Search results

If current power was ONLY based on increasing one dimension, it would be just as boring and the same problems would exist in that system as well, but it isn't. The premise behind the op was only to give balance to power by changing what it's based on, not to discuss a completed system. I already...

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. Easily sorted. Honestly, why would anyone in their right mind allow an indestructible block to contribute to output? Should I have said "killable block count based power system" instead. Come on. Can you give me a reason why this would have to be true...

If power is based on block count yes, more useless blocks would net more power, but they're useless. Two 10k block ships have the same power. If one fills half their ship with say, a lighter material then the other, it would be a tactic, not really an exploit. I like your idea about merging...

Let's break it down further friend. The amount of reactor blocks don't necessarily matter, what matters is that output is based off of X characteristic of your ship. Where X can be either dims, mass or block count. If dims are used, a longer ship will produce more power and thus potentially be...

I should have been more clear. What you are saying is correct, I'm not disputing that. Until there is a reason for interior space, people will fill their ships but this has nothing to do with power. The output of a ship based off of mass or block count is much more balanced than basing it off...

You're not understanding what I'm saying. What's stopping you from having a "logarithmic bonus and diminishing return mechanic" in a mass or block count based power system? Adjusting the numbers will net the same result in any of these three systems. You are correct. Mass does have it's...

The core issue with power, as I see it, is it's continued reliance on a dimensional variable to calculate power gen. It has always somewhat inhibited ship design and given rise to extreme meta ships that capitalize on this fact to reach ungodly power levels. These ships can be mitigated though...

You are correct but that's not what I'm saying. In a spaceship building game, why would you have the core mechanic favor one shape over another? Balancing other ship systems off of an inherently unbalanced mechanic will lead to problems.

I like the output based on ship mass part of the suggestion. It would fix a great many issues while freeing up ship design. Stabilizers though wouldn't need to have a min/max range to kill meta noodles, your mass idea would do that anyway. For power, yes. Otherwise, that is how meta ships are...

Just want you to know, I completly agree with this point. The underlying issue with power has always been determining output based on dimensions. The problem with changing it is that there's not a lot of other things we can calculate output from. Mass or block count come to mind but how do you...

This is absolute veritas people. Interiors have virtually no impact on performance block for block, mass for mass. Comparing ships based on dimensions is flawed. The divide between meta ships and rp ships comes down to how they are constructed. Also trying to force interiors through the power...

I vote no on blobified systems. Many of my designs would perform subpar because of their shape. I lay my systems around corners and long stretches that may or my not have bulges, so in order for my ships to perform relatively well mass for mass, I would need to "bloat" them out to a more...

Not sure how you inferred that from my post but ok. Just to be clear, I have no problem with a min/max range for stabilizers and agree they need something to do, otherwise remove them. I was only pointing out that the devs have a problem with ships being filled, not me, been doing it for a long...

Well, I hit the agree button because it would throughly kill spaghetti and clouds but it won't remove all dimensional exploits, which arguably isn't the goal of the op. Depending on where the min max range is set, we will still see dumbells. If the stabilizers are relatively far from the...

Unfortunately I feel it has similar drawbacks to my idea. Such as having to build the ship before determining the signature radius, which would then calculate rector output. If players wanted more power they could increase their surface area by building a large hollow shell. It's really an...

If this suggestion were implemented, and "block count" was used to determine reactor output and thus, how "good" a ship is in a role, then dimensions will no longer play a part in comparing two ships to one another. We've always had a dimensional based system for power generation, which is why...

The way it works is 6a^2/a^3 where a=length of the side and because of this, volume increases faster as things get bigger. On a graph it looks like this: Utilizing this curve will allow the gameplay mechanics described in the op. As far as limiting ship design, I really don't see how it could...

This is part of an old idea I had for stealth, modified to fit the new power system. Remove stabilizers from the current ship building process. This suggestion can do the same thing, as far as limiting the size of systems and promoting interiors, without benefiting any particular shape. Take...

Thrust output I suppose doesn't have a limit. And you were correct stating the 2.5 limit is solely to control top speed but thrust and mass do affect acceleration (I'm not saying you didn't know this already) which is why I would like it to be more realistic in that acceleration is controlled by...

Huh? of course it does. Why would my suggestion be any more glitchy than it is now? Maybe I'm missing something. A config option to have chambers determine top speed and acceleration only controlled by thruster output? I would accept an option for that but my suggestion is more of a fundamental...