Yeah that would be great... I would enjoy that too if it would happen one day.It shouldn't NEED rules in the first place. The game should be balanced so that these types of ships aren't the optimal choice to begin with.
I think it's more about the power system inherirently favouring some ship designs over others.[doublepost=1512365434,1512365250][/doublepost]You are attempting to make ship creation ridiculously complicated. I bet 68.4 percent of these people including myself don't even know what a darned conduit is. And stabilizers should have no max distance. And if a person likes making "flying spaghetti monsters", what is that to you?
I know what it IS what I meant is not knowing how to use them. Maybe everyone should make long slim ships or the devs should leave the ability to purchase of power blocks in the game.I think it's more about the power system inherirently favouring some ship designs over others.
Spaghetti is just unbalanced in PvP due to how the game mechanics work, no one cares what else players do in it.
Conduits have been stated and explained as being a notable part of the new power system in pretty much the last 6 months of dev posts. If someone doesnt have a clue about them, they either don't use the forum or don't care for being invloved in the development process.
The other issue i have is that this idea destroys the ability to make large ships with lots of weapons. You'd have to make small ships and that would take a lot of fun out of the game.[doublepost=1512365434,1512365250][/doublepost]You are attempting to make ship creation ridiculously complicated. I bet 68.4 percent of these people including myself don't even know what a darned conduit is. And stabilizers should have no max distance. And if a person likes making "flying spaghetti monsters", what is that to you?
Okay.... you still haven't explained why you think this though. I certainly don't see it and I wrote the suggestion.The other issue i have is that this idea destroys the ability to make large ships with lots of weapons. You'd have to make small ships and that would take a lot of fun out of the game.
Okay....People should be able to build however they like. You are favouring smaller ships. I like larger ships with superweapons. Why can't the two coexist?
Because if stabilizers have a max distance, and weapons need aconduit connection, and conduits have more resistance the larger they are, big ships would become extremely inefficient.Okay....
1.) I build mostly medium (25k to 100k) mass ships. I don't like building small or large ships, I think they're both boring and annoying to build for different reasons.
2) You still haven't said how my suggestion favors small ships or removes large ships.
But maximum distance scales with reactor size, and conduits only have more resistance if they are too thin for the amount of power they are carrying. A properly designed big ship should have the same efficiency as one a tenth its size.Because if stabilizers have a max distance, and weapons need aconduit connection, and conduits have more resistance the larger they are, big ships would become extremely inefficient.
I agree and disagree here. Some of the premises I agree with, such as having to connect systems with wires. And some things I am very against, such as stabilizers having artificial requirements on distance.For those not aware, the current meta, in both power 1.0 and power 2.0, is kilometer wide ships made of "spaghetti strands" of power reactors or conduits with the rest of the systems spread widely in small segments, the majority of the ship's volume being composed of vacuum.
Here's my proposal to fix this up.
Step One: Give a maximum range as well as a minimum range to stabilizers so there is a range they must actually be placed in to work. This makes it so the reactor and stabilizer must be a combined unit, making it harder to spread the ship out into spaghetti strands. Compare this to something like the internals and inert protective shell of a real world nuclear reactor.
Step Two: Conduits should follow the resistance rules of real wires. Longer and thinner conduits should have increased resistance, reducing the amount of power that gets to their system. For an average normal ship, which might be roughly 30x30x300 and weigh a few tens of thousands of mass, this isn't a problem as they can just make their conduits a little thicker for their systems on the absolute far end of the ship. For a 30k mass spaghetti ship that might cover a kilometer and a half, however, this is hellish abuse on power efficiency or on their thin profile when they need to make their conduits into 10 meter thick columns to cross such a vast distance.
Step Three: All systems (weapons, shields, thrusters, turret docks and enhancers, etc) should require a conduit connection. This is the final nail in the spaghetti monster's coffin, as it can no longer rely using gulfs of empty space between each individual thruster and shield. Each system group would need its own thick conduit leading to it or it will have to rely on "wireless power" which will have heavy debuffs or efficiency loss, and if they have to lead conduits to all their spread out groups in the first place there's no longer a reason to build spaghetti, because it's become so solid with conduit lines that it would be more efficient and "meta" to just build a normal ship.
So, what do you think? Good way to get rid of this fellow?
That sounds... weird. We don't think of reactors as being a plane or stick, but some kind of geometric figure like a sphere, cylinder, or torus.Step one, can you not build the reactor in a line/plane and same for the stabilizer and have those 2 groups parallel to each other? That will stay within the sweet spot area, not sure what this would do.
I like that. It eviscerates anything that requires kilometer-long conduits. However, that doesn't do anything about systems that don't need conduits, like shields or thrusters. It might still be enough to stop spaghetti though. If you have to have the whole reactor group close together, and that's what needs to be hit to kill the thing, it might be more efficient to group everything else around as a buffer.Step two, this seems needlessly complex as each system would require different thickness of conduits. Don't think the game can easily figure out the thickness either although you could estimate/average it out but still, not exactly a predictable result.
Would it not be better to just require a touching line but every conduit in use drains a little power? And severed conduits (by damage) would put penalties of the previously connected system.
The result would be that you could still connect far away systems but have to sacrifice quite a bit of power to get it there, something larger ships would be more OK with considering you have more power to work with. You would want your conduits to be as short as possible to reduce the power loss. You would also want some conduits to be thicker perhaps to reduce the chance of having a total severed conduit by a lucky shot. You could even do a conduit interlaced with armor.
That's something we would have used before when we considered linking chambers/reactors/stabilizers and even systems.
I don't think minimizing conduit length is too much for anyone to handle.Step tree, I believe this would be too much for most to handle. Some stuff may need to be linked with others, but you can always use group block count vs group dimensions buff system to encourage people to build it denser and not spread out all over the place.
That would most likely get rid of predictability though...perhaps if the most optimal shape has some buffer area where its pretty much linear scaling, and when you go into the "long lines in huge dimension" or "long lines intertwined within a relatively small dimension box", then it would quickly lose efficiency and become "unpredictable" but that's OK, as it would be a situation you normally wouldn't want to be in.
How about a density or box dimension bonus/penalty for individual chambers?EDIT: There's some "exploit" here too. You can technically use your group stretched out to reduce the amount of conduits needed, at least for systems and not for the stabilizers as they have an efficiency loss over distance and you can simply consider the whole group as the "least efficient block of the group" in that case.
For example, a long shield line could lead towards the reactor and pretty much touch. Then you only need a single conduit to connect them when your shield line is still huge and all over the place.