Additive Stabilizer Distance - The Simple Solution

[petlahk]

This post is a culmination of three comments spread out across several different places. If you want to read them you can find them at the links below, however reading these is not necessary to understand this post.
(StarMade Dev Blog 17 November 2017)
(The Stabilizer Fix)

Preface

The largest issue related to stabilizers is not so much that they exist, (though some people would argue otherwise) as that the implementation forces a rather restrictive way to build. I do think that stabilizers are necessary to achieve what Schema has wanted both in terms of tying reactor size to ship size, and allowing empty space to not be a hindrance. However, the one-axis stabilizer solution forces long builds and a specific build style, which, I think we can all agree, is not what should happen in a sandbox game.

I do, personally, think that there are solutions that are better ways to make interior space useful and necessary. However, that is not the focus of this proposal. If you wish to read more about my thoughts on that and immersion then you can click the first link above and go to page 16.

The Proposal

1. Keep the 0% stabilizer efficiency bubble around the reactor. This is the largest factor that ties stabilizers to reactor size, and permits empty space. With the change in #3 No stabilizer should ever contribute any efficiency when built within the 0% bubble.
   
   
2. Keep stabilizer efficiency. It makes sense that if your stabilizers are built in a place or such a way that they operate at >100% the ship should require more.
   
   
3. The actual change: Split the distance for 100% stabilizer efficiency across different stabilizer groups. Instead of it being one long, fixed axis for stabilizer groups, the distance that stabilizers must be placed from the reactor should be additive. That means that if the sum of the distances of all stabilizer groups equals the distance required to achieve 100% efficiency then all stabilizer blocks will operate at 100% efficiency. The one exception is that any stabilizer built within the 0% bubble will never contribute to reactor stability. Groups built within the 0% bubble might contribute to total additive distance, however are still almost worthless considering that their efficiency contribution will always be 0%.
   
   Examples:
   
   - My reactor size dictates that in order to achieve 100% stabilizer efficiency each stabilizer block must be built at at least 50 meters away from the reactor.
   
   - My reactor size also dictates that the 0% bubble has a radius of 15 meters.
   
   - I build a stabilizer group at 25m away from the reactor. This contributes to half of the additive distance. However, because that isn't all of the distance required, those stabilizers will not contribute 100% efficiency to the reactor.
   
   - I can build a stabilizer group at distances of 5m, 10m, and 10m away from the core. This will make my additive efficiency distance 100% and cause the stabilizers in the group at 25m to be contributing 100% efficiency. This might make my stabilizer group at 25m be large enough to contribute the full 100% efficiency required for the reactor. However, if I'm a meta player this still isn't ideal because each of none of those stabilizers in the 0% bubble contribute efficiency themselves. They do help the additive distance, but because they don't contribute to overall efficiency they are still dead weight and space.
   
   - Now lets say that I have ship dimensions of only 20m wide, and 40m long. Considering that my reactor dictates that additive distance must be 50m I can build a stabilizer group on each side of the ship between 16-19m (accounting for armor.) and, depending on reactor placement, between 16-39m away from the reactor and have each stabilizer in those groups contribute to power efficiency and additive distance. If I put stabilizers at 15m, 15m, and 20m away from the core I get the total distance, and can now distribute stabilizers contributing 100% efficiency throughout each of those three groups at will.
   
   - Alternatively, at dimentions of 20m wide, and 40m long, I can choose to build one group at 10m, one group at 10m, and the main group at 20m away from the reactor. This isn't ideal. However, even if I only have one stabilizer at the 10m positions, I have reached 100% efficiency. I still need the number of stabilizers at 20m required to provide 100%, however I still have the freedom and ability to build, place, and optimize stabilizers at whatever positions I wish.

Ending Notes

In my proposal above there is stabilizer distance, and stabilizer efficiency. Efficiency can be achieved in any stabilizers outside the 0% bubble so long as additive distance of all stabilizers equals that required for 100% as per the one-axis system, and stabilizer blocks within the 0% contribute to distance, but not to efficiency.

I am aware that this way of doing things may not satisfy schema completely. As this way of doing things still somewhat allows the system cramming of stabilizers within the 0% bubble. I think my solution might be best because it allows for the most flexibility to players. However, In understanding that I suggest that stabilizers at 0% offer neither stabilization efficiency nor stabilization distance. In that case, empty space is still present, and greater player flexibility still preserved.

Edit:

An additional alternative solution to the possible problems in the above paragraph is that stabilizer groups must be a minimum size in order to contribute to stabilizer distance. However, the minimum size would not change the efficiency of the stabilization of each stabilizer in said group. Nor should groups that are less than the size required to contribute to additive distance be barred from contributing to total efficiency. (provided no blocks in said groups are inside the 0% bubble). This would simply provide greater incentive not to build inside the 0% stabilization bubble. And, minimum size required to contribute to distance could be determined by reactor size.

Edit 2: Various continuity and readability edits.

Edit 3: Valiant's recap. Consider this the rest of the proposal in place of the ending notes:

Recapping all the best ideas, I've come up with this:

• Total stabilizer block count determines the amount of stabilization, just like now.
• Reactors have a "stabilization distance" value based on their output that determines the efficiency of stabilizers. If a stabilizer group is large enough, its distance from the reactor counts toward the stabilization distance. If the total meets the required distance, all stabilizers are efficient.
• There's a zero-efficiency bubble around the reactor and each stabilizer group where additional stabilizers don't contribute any distance or stabilization. The radius increases with reactor size.

 

[Valiant70]

I thought you had a really bad loophole in there until I read this:

groups that are less than the size required to contribute to additive distance

Either you forgot to mention that before or I misread.

In any case, I like it well enough. This accomplishes the purpose of stabilizers much more effectively than the mechanics of the pre-release.

 

[petlahk]

Either you forgot to mention that before or I misread.

I fixed the loophole in an edit as soon as the forums came back up. So it may not have been your fault.

 

[Valiant70]

Whoops, I missed something. A minimum size to contribute additive distance isn't going to be enough to fix the loophole. You could build several stabilizer groups of the same size close together one one axis. That shouldn't be possible!

Instead, the groups should have to be placed in different directions from the reactor. I know how to fix this, though. Replace #3 with this:

• The required distance from the reactor is now calculated as the total box dimension around all groups of stabilizers.
• eg. Distance required 100. A ship is 50x20x30 and has a group of stabilizers at each of its edges. It fulfills the distance requirement and its stabilizers are efficient. A ship with dimensions 70x10x20 can do the same. (Note that I'm leaving off the thickness of armor for simplicity.)

This should help to tie reactor output roughly to ship size.

This is actually the conclusion I reached on my thread here, only you've kept the minimum zero zone in place, and added a minimum size for each group, which I think are good things.

 

[petlahk]

You could build several stabilizer groups of the same size close together one one axis. That shouldn't be possible!

Huh. That is an interesting thing that I didn't take into account. Your clarification does help to make your suggestion make a little bit more sense. However, what if instead of your suggestion we add a bubble around a stabilizer group in which any other stabilizer groups in the bubble don't count toward distance. It's a little bit easier to understand and perhaps less constricting than yours while achieving a similar thing.

Edit: The stabilizer group distance-nullification-zone should probably be based on reactor size though.

Edit 2: It could be shown visually under the current system with Yellow/Orange lines if too close to the reactor or another stabilizer (toward that stabilizer group), Red lines to the react if within the 0% area, (where distance is contributed but not efficiency. Assuming we're not talking about Ending Notes paragraph #2, and only paragraph #3) and green lines if the stabilizers are outside the zones of other stabilizer groups and the reactor.

 

[Valiant70]

Huh. That is an interesting thing that I didn't take into account. Your clarification does help to make your suggestion make a little bit more sense. However, what if instead of your suggestion we add a bubble around a stabilizer group in which any other stabilizer groups in the bubble don't count toward distance. It's a little bit easier to understand and perhaps less constricting than yours while achieving a similar thing.

Edit: The stabilizer group distance-nullification-zone should probably be based on reactor size though.

Edit 2: It could be shown visually under the current system with Yellow/Orange lines if too close to the reactor or another stabilizer (toward that stabilizer group), Red lines to the react if within the 0% area, (where distance is contributed but not efficiency. Assuming we're not talking about Ending Notes paragraph #2, and only paragraph #3) and green lines if the stabilizers are outside the zones of other stabilizer groups and the reactor.

I thought mine was easier to understand and work with... depending on the distance config, your solution might make certain shapes like a long diagonal structure more balanced though. With my box dimension idea, something like that would have a larger box dimension than it should for its size simply by being diagonal.

 

[petlahk]

I thought mine was easier to understand and work with... depending on the distance config, your solution might make certain shapes like a long diagonal structure more balanced though. With my box dimension idea, something like that would have a larger box dimension than it should for its size simply by being diagonal.

If I understand your box dimension idea correctly, it shifts reactor placement to be based on stabilizer placement which seems somewhat weird to me. Also, with the box dimension idea while it actually is very much simpler than this whole thing (now that I actually understand it). However, A large part of design of my redesign is based around player flexibility and options. I'm attempting to keep the key elements of the way it works now while allowing more flexibility. Hence why in the main suggestions stabilizers in the 0% zone can count toward distance but not toward stabilization. It splits the system into two player controlled variables rather than just the one (stabilization efficiency) and permits more variation within them. I think that your box idea doesn't allow quite as much flexibility because it requires the player to have 3 (or four depending) different groups of stabilizers in fixed dimensions in order to determine reactor placement. Additionally, if I read your proposal correctly, your idea gets rid of a lot of the stabilizer and group size mechanics present currently. With mine, players can have as many stabilizer groups wherever they want in relation to the reactor so long as they meet the distance and 100% stabilization requirements within the constraints.

I definitely agree that something to prevent players from building minimum size stabilizer groups all right next to each other in nearly the same place to exploit the distance mechanic.

Maybe the distance-to-other-stabilizer-groups zone could be something like 1/4 or 1/2 that of the 0% bubble of the reactor. It's pretty steep for sure, but it still allows players a lot more flexibility.

 

[Dire Venom]

Certiantly an improvement over the current system.
As long as there a way to deal with splitting groups into multiples (e.g I have a block of reactors at 25 m, if I split it in half now I'm at 50m!) it sounds solid.

Some ides:
-Stabilzor groups generate areas of low effciencey around them (Starts at a fixed distance and slowly grows depending on size)>. Not intended to be restrictive, but just to prevent checkboard stabilization.

Still the simpler the design can be made the better. Currently stabilizors aren't fun at all to build with. If they can somewaht be made into something more engaging or meaningfu (e.g a power grid or some other meaningful ship system) l they would get my support imo.

 

[Valiant70]

If I understand your box dimension idea correctly, it shifts reactor placement to be based on stabilizer placement which seems somewhat weird to me

No, the reactor can be anywhere on the ship as long as it's not too close to any of the stabilizers.

 

[petlahk]

Stabilzor groups generate areas of low effciencey around them

I totally agree. I think the optimal way to arrange it is probably to give negation to any distance addition if another stabilizer group is within a certain distance of one, and a negation to efficiency but not distance if a stabilizer group is within the 0% reactor zone. As another loophole fix, I think that stabilizer group distance-to-reactor should have both a minimum block count to contribute to distance (as determined by reactor size) and should be measured from the center of mass of the group.

If they can somewaht be made into something more engaging or meaningfu (e.g a power grid or some other meaningful ship system)

I agree. But I think it might be somewhat unrealistic trying to convince Schine and the rest of the community to spring for realistic power-grids. A more meaningful use might be thought up later. But I don't think power grids is it.

No, the reactor can be anywhere on the ship as long as it's not too close to any of the stabilizers.

Alright. Man. Mine has gotten complicated. Woops.

 

[Valiant70]

Recapping all the best ideas, I've come up with this:

• Total stabilizer block count determines the amount of stabilization, just like now.
• Reactors have a "stabilization distance" value based on their output that determines the efficiency of stabilizers. If a stabilizer group is large enough, its distance from the reactor counts toward the stabilization distance. If the total meets the required distance, all stabilizers are efficient.
• There's a zero-efficiency bubble around the reactor and each stabilizer group where additional stabilizers don't contribute any distance or stabilization. The radius increases with reactor size.

If we went with my box dimension idea, minmaxed ships would only need two floating stabilizer pods to maximize their box dimensions. For example: one ahead, above, and left; and one behind, below, and right. This encompasses the entire ship's box dimension with only two stabilizers. This way, it doesn't matter which direction you place the two (or one, or more) pods.

So far, of any idea I've seen, this does the best job of tying maximum efficient reactor output to overall ship size.

 

[petlahk]

Recapping all the best ideas, I've come up with this:

• Total stabilizer block count determines the amount of stabilization, just like now.
• Reactors have a "stabilization distance" value based on their output that determines the efficiency of stabilizers. If a stabilizer group is large enough, its distance from the reactor counts toward the stabilization distance. If the total meets the required distance, all stabilizers are efficient.
• There's a zero-efficiency bubble around the reactor and each stabilizer group where additional stabilizers don't contribute any distance or stabilization. The radius increases with reactor size.

If we went with my box dimension idea, minmaxed ships would only need two floating stabilizer pods to maximize their box dimensions. For example: one ahead, above, and left; and one behind, below, and right. This encompasses the entire ship's box dimension with only two stabilizers. This way, it doesn't matter which direction you place the two (or one, or more) pods.

So far, of any idea I've seen, this does the best job of tying maximum efficient reactor output to overall ship size.

Thank you for the write up. I would've liked to have the reactors negate efficiency but not distance, and stabilizer groups to negate distance but not efficiency, but I agree that it's probably in the best interest of simplicity to just have both restriction zones negate both.

 

[Valiant70]

it's probably in the best interest of simplicity to just have both restriction zones negate both.

Exactly.

 

[Koloss_Meshuggah]

The 11th comment is perfect. It's simple enough and it fixes all the problems of the current stabilizer system.

 

[Valiant70]

The 11th comment is perfect. It's simple enough and it fixes all the problems of the current stabilizer system.

It’s far from fixing everything, but it does allow stabilizers to fulfil their intended purpose, which they currently do not.

 

[Dire Venom]

It’s far from fixing everything, but it does allow stabilizers to fulfil their intended purpose, which they currently do not.

And also convientialy makes them more than 1 Dimensional and Fun to work with!
For role players, they could place them near the outside and call the radiators or the such if they wanted too imo.
This realitvly simple change, and I (and I'm sure a significant part of the community) would be more willing to work with the new system.

 

[NeonSturm]

New ship meta:
\ /
-*- shaped
/ \

 

[Valiant70]

New ship meta:
\ /
-*- shaped
/ \

Pure minmaxed PVP builds may end up looking like a collection of floating pods relatively near each other. I haven't decided yet whether to care about that or not as long as the pods stay near the main body. I'm leaning toward "don't really care, because it allows for creative freedom."

 

[Lecic]

allowing empty space to not be a hindrance.

Encouraging empty space for what end goal? Why do you want this? What does it add to the game?

 

[petlahk]

Re-post from a different comment thread. It's applicable here as well.

Encouraging empty space for what end goal? Why do you want this? What does it add to the game?

I agree that ship spaces should have actual uses beyond just arbitrarily being empty. However I disagree with the notion that stabilizers should not exist or cannot coexist with any additional systems. Is Schema's reason for stabilizers flawed? Yes. Is the current implementation of stabilizers flawed? Yes. Does that mean that it is completely unacceptable as a mechanic and cannot be revised to make more sense? Hell no.

Stabilizers are a perfectly legitimate mechanic intended to help preserve balance between reactor size, ship size, and among players who PVP. Simply because the reasons behind a mechanics choice come from flawed places does not discount those mechanics as utterly worthless.

Stabilizers are a perfectly sensible balance choice and mechanic. Schema's second reason for stabilizers (as quoted by Valiant in his post) - that they be a mechanic used to tie ship size to reactor size - is a perfectly valid reason. Moreover, I firmly agree that players who value aesthetics should not be inherently penalized for their play-styles by the mechanics choices of the game. Does this inherently make PVP players' and aesthetics players' ships equal? No. And nor should it. However the stabilizer mechanic puts players who value aesthetics and players who value PVP and PVE on a more even playing field. Both against each other, and against the environment. Moreover, and most importantly, the new reactor system drastically decreases the learning curve and increases the accessibility of the game in general. This is important for not only attracting new players, but for overall player retention as well.

In closing, I would like to kindly ask people to refrain from arguing against a system that they know is going to be kept anyway. There stands a chance that we can convince the developers to modify stabilizers in such a way as to make them a more enjoyable and palatable mechanic. However, there is no point in arguing against the mechanic as a whole when you and everyone else already knows that it isn't going to be entirely removed.

Enjoy your winter break guys. Enjoy the holidays.