A possible alternative stabilizer mechanic, using an existing algorithm.

[Ithirahad]

This one's pretty simple and straightforward, and while I'm not sure about it myself I wanted to see what everyone else thinks: What if stabilizers used a variant of the old power reactor mechanics? Basically, a stabilizer group would have to touch the reactor, and certain stabilizer group dimensions would be required to stabilize a certain reactor size. More than one stabilizer group wouldn't really do anything besides provide redundancy, so you're probably better off making your single stabilizer group thicker instead.

Also, an unstabilized reactor should output about 75% of the power of a stabilized one of equal size (instead of being hard-capped as it is now), but a large reactor without stabilizers would basically blow up instantly like dynamite when hit. As stabilization increases, blast radius, count, and frequency decreases, so you'd go from "thermonuclear device" to "Auxiliary Power explosions" to "shielded Aux explosions" to "current state of warheads" and finally no explosions whatsoever, in addition to the higher power efficiency per block.

Essentially, your power system would now look something like this:

Pros:

• Allows a certain kind of balancing of ship size to power output without limiting design choices more than spaghetti power does already (in fact, it's less restrictive as power spaghetti forces you to try and keep lines from touching, resulting in certain annoyances with certain designs, which doesn't come up as much here).
• Not exploitable in the same way as current, 'floating' stabilizers. The stabilizer group must be in contact with the reactor, and needs to be one continuous unit.
• Doesn't require things like connecting conduits for stabilizers, which might have a performance overhead.
• Preserve the sci-fi idea of a 'power core'; stabilizers are just space magic anyway so they don't need to make a ton of logical sense as long as they work and aren't annoying.
• System remains relatively simple.
• No frustrating process of trying to run tons of lines of nonsensical 'power spaghetti' and attempting to keep them from touching.

Cons that I can see already:

• Like the old power system, having these big 3D dimension-cross-shape-things is admittedly somewhat unintuitive. This can probably be fixed with UI, however.
• Might lead to bizarre 'caltrop'/Czech Hedgehog-like designs. Any strange design that this would enable is already probably possible through the spaghetti power, though, and will have similar drawbacks. It's somewhat more encouraged by my system, unfortunately, because it only allows for one group. Perhaps having each stabilizer block give a certain amount of flat stabilization % (allowing brute-forcing to make up the difference) might help this. Unlike their counterparts in the current dev build, these designs would be incredibly vulnerable once shields drop, so it may not be a big deal one way or the other.

 

[Zoolimar]

Isn't that basically taking the old system, splitting it in two blocks and using it again? Except for explosions.

 

[Ithirahad]

Isn't that basically taking the old system, splitting it in two blocks and using it again? Except for explosions.

No, because it's much less annoying to lay out, and the new power distribution system (distribution priority queue, generation-based power) would remain.

Also, technically, the explosions would be a reuse and rebalancing of aux mechanics, so that isn't even an exception :P

 

[Zoolimar]

Ok, let me take it step by step.

1. You put down reactor, it produces 75% of power it could produce and blows up if you as much as sneeze at it.
2. You put down stabilizers that have power calculated same way as you calculate the old power but only one groups could be effective. So it encourages big, wide and long crosses of stabilizers.

In the old system you:

1. Put down reactors in lines/crosses
2. Put down blob or blobs of capacitors.

Changes - you make one big cross, you always blow up.

 

[Ithirahad]

2. You put down stabilizers that have power calculated same way as you calculate the old power but only one groups could be effective. So it encourages big, wide and long crosses of stabilizers.

Yeah, this is the main issue, I suppose. Old power was a pain in the ass because it would have you use weird parallel power snakes, but that also allowed more power per volume in a typical ship than my proposal. I guess this could be partly mitigated by giving each stabilizer block a certain amount of flat stabilization %, so brute-forcing it or just making somewhat thicker groups to make up the difference is possible.

The thing is, a 'caltrop' design would basically only work as long as shields are up. Once shields go down, if the enemy has any missiles, beams, or generally anything capable of piercing a few blocks, you explode... And a caltrop hull couldn't fit much shielding for its dimensions. (It would also turn more slowly and be generally unwieldy, but that's no big deal) End result, give people ways to avoid building caltrops, and they won't show up too much. Not much more than doom bricks, anyway.

 

[GnomeKing]

a great solution would be having reward for time taken to fit odd shapes, whilst still allowing for a much simpler approaches to be effective

 

[Ithirahad]

a great solution would be having reward for time taken to fit odd shapes, whilst still allowing for a much simpler approaches to be effective

That's not a solution, that's a goal. A solution would be a system that achieves a goal. :P

My system sorta does that, though odd shapes are relatively easy to fit. That's a good thing, though, IMO. An interesting hull shape shouldn't be punished with extra work to fit systems, if it isn't necessary and doesn't add anything to the building process as a whole.

 

[Dire Venom]

An intersting concept here.
I still find the 'recharge mechanic' a bit of an issue when trying to rework the new power system imo. I would much rather have power storage back with the addition of priority lists and the such. Much easier to work and build with.

 

[Benevolent27]

One thing that a lot of people aren't considering is that there can and should be more than 1 power reactor type. Each power reactor can have it's own pros and cons, and there can also be progression. So a basic power reactor produces less power but is cheaper. An advanced power reactor could produce more energy per block, but costs more. Other kinds of power reactors would have different rules that determine how they must be built and also how they receive bonuses. This is how to introduce freedom in building ships, not trying to cram a one-size fits all model down everyone's throats.

What we really need is a system that allows duplicating reactor block types and then setting different rules governing each one. We should also be able to have more than 1 form of power. So, for example, some weapons/thusters might use "ion flux" while another weapon might use "biofuel". Biofuel might be generated by a biofuel generator that has a bunch of plant matter in it and is then piped to the device that uses it. Ion flux might be ported through optical wires. You might also be able to convert one power type into another using converters, but suffering some power loss. For example, ion flux might be converted to regular energy and then used by energy cannons. Or a nuclear reactor might have it's energy converted to ion flux and then used by ion thrusters. Combustion thrusters might use biofuel by default and no other energy type could be converted to biofuel.

The concept of a single power reactor type will die the moment modding is allowed.

 

[Dire Venom]

there can and should be more than 1 power reactor type.

+1 to this. This is what I orgionaly envisioned as the next step for power as well, instead of this heatbox/dimension limited/2 hour weapon charge time/get in mah chamber/giant cloud ships drama that continous to unfold.
Then there wouldn't be an issue with each reactor type having it's own limiting factors or even encouraging various shapes.
The most challenging part would be creating balance between the reactors, however given enough time and exposure to the community an aproximate balance would emerge.

Trying to create a one-mould fits all reactor just seems doomed to fail with the community imo. I wish this point was raised sooner XD
Regarding cloud ships though, additional limitations beyound reactors are needed to prevent them from being what they are without affecting other builds.

 

[Lord Daro]

Essentially, your power system would now look something like this:

To use stabilizers to keep the reactor from blowing up could be the way to go. I don't think though that adding cross dimensions again is a good idea. Anything like that can quickly lead to awkward looking desings.

Better have that stabilization entirely dependend on reactor to stabilizer ratio.
We could also try to have stabilizer groups deactivate at something like 20% damage to that group, but also allow severel activ groups at once.
This would give players more room when making a decision between savety and raw power.

 

[Lecic]

We really don't need to try and salvage crosses. I respect trying to use existing code to keep workload lower, god knows I do that all the time in my suggestions, but I don't think this specific function is one we should be trying to save.
Crosses are a pain in the ass. I want them gone, and I'm sure most people here would agree with me that they're confusing to new players and don't actually serve much of an engineering challenge for anyone who doesn't care about aesthetics.

 

[Edymnion]

I'm sure most people here would agree with me that they're confusing to new players and don't actually serve much of an engineering challenge for anyone who doesn't care about aesthetics.

Heh, well PanPiper thinks they're awesome.

But I agree, the mechanic was bad. I proposed something similar over here (Stabilizer Alternative: Containment), and that was generally what seemed to be the consensus. People don't like the bounding box stuff and find it overly complicated for no good reason.

 

[Panpiper]

Actually, if Schine is dead set on tying power output to ship size, then this is a far better mechanic than their current free floating stabilizer using only a single dimension. Building one such cross will not be a great burden on anyone, and will not be any more illogical than the current free floating, one dimensional stabilizer. It will at least allow people to use all the dimensions of their ship.

That said, I VERY much do not want to see power tied to ship size. I want it to be possible to make smaller ships that punch above their weight. I also want to be able to tweak larger ships to also be able to do so. If the game becomes simply 'pick a size', then decide how you are going to use that size's power, it is going to lose a MASSIVE amount of game play.

 

[apelsinsaft]

That said, I VERY much do not want to see power tied to ship size. I want it to be possible to make smaller ships that punch above their weight. I also want to be able to tweak larger ships to also be able to do so. If the game becomes simply 'pick a size', then decide how you are going to use that size's power, it is going to lose a MASSIVE amount of game play.

This is a super valid concern, but theres a solution that i think maybe works in everyones favor.

• Remove stabilizers, have a scaling "maximum" amount of power blocks depending on ship volume like i suggested before in another thread, but it doesnt stop you from placing more blocks
• For each power block placed, a penalty to structure HP and volatility per power block is increased by a percentage depending on how many power blocks your "maximum" is.
• Once you go past the "maximum", additional power blocks no longer add structure HP.

Now you can maybe double or triple your power output depending on server configs, but at the cost of combat survivability. And of course, if you're that suicidal, you can make your ship punch way above its size, while being a complete glass cannon
(edit: pressing space posts a reply? what?)

 

[Nebulon-B_Frigate_FTW]

It's better than current stabilizers, but that's a low bar.
I'd rather dimensions not directly be restrictive on what you can put in a ship. This also does nothing against the problem of ships being mostly just systems, we'd still see spaghetti (but it'd have a crass in the middle).

 

[Ithirahad]

This also does nothing against the problem of ships being mostly just systems, we'd still see spaghetti (but it'd have a crass in the middle).

That 'problem' is neither solvable nor honestly needs solving. The game should have positive mechanics like crew or maybe radius-based (not box) heat that make it better to have some space not full of systems, but it shouldn't actively stop you from building a system-filled ship if you so desire. It should absolutely be functional, but it should be a sort of 'baseline.' Not optimal for the mechanics, and not an absolutely necessary configuration.