Chambers using fixed % sucks

You can do some pretty awesome stuff with multiple reactors.
It takes 20 or so seconds to move between them, which seems perfectly fine considering the immensly powerful bonuses they give you.
It feels fair. Some numbers could do with tweaking, but the intent and design behind it gets my support.
If you want to beable to support a variety of activities on your ship your going to want Chambers and space for them.

Extra reactors don't take up a ton of room and can be very benifical.
Being able to run all the bonuses at once would be beyound broken, even if you gave up all your speed/Jump etc whatever to get it.
You want to specialise your ship in multiple areas? Buid multiple configs you can easily switch between given the situation.

Need to cross vast distances? Have a smaller reactor configed for fast Hyper travel.
Want insane mining bonuses plus speed/turn rate for when you get to the mining fields? You can create a config to switch to as well.

All it requires is more mass (but not a huge ammount). You can even connect chambers to multiple reactors for use in multiple configs!

Dire Venom said:

20 or so seconds

Click to expand...

Do you realize how dead you would be if I had 20 seconds of free fire at your ship?

Non said:

Do you realize how dead you would be if I had 20 seconds of free fire at your ship?

Click to expand...

I didn't make the mechanic. I can't remember how long it takes or what it is dependent on.
If it's too harsh then by all means fiddle with the numbers imo or change how you switch between reactors.
E.g reactor spool up time, power production starts at (x%) value after switch and increase back up to 100%.

Dire Venom said:

It takes 20 or so seconds to move between them, which seems perfectly fine considering the immensly powerful bonuses they give you.
It feels fair. Some numbers could do with tweaking, but the intent and design behind it gets my support.

Click to expand...

Problem with pre-made numbers is that it is a complete mess to balance. The more there is numbers the harder it is to balance. Look at games where balance is a real problem because there is simply too much.

While auto balancing mechanics with ratio are sexy and easier to balance. Fixed numbers are easy to add and change but making it work is much harder.

Non said:

Ambush thing still applies to sleds, it's not viable on a pvp server, and if your drive is on a sled, escape is a lot harder.

Click to expand...

Isn't that how they roll over there? The PvP meta in this game appears to be entirely "ambush someone with their pants down so they can't fight back", so sounds like thats an ideal situation for the attacker.

Personally, I like that it forces some specialization and that you can't have a single ship that is just super awesome at everything. If you want a ship that is going to go across the galaxy in 3 jumps because you made a base in the next galaxy over, its going to be a fairly vulnerable jumper. If you want an uber-combat ship, its going to be heavy and slow. If you want a fast and nimble fighter, its going to need support from larger ships.

Its the death of "whoever builds the single largest ship wins", and I'm okay with that.

Edymnion said:

Isn't that how they roll over there? The PvP meta in this game appears to be entirely "ambush someone with their pants down so they can't fight back", so sounds like thats an ideal situation for the attacker.

Click to expand...

It isn't, nor do most people consider an ambush especially fun, and currently a well built ship will not go down before it has time to respond, if that response would now have to include a 10-20 second reactor switch or undocking, then people will die before they can shoot back.

Edymnion said:

its going to be heavy and slow

Click to expand...

Yeah, no, the best combat ships aren't like this at all.

Edymnion said:

Its the death of "whoever builds the single largest ship wins", and I'm okay with that.

Click to expand...

This has never been the case, and if anything, the power update only brings us closer to this. Don't talk about how people pvp if you don't pvp.

Non said:

Yeah, no, the best combat ships aren't like this at all.

Click to expand...

I mean how it works in reality and basically every science fiction space drama story out there.

You don't have giant ships darting around, you don't drive a tank to the battlefield, etc. You bring your war machines in on dedicated transports and advance slowly. You carry your fighters into the theater. Your main battleships are slow. I like that we're getting that kind of distinction in game, instead of the jack of all trade ships we had before.

Edymnion said:

You don't have giant ships darting around, you don't drive a tank to the battlefield, etc. You bring your war machines in on dedicated transports and advance slowly. You carry your fighters into the theater. Your main battleships are slow.

Click to expand...

Wow this is bad, there are ships in actual naval history called fast battleships because they are built for speed both in an engagement and when traveling from one place to another, they aren't outrunning destroyers but neither are the real starmade battleships.

Edymnion said:

instead of the jack of all trade ships we had before.

Click to expand...

They aren't though.

Top 4ce said:

...just a limit of 3-4 chambers active at once, but they're all connected to the same reactor...

Click to expand...

Dire Venom said:

...It takes 20 or so seconds to move between them (reactors), which seems perfectly fine considering the immensely powerful bonuses they give you...

Click to expand...

These statements both miss the point that reactors are ALREADY balanced without a hardcap or work-arounds because they cost weight and resources. These things do not balance reactors because they balance themselves. A perfect example of this already exists in the current passives system. Ion gives shields resistance, Punch/Pierce give armor resistance, explosive gives stop/push/pull resistance. Also, large jump drives gives inhibitor resistance & vise versa. Large scanners give jammer resistance. These are all nice things, but very few builds use all of these things because when you add them all up, you are looking at a massive hit to your ship's basic systems.

Where the current system fails to balance "general" ships is by allowing relatively massless systems like passive layering exploits, docked mass religation, chain drives, etc. The chamber system gives far more options and forces all these things to have a consistent mass and cost. This means you would need such a tiny reactor to support all 50+ effects that you'd have a garbage ship, but if you need 13 chambers to achieve your design goal, you can choose to take the hit to other systems to make it happen.

The problem with a hard chamber cap is not that is makes a generalized ship bad. It makes it 100% un-doable because some basic tasks literally require more than 100% running at once to function at all like. When you have 10 options. you'll see the same set of options "not make the cut" every single time making them as worthless to the game as Astrotech Beams. When you have nearly infinite options where YOU the player must decide how many chambers is optimal, you'll see a lot more diversification of play style which will lead to more things to explore, longer lasting player interest, more dynamic cultures built around different design philosophies.

Nosajimiki said:

These statements both miss the point that reactors are ALREADY balanced without a hardcap or work-arounds because they cost weight and resources. These things do not balance reactors because they balance themselves. A perfect example of this already exists in the current passives system. Ion gives shields resistance, Punch/Pierce give armor resistance, explosive gives stop/push/pull resistance. Also, large jump drives gives inhibitor resistance & vise versa. Large scanners give jammer resistance. These are all nice things, but very few builds use all of these things because when you add them all up, you are looking at a massive hit to your ship's basic systems.

Where the current system fails to balance "general" ships is by allowing relatively massless systems like passive layering exploits, docked mass religation, chain drives, etc. The chamber system gives far more options and forces all these things to have a consistent mass and cost. This means you would need such a tiny reactor to support all 50+ effects that you'd have a garbage ship, but if you need 13 chambers to achieve your design goal, you can choose to take the hit to other systems to make it happen.

The problem with a hard chamber cap is not that is makes a generalized ship bad. It makes it 100% un-doable because some basic tasks literally require more than 100% running at once to function at all like. When you have 10 options. you'll see the same set of options "not make the cut" every single time making them as worthless to the game as Astrotech Beams. When you have nearly infinite options where YOU the player must decide how many chambers is optimal, you'll see a lot more diversification of play style which will lead to more things to explore, longer lasting player interest, more dynamic cultures built around different design philosophies.

Click to expand...

So you're saying a soft cap allows better options while keeping it balanced?

Top 4ce said:

So you're saying a soft cap allows better options while keeping it balanced?

Click to expand...

Yes. Secondly, balancing does needs to happen so that all chambers are not created equal. This should be done by making some chambers bigger than others relative to the reactor. A thing that lets you jump 10% faster is arguably not as valuable as a chamber that that gives 10% more damage; so, make one heavier than the other (just like current ion passive is heavier than punch passives) and you now have a fair decision to make.

Edymnion said:

I mean how it works in reality and basically every science fiction space drama story out there.

Click to expand...

You mean how the speed (and maybe ECM) is the only meaningful defence in the real world? Even tanks moved from armour to combined systems with active defences and still need to constantly hide and move around to not get themselves blown up.

Edymnion said:

You don't have giant ships darting around, you don't drive a tank to the battlefield, etc. You bring your war machines in on dedicated transports and advance slowly. You carry your fighters into the theater. Your main battleships are slow. I like that we're getting that kind of distinction in game, instead of the jack of all trade ships we had before.

Click to expand...

Problem is, space is big. Like incredibly big. Even in Starmade with its cute little star systems you could have a couple of dozens of 50k ships in a single one and it still won't feel that crowded. Advancing slowly won't get you anywhere, because you need a way to catch the enemy and not allow him to make a raid on your supply lines and production facilities.

Also due to the distances even projectiles travelling at 1-2 km/s are very much not guaranteed to hit anything that has 1-2 g of acceleration.

Slow ships may work as auxiliary and maintenance or mobile shipyards but not as main combat ships.

Zoolimar said:

Problem is, space is big. Like incredibly big. Even in Starmade with its cute little star systems you could have a couple of dozens of 50k ships in a single one and it still won't feel that crowded. Advancing slowly won't get you anywhere, because you need a way to catch the enemy and not allow him to make a raid on your supply lines and production facilities.

Click to expand...

Well if its that big, whats the harm in a carrier dropping stuff off outside of immediate response range and then moving a fleet of fighters in?

Space is big, you don't need to be 100% combat capable the instant you drop out of jump. And if you have to move in from normal space, that means defenses are actually a thing worth having.

I just honestly do not see the need for a ship that can do everything anymore. I know thats how its been, but it was never a good thing in terms of gameplay.

Edymnion said:

I just honestly do not see the need for a ship that can do everything anymore. I know thats how its been, but it was never a good thing in terms of gameplay.

Click to expand...

That assumes that there was a need for a ship to do everything. There never was, nor is there. Combat ships are already specialized for combat and one of the needs of combat is to effectively engage your targets. You cant do that if you can't travel effectively to catch or attack your targets.

Do it all ships have always been bad, unless one was just staring out in a universe and was getting up to speed.

Top 4ce said:

That assumes that there was a need for a ship to do everything. There never was, nor is there. Combat ships are already specialized for combat and one of the needs of combat is to effectively engage your targets. You cant do that if you can't travel effectively to catch or attack your targets.

Click to expand...

Okay, well again, I don't see the problem.

It lets you build fast ships that are hard to catch. Blockade runners, smuggling vessels, etc. It just means different ships require different counter measures. Which means you can't make one end all be all combat vessel. You need tailored ships for tailored jobs. This is good.

Edymnion said:

It lets you build fast ships that are hard to catch. Blockade runners, smuggling vessels, etc. It just means different ships require different counter measures. Which means you can't make one end all be all combat vessel. You need tailored ships for tailored jobs. This is good.

Click to expand...

All those kinds of ships were possible. There just was no reason to build them. And they still don't have a reason to exist.

Same applies to combat ships. To see a lot of highly specialised builds you need to have the ability to run effective fleets with multiple kinds of vessels supporting each other and doing it effectively. Which means either much better AI / fleets or much larger amounts of players.

Zoolimar said:

Which means either much better AI / fleets or much larger amounts of players.

Click to expand...

Both of which will come in time.

Remember, we are in Alpha. The job of the game right now is to get components in place for the final release. If the game will work better in the end with good AI, more players, and more specialized ships, then that is the correct answer. Even if it makes the game a little harder to play right now until the other pieces come online.

Edymnion said:

Both of which will come in time.

Remember, we are in Alpha. The job of the game right now is to get components in place for the final release. If the game will work better in the end with good AI, more players, and more specialized ships, then that is the correct answer. Even if it makes the game a little harder to play right now until the other pieces come online.

Click to expand...

Yes, however all of that will be build on the current system and we're making sure that system is balanced and beneficial for those ends. OP might be bashing the system, but for the most part, most of us are looking for solutions and researching what will and won't work.

LoSboccacc said:

want to max out jump distance? that takes 40% reactor power production

want to permacloack? 40% reactor power production

want to strengthen armor? 10% reactor production

want some trade-off between reactor size, ship vulnerability and number of boosts you can activate?

no cant do sir.

the power update looks more and more like switching from Lego Technic to Duplo

now we only need % power based weapon system for the disaster to be complete.

Click to expand...

Is using chamber capacity taking away your power regeneration? It should not do that, the % RC used for a chamber is only used to activate a chamber, it does not require additional power or takes away from that.
Some chambers can change the consumption of something, but it's not related to your RC %.

Or are you suggesting that chambers need to take away power of your reactor?

Lancake said:

Is using chamber capacity taking away your power regeneration? It should not do that, the % RC used for a chamber is only used to activate a chamber, it does not require additional power or takes away from that.
Some chambers can change the consumption of something, but it's not related to your RC %.

Or are you suggesting that chambers need to take away power of your reactor?

Click to expand...

In does in terms of ROI (return on Investment). A chamber increases the cost, mass, and block count of a ship. Even if you are unconcerned about the financial cost of a ship, this increases lag and pushes you towards server limits imposed to limit ship sizes.

If I am allowed a 500k mass ship and 100k is devoted to chambers, it means my ship can only devote 400k to remaining systems meaning less power, less guns, less shields, and more thrusters.