makes up for the extra power needed for shields, and you end up with a tankier ship.

    My suggestion here solves both of these issues and increases the skill cap of optimized ship-building while keeping general building approachable.
     
    Joined
    Apr 21, 2013
    Messages
    1,715
    Reaction score
    651
    • Top Forum Contributor
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    • Councillor Gold
    It's very likely something like this will happen.
    All of this has happened before, and none of it will actually happen.
    Why exactly is that a problem.
    Why do ships need to be empty? You're all about trying to remove design constraints but you hard code one into the update
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    Joined
    Jan 31, 2014
    Messages
    103
    Reaction score
    90
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    It's very likely something like this will happen.


    Are stabilizer distances so extreme that a ship cannot be condensed into a smaller space? Having personally refit a few of our ship with the new system, I found that I really needed to pack in a lot of systems inside just to get the thing on a comparable level to the original power.

    I don't expect I will be packing larger vessels to the brim with systems. Why is it more advantageous to leave a dumbbell ship exposed when the space in between could be filled with armor or interior stuff that soaks up damage?

    Let's say I refit a B190. Stabilizer in front, reactor in back. Systems and chambers placed in between and around the interior of the vessel. Any remaining space is either empty or spent on hull.

    Why exactly is that a problem. I understand that a player could have an advantage over me by avoiding unnecessary components and building a straight dumbbell ship. Does this system in itself contribute to a problem with something like ship refits. Is it clear that certain ships will clearly gain an advantage due to their shape while others may loose effectiveness? From what I am reading this is the case. I just want to be sure.
    As I mentioned before I tried refitting your B190 it was a total failure.
    Even after putting the reactor the furthest back possible and making it as large as possible before I would run out of stabilizer efficiency I was left with a massive power failure.
    This is after reducing the weapon systems down as much as possible while keeping their ratios the same.

    It's even worse for fighters, they are at an extreme disadvantage now if you try to make them carry any kind of reasonable weapons.

    I highly dislike having empty space in my ships unless I chose to have an empty space or if I want to have interiors.
     
    Last edited:

    Criss

    Social Media Director
    Joined
    Jun 25, 2013
    Messages
    2,187
    Reaction score
    1,772
    • Master Builder Bronze
    • Video Genius
    • Competition Winner - Stations
    Why do ships need to be empty?
    You're already making them empty!

    I don't get that. You claim there is no reason to make an empty ship. But dumbbells are inherently very empty in the middle aside from a connecting rod in the middle.
     
    Joined
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages
    1,700
    Reaction score
    1,203
    • Thinking Positive
    • Likeable
    Are stabilizer distances so extreme that a ship cannot be condensed into a smaller space?
    It's not at all that they "cannot," it's that as a player you cannot rely on other players to voluntarily do so. Some others will always min-max the ship as extremely as possible to win every engagement, if such builds are possible.

    So in order to stay even marginally competitive and not be flying around in a giant can that gets wrecked in every encounter with another player, you are pushed to adopt something at least resembling the current meta. Or just be perma-fail, and hate life because your ship "looks great" and is absolutely useless. Or join everyone else adopting a horrible-looking meta and also hate life, but at least be able to 'play.'
     

    Criss

    Social Media Director
    Joined
    Jun 25, 2013
    Messages
    2,187
    Reaction score
    1,772
    • Master Builder Bronze
    • Video Genius
    • Competition Winner - Stations
    It's not at all that they "cannot," it's that as a player you cannot rely on other players to voluntarily do so. Some others will always min-max the ship as extremely as possible to win every engagement, if such builds are possible.

    So in order to stay even marginally competitive and not be flying around in a giant can that gets wrecked in every encounter with another player, you are pushed to adopt something at least resembling the current meta. Or just be perma-fail, and hate life because your ship "looks great" and is absolutely useless. Or join everyone else adopting a horrible-looking meta and also hate life, but at least be able to 'play.'
    To be completely frank, until crews are implemented, or there is an actual advantage to dedicating interior space, I don't think this problem will go away. If someone could choose between more systems, or dedicated crew areas, then it would be a different situation. There would be a choice, we could tweak things until it's as fair as can be. Right now there is 0 advantage to having interior space.
     

    Valiant70

    That crazy cyborg
    Joined
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages
    2,189
    Reaction score
    1,167
    • Thinking Positive
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    To be completely frank, until crews are implemented, or there is an actual advantage to dedicating interior space, I don't think this problem will go away. If someone could choose between more systems, or dedicated crew areas, then it would be a different situation. There would be a choice, we could tweak things until it's as fair as can be. Right now there is 0 advantage to having interior space.
    It's actually worse now because SHP was removed. Now decoration blocks have absolutely no function, while they used to at least make it take longer to kill you.
     
    Joined
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages
    1,700
    Reaction score
    1,203
    • Thinking Positive
    • Likeable
    Right now there is 0 advantage to having interior space.
    Right. Exactly. This is Step 1.

    Now. How to fix?

    Probably crew quarters is the only way. You're right there, IMO.

    Crew could have replaced this entire systems overhaul, to be perfectly honest. Absolutely nothing accomplished in it couldn't have been integrated into a crew quarters system, with "crew chambers" instead of "tech chambers."

    Lecic is 100% right: As implemented, stabilizers are pure red tape. You must add some, so you do, and that's it. They can easily be put on a rod or island to pervert the intended design constraint, and they do absolutely nothing functional; you're just penalized for not having them. Somewhere. We might get something near the (apparently) intended design constraint by requiring the stabilizers to be connected to the reactor by conduits, particularly because conduit redundancy and spacing and insulation of the redundant systems could encourage a substantial bulk-up, but even then... their entire function is to force a design choice. So let's talk about how to force design choices.

    Repeatedly, for years now, crew appears the best solution to a number of problems with the meta. Let's move on to that already and stop repeatedly trying to solve the problems by messing with the same primary systems that created the problems in the first place. The solution requires the nuance of secondary and tertiary systems. Stabilizers are not the tool for that job. As demonstrated.

    NOTE: Even before/without ever actually implementing functional crew toons, AI, crew recruition, survival, XP, etc, etc, etc, just forcing crew spaces would do the job. Crew spaces would have to be enclosed, connected to each other, and adjacent to vital systems. Geometas gone, instantly, because every component would need to be adjacent to an 'empty' crew space that was connected to all the other crew spaces by a tube ("hall") at least large enough for a toon to move down, even before looking at notions of insulation, pressure, life support, etc. You'll have to armor those halls and quarters to prevent losing function from those spaces as well.

    Why even try to passive-aggressively force empty space? What was this stabilizer affair all about? Just demand that space outright, if that's the goal!

    Call it crew or whatever, but if the goal is to force space, just do that. Stabilizers (as implemented) don't have the desired effect, and it would probably take another year to make them do so (if even possible) rather than moving on to a tertiary dynamic (ie crew quarters) that would naturally accomplish the goal by directly forcing the enclosed, interconnected spaces.

    Crew toons aren't even needed!

    Skip toons. Skip the new AI routines. Just implement crew quarters; designated functions for designated, enclosed spaces adjacent to systems & components. Access passages. Berthings. Control rooms. Server rooms. Medical bays. That's how the entire new tech-tree system should have been integrated in the first place, not as an appendix to a new power dynamic that took half a year to implement.

    tl;dr - Ditch the stabilizers. Convert the "tech chambers" to non-colloidal "crew chambers" that only function if fully enclosed by hull and connected by hallway conduits to necessary berthing and command chambers, and have a minimum of direct adjacency to the relevant primary system or component.

    Done.

    Sorted.


    Figure out actual crew-toons and stuff whenever. It's just icing. The crew spaces can perform the roles of the chambers and simultaneously require connectivity in builds and additional interior space as well as exterior hull, if so coded, without ever spawning a toon once.



    LATE EDIT: In the spirit of fairness to our devs and schema in particular, I am going to correct something from the top of this post. They made it very clear that the power changes would solve a lot of code issues that were preventing them from streamlining other parts of the game. As many of us know, code can get super messy when things you didn't originally plan for start being implemented. Yes, the solution reduced the build meta to a pile of rubble. For now. It's still pre-release though, and nothing that was done cannot be balanced after the fact. Hopefully the changes to these core mechanics did actually do something behind the scenes that will allow the team more power to make changes throughout the game. Crew spaces will fix a lot though, and chambers now do all the things we would expect crew to do (various buffs and capability expansions to the ships), so I do think that migrating chambers away from a concept of some mysterious brick nominally connected to the reactor (but not really) to something more like a network of interconnected chambers symbolizing crew space, maybe eventually becoming crew space, would be of great benefit.
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Feb 21, 2015
    Messages
    228
    Reaction score
    145
    Several people have mentioned how good choices to power systems would be , myself included -

    I like this basic type of 'pathway-connection rule' as one method - geometry/XYZ and stabilizer rules also have interesting functions and problems. Conceptually it is possible to have quite distinct algorithms applied proportionally to a build, with the extent to which each one is applied dependent on the degree to which that build proportionally conforms to the algorithms

    Geometry (XYZ/block-connection) rules and 'anti-geometry' (Stabilizer/system-proximity) rules work best with that kind of procedural algorithm.
    The above non-physical-crew-rules is something like a 'system pathway' rule, and a good concept to think about.

    What I like about MacThules idea is it is not actually dependent on physical crew....this is important i think for a sci-fi game where drones, droids, AI ships etc are part of the cannon. Only 'Fantastical Space Castles' have vast interiors - most modern sci-fi features ships which are more like compact submarines than the Titanic ....

    Anyway - 'non-physical crew' is a fine idea > nanoids, repair-bots, magical repair gas, etc, etc, etc :)
     
    • Like
    Reactions: MacThule

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,105
    Reaction score
    1,222
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    Are stabilizer distances so extreme that a ship cannot be condensed into a smaller space?
    A ship that is condensed into a small space with the stabilizer system is a dumbbell ship.

    I don't expect I will be packing larger vessels to the brim with systems. Why is it more advantageous to leave a dumbbell ship exposed when the space in between could be filled with armor or interior stuff that soaks up damage?
    Because empty space is the most effective armor of all. If you can't get hit you can't take damage. By minimizing your profile you reduce the damage you can take.
    Realistically a dumbbell isn't even the best choice of meta shape. An extremely thin and long needle working off the same principle would work even better for avoiding fire from the front.

    Also, armor was already underpowered and it was nerfed even further when a bit for HP was stolen from elsewhere.

    Spaced armor is extremely effective, but the spaced armor encouraged by the empty space forcing attempts of stabilizers (in the middle, because reactors must be in the rear and stabilizers must be in the front) isn't very helpful. Armor is only really useful at the front of the ship.
     

    Ithirahad

    Arana'Aethi
    Joined
    Nov 14, 2013
    Messages
    4,152
    Reaction score
    1,330
    • Purchased!
    • Top Forum Contributor
    • Legacy Citizen 8
    It will likely be that the empty space that the current system creates will have to be used for other new mechanics in the future. Such as crew quarters, life support, possible survival mechanics.

    Just stop whining about it. Get creative and accept you aren’t going to have all stabilisers at 100% efficiency. Schema is likely working on a fix to combat disjointed ship designs like islands.

    For the moment it is up to us to not use these “cheaty” designs, as well as moderators/admins on servers to enact punishment on those that do.

    Try designs where the space between them is utlised, both for systems and style, (or even cargo?) Like the apocalypse from even online:
    Funny you should mention a schematic like that. See the positioning of the reactors chambers? 18, 19, and 21. In the power system, only reactor 21 would even be of any use. The others would be inefficient due to their sensible, central locations (if used alone) or completely nonfunctional if they existed together (because inactive reactors still affect stabilizers around them, reducing their effectiveness even if the active reactor is far, far away).

    And... hell, let's look at some other Sci-Fi ship schematics, while we're at it. I'll start off with the famous classic Star Trek ship, the U.S.S. Enterprise. Constitution-class, NCC-1701. Iconic or not, it strikes me as a highly awkward design, but it's the 'star ship' of perhaps the most famous space sci-fi television show ever, so here goes.
    See that big tank in the middle, and the accordion-looking bit behind it? That's their deuterium fuel tank, and the matter/antimatter reactor. Right in the middle of the ship. They're lucky that the secondary hull is offset downwards, otherwise in StarMade their power generation potential would be cut in half just because the reactor is not on one end of the ship or another. As it stands, it might actually be kind of decent, but reactors in the nacelles would likely be significantly more powerful (albeit very slightly more vulnerable) because of their location. The NX-01 Enterprise (pre-refit) has no such luck. :P

    Now, how about a Star Destroyer?

    Hm, looks like their 'solar ionization reactor' is in a reasonable place too, maybe 75% of the way to the back of the ship. That'd be a horrible waste in Power 2.0, when you can put it above the engines in the very back and get quite a bit more potential power in your Star Destroyer for, well, destroying. Also, that triangle shape is rather wasteful; you could simply build longer with the same amount of blocks if it were a narrower ship and get a ship capable of higher DPS, just because... uh, it's... longer. And don't worry, other systems are tiny now, so you won't need to worry about the amount of internal volume you might have lost. Everything will still fit in just fine.
     
    Last edited:

    Valiant70

    That crazy cyborg
    Joined
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages
    2,189
    Reaction score
    1,167
    • Thinking Positive
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    29 agrees on a threat in less than two days. The dock has never been so united. Apparently we have to face a world-ending threat to put aside (most of) our differences. XD
     

    Master1398

    Keep calm and quit raging
    Joined
    Aug 19, 2013
    Messages
    293
    Reaction score
    229
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    I can't be the only one who doesn't hate the new system, right? The only off putting thing is the distance stabilizers need for the reactor to work at 100%. Instead of straight up removing them, why not discuss decreasing the distance needed. I know, i can only speek for myself but all it would require for my ships to be fully useable again, is to divide the distance by 3. Hell, why not make it a fifth of the currently needed distance.
     

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,105
    Reaction score
    1,222
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    I can't be the only one who doesn't hate the new system, right? The only off putting thing is the distance stabilizers need for the reactor to work at 100%. Instead of straight up removing them, why not discuss decreasing the distance needed. I know, i can only speek for myself but all it would require for my ships to be fully useable again, is to divide the distance by 3. Hell, why not make it a fifth of the currently needed distance.
    The only goal of the system is to try and force people to have empty space in their ships, though. If you remove that there's no reason for the system to exist at all.
    What do you like about them? They don't make ship building interesting or fun, and their goal is better accomplished with other systems. I don't see any reason to keep them, and if we were going to keep them, it would be in something that completely reworked them like Valiant70's Heat/Cooling as an alternative to stabilizers and reactor HP suggestion.
     

    Valiant70

    That crazy cyborg
    Joined
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages
    2,189
    Reaction score
    1,167
    • Thinking Positive
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    I can't be the only one who doesn't hate the new system, right?
    I like the new system, but it has one part that does weird things to meta.

    The only off putting thing is the distance stabilizers need for the reactor to work at 100%. Instead of straight up removing them, why not discuss decreasing the distance needed. I know, i can only speek for myself but all it would require for my ships to be fully useable again, is to divide the distance by 3. Hell, why not make it a fifth of the currently needed distance.
    The point of adding them was to try to artificially increase the size of ships to provide more room for interior. All it did was increase the length and create the dumbbell/needle meta. There are two main problems:
    • Only one dimension of your ship helps power generation.
    • There's no meaningful penalty or drawback for building an "island" of stabilizers far from your main hull. The multiple shields don't matter because the extra power you get compensates for the cost of an extra shield.
    Another problem is that many players feel the mechanic was shoehorned in to try to force a design choice, and they failed even to make that choice happen.

    I don't see any reason to keep them, and if we were going to keep them, it would be in something that completely reworked them like Valiant70's Heat/Cooling as an alternative to stabilizers and reactor HP suggestion.
    Basically this. In their current form, they're a detriment to the game rather than a help to RP ships. RP ships are arguably worse off with stabilizers than without them because they're forced into the needle meta for performance reasons if they want to PVP.
     
    Joined
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages
    321
    Reaction score
    257
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Purchased!
    Every server will likely dial the stabilizer distance down to almost nothing. Better to save the headache of compatibility mismatches with vanilla now and change things before it's too late.
     
    Joined
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages
    195
    Reaction score
    84
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    Let's say I refit a B190. Stabilizer in front, reactor in back. Systems and chambers placed in between and around the interior of the vessel. Any remaining space is either empty or spent on hull.
    In addition to all the good points made in this thread I would like to point out that due to the one-dimensional nature of the stabilizer system in it's current representation it is very easy to guess at where the stabilizers or reactor might be. Even in a relatively diagonal-shaped ship it's easy to guess that the stabilizers or reactor would be in one of the four corners. This is inherently a problem and runs counter to the entire system of of stealth VS recon that was implemented in the chamber system.

    Crew could have replaced this entire systems overhaul, to be perfectly honest. Absolutely nothing accomplished in it couldn't have been integrated into a crew quarters system, with "crew chambers" instead of "tech chambers."
    Additionally, I do agree with MacThules reasoning for adding NPC's into the game right now. It certainly does provide much better incentives to have and use empty space than the current system. Additionally, it would flesh out the universe much more than it currently is. I disagree that this should be a complete re-working of the chamber system, however would like to point out that the chamber systems could be part of the room instead of being replaced by the corridors.

    My suggestion here solves both of these issues and increases the skill cap of optimized ship-building while keeping general building approachable.
    I agree with Valiant's idea for a heat system. If not as a replacement for the stabilizer system then as a mechanic that could conceivably work in conjunction with the power system to make combat and ships more interesting.

    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.
    Zoolimar has interesting thoughts on how to use integrity to allow and permit and encourage "empty space" in such a way as to be sensible as well. While this does also refer to removing the stabilizer system, and while I do disagree with Zoolimar it is a thought that you should consider.
    (Full quote can be found here on page 1: Discussion - Removing, Improving, or Finding Alternatives to Stabilizers )

    And, if you absolutely insist on keeping the stabilizer system at least consider fixing it in accordance with my suggestion post (Additive Stabilizer Distance - The Simple Solution ) so that the stabilizer system isn't as restrictive and one-dimensional as it currently is.

    In closing, I will once again quote Adaxia in the hopes that you will read it.

    While I still hold the opinion that the new power system isn't as restrictive as people make it out to be, I agree. The more I play around with this new system, the more annoyed I get with it. I love everything except the stabilizers, and see zero downside to just removing them completely and keeping everything else as-is.
    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.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Ithirahad and Lecic
    Joined
    Feb 10, 2014
    Messages
    317
    Reaction score
    244
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Legacy Citizen 7
    I generally side with the devs to one degree or another, when the community is trashing rebalance or new feature.
    On this one though, both sides have a problem. If stabilizers are removed reactors will have nothing limiting them, you could fill every empty space with reactor blocks.
    If they stay then a lot of ships are going to be hurt, and the player base is going to be very unhappy.

    I would recommend that this power update be delayed, and a proper fix be implemented, not just a bandaid. Maybe even role out the power and weapons update together.