Search results

No, not the distance penalty percentage. I'm talking about the stabilization value on the reactor itself. That is indeed a sound analysis. If we all build ships that look like yours, they will work okay. If we do certain other things, our ships will be rather low on power for their mass...

R.I.P.

If these were viable before, they need to be made viable now. The upcoming tweaks to stabilization percentage *might* be enough: You only need 20% stabilization to get 100% power, but the reactor is more vulnerable. Can you get those to 20% in the latest dev build without the external stuff?

I didn't read this right earlier. That sounds... about right. Wider stabilizers = tougher reactor, but more vulnerable stabilizer pipes. Narrower stabilizers = shorter stabilizer pipes, but you're more liable to explode if you get lanced through the reactor. Kind of a tradeoff between local...

This... this made me laugh. And it's right on the money.

Exactly. Even making it three-dimensional instead of one-dimensional would be a start. That would be "good enough," i.e. it would no longer suck, the game would be a playable state, and we could call the power update a huge improvement to the game and go on with life. For it to be truly good...

The only thing you'd have to do to make this system better than the old power is take out stabilizers. Everything else is great. The only drawback is that it wouldn't be as challenging, and having enough power for a given ship would be a simple matter of putting enough blocks in. It would be...

The original pre-release forced a ship to be much longer than it needed to be. As in, if you filled the space between reactor and stabilizers with systems, there were too many systems for that reactor to power.

This is the problem. Two structures. If that's the only option, ships with one long dimension are always going to have some kind of advantage. Schema's not talking to us, so it's hard to tell WHAT he's doing at this point. I'm hoping the changes in the last couple of builds are leading into...

I've messed with the dev build and I'm not sure what's supposed to happen other than making the connection vulnerable. The new features appear to be in an early debugging stage, and only partially implemented. For example, Stabilization Integrity appears to do nothing. Stabilization percentage...

That's a start. As I've explained in other threads, there needs to be a vulnerable connection to conduits in exchange for the distance-related boost to your power. I suggested using conduits, but according to Lancake there were computational issues with using blocks for that. It sounds like...

That's the conclusion I came to as well. My solution is to make ships with high system-to-other-blocks ratios easier to destroy. That makes the extra blocks used for decoration more useful. Maybe not the block ratio specifically, but something along those lines.

After a discussion with Lancake, I learned that the computations for detecting when a conduit is broken are problematic. I don't know if Schema can optimize or rework the relevant data structures enough to fix that, but in the end it's not necessary. The problems with RP builds can be solved...

Stabilizers are more useful for helping ships with projecting shapes on the sides. If you really want interior to be good, you need to increase the amount of hull that is necessary for a ship somehow. (Incidentally that also helps irregular shapes.)

I could make it look okay on a lot of builds. IDK how many others could though, and some builds would just be a pain.

They still need to fly a bit faster, but I like the idea. Not sure if it'll be missile+cannon after the weapon update, but I want to see something along these lines. Real-life air-to-air missiles detonate on proximity most of the time because it's hard to fly the nose into an evasive aircraft.

It looks like you say that it's possible given the MC-like example. That's how I understood it. What I meant was it should be possible, but given the MC-like example it probably won't be done.

I should've thought of that. Even then I don't know if it would be computationally feasible or not.

Counter that with an integrity mechanic of some sort. As long as you don't go overboard with it, it shouldn't limit creativity.

According to Lancake, doing anything with destroyed conduits has performance issues. I'm not sure why it's so bad, but apparently it's prohibitive. So if conduits provide a bonus they should probably have a drawback as well, or else they won't be terribly interesting as a design choice.